[
{
"text": "\n\n(7) On specific query by the Bench about an entry of Rs. 1,31,37,500 on deposit side of Hongkong Bank account of which a photo copy is appearing at p. 40 of assessee's paper book, learned authorised representative submitted that it was related to loan from broker, Rahul & Co. on the basis of his submission a necessary mark is put by us on that photo copy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 103,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 278,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was also asked whether Agya CRA No.326-DB of 1998 6 Kaur, mother-in-law of the deceased lived separately from Tarlochan Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 30,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 174,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": " \n5.2 CW3 Mr Vijay Mishra , Deputy Manager, HDFC Bank, Noida, UP has deposed that complainant had a current account with HDFC Bank in the year 2004\u00ad2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 25,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 60,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 64,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 130,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "You are hereby asked not to carry out any construction work of the said building hereafter since the agreement has been terminated\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The pillion rider T.V. Satyanarayana Murthy also sustained injuries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": ", if the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is accepted, it would mean that a person whose bail under POTA has been rejected by the Special Court will have two remedies and he can avail any one of them at his sweet will.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 123,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After all the steps at the stage of investigation has to be reported before the Court and the order passed thereon is obviously judicial order and this takes clear note of the agony of the learned Counsels.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW--2 Chandregowda is the younger brother of bi-hglllltleceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What is the main offence in the charges involved in all these 36 cases?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He had prepared G.D. No. 7 on 19.8.1998 at 3.05 A.M.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 39,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the night of 28 March, 1959, Krishnamurthi Rao, according to his story, walked into the room of the petitioner, gave the bribe and made the pre-arranged signal which brought the Assistant Superintendent of Police and his companions to the room.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 30,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The deceased Collector also initiated a proceeding under the Crime Control Order against Tripathi and inspite of his best efforts bail was not granted to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 97,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this reference under Section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, at the instance of the assessee Messrs. Dayabhai & Co. of Barwani, the question posed for our answer is: \n \"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 26-A of the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1956-57?\" \n 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 38,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 73,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 140,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 302,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 331,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of these fact, it can he safely held that for the area of Jaipur City (municipal limits) there were two Special Judges on 29.4.1968, one was Sessions Judge Jaipur City, who by virtue of his Office was appointed to be Special Judge for that area by virtue of-Notified ion dated 26.2.1968.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 139,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 175,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 294,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The other section involved in these appeals is Section 80 IB which provides for deduction in respect of profits and gains from certain industrial undertakings other than infrastructure development undertakings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 57,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was observed that:\n \"Of late, crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The torch was taken in possession vide memo Ex.PO which was signed by him and Nityanand, besides the police officials.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under Article 21, Constitution of India no person can be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according \"to procedure established bylaw\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 16,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 39,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But, in spite of all, the efforts taken by the complainant accused failed to clear the outstanding or to pay the total amount of the cheque in question.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court, in the case of Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- each on the above two heads.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 65,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Till this order was passed, the selections to the professional and Technical Colleges affiliated to the Mysore University were mainly made from the students who passed out of the Mysore University.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 121,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 196,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To that extent, the State's power to regulate as an expression of the sovereign power has its limitations.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "From this, it is seen that the amounts accrued under the policy are even not only kept away from court attachments but also from any other amounts payable by the employee to the department.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After finishing the letter PW4 posted the same in the Edad Post Office in the address of PW10 , (Vijayan) the brother of the deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 70,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 104,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A contention similar to the one now raised by Mr. Dasgupta was also raised before the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 99,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This 2015.07.04 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1042 of 2003 11",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 15,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 91,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal against P.N. Talukdar and S.M. Basu.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 71,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 85,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For causing injury to Vinubhai Keshavlal accused No. 2 Bhikhabhai Nathabhai and accused No. 13 Mahadevbhai Magribhai and accused No. 5 Sagrambhai Nagribhai would be liable to be punished under Section 326 and rest of the respondents-accused would be liable to be punished under Section 326 read with Section 149.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 155,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 204,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 289,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 311,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Once it is found to be acceptable intrinsically and on broad probabilities, the criticism against the evidence of witnesses will have to be gone through realistically to ascertain whether any reasonable doubt is generated thereby.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh this Court observed that \"Fraud and justice never dwell together\" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 52,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Considering the evidence on record I find that the accused has not brought any credible evidence to rebut the presumptions provided in Section 114, Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and further looking at the mandate given by the H'onble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Hazi Vs.Palapetty Mohd. & Anr",
"entities": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 164,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 190,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 205,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 238,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 308,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 352,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He proved report Ex.Pw19/A which says that thumb impression appearing in Ex.Pw18/A and Ex.Pw18/B are identical with that appearing in FIR No: 156/04 State v. Angoori Devi Page No.10/19 original card Ex.Pw18/E. \n\n11.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "To complete the narration of facts since the defendants sold the land in violation of the interim injunction granted by this Court on 5-7-1990 the plaintiffs filed CMA No. 6727 of 93 to punish the defendants under Order 39 Rules 2A read with 151 CPC seeking detention of the defendants in civil prison and to attach their property in the hands of the alienees.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 142,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 182,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 245,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 249,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We now proceed to examine the evidence of the witnesses of the petitioner who were produced to prove that Shri Krishna Kumar visited Lakhaya, Nayagaon, Rejhadi and Anandpura villages on 21st February, 1962, in the evening, accompanied by Shankar Lal, and told the electors that Shankar Lal would take them to the polling station in a truck on the next day.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 124,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 140,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 150,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 159,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 173,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 205,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 249,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 289,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There was no regular TADA Court at Mumbai and TADA case's trial was likely to take some time to commence and, therefore, a fresh bail application was filed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 50,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Please see - State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh, (2009) 11 SCC 106:(AIR 1998 SC 2554).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 87,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to him, the ratio in the case of H.R. Sugar Factory (P) Ltd. 187 ITR 363, on which reliance has been placed by the AO as well as by the learned CIT(A), is not applicable to the facts of this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 82,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Superintendent of Jail can grant parole upto a period of seven days subject to confirmation by the Inspector General, Prisons.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We affirm the death sentence passed by the trial court as also the other sentences passed under Sections 364 and 376 I.P.C. \n\n45.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 116,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 123,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During the raid, 47 persons including the petitioners were arrested, several documents found on the premises or with the persons arrested were seized and the accused were released on bail by the police.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "While dealing with the said issue, this Court opined that:-\n \"It is settled law that disputes relating to contracts cannot be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 141,
"end": 152,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 181,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even assuming, although we shall presently show that it is not so, that in such a case an order of the Court taking cognizance or issuing processes is an interlocutory order, does it stand to reason to say that inherent power of the High Court cannot be exercised for stopping the criminal proceeding as early as possible, instead of harassing the accused up to the end?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As to the judgment relied upon by the learned CIT (Departmental Representative) reported in (1962) 45 ITR 210 (SC) (supra), we find the same to be out of context.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 114,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At this conference the petitioner's partner Guidayal Berlia was present.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It might have been given in Pash-bandi.\" \n ",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Arbitrators set out several reasons in paragraph 7 of the original award in support of their view that section 56 of Indian Contract Act was not attracted in the instant case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 117,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 140,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They asserted that the lands in suit appertained to village Basarh belonging to the 'debottar' estate and not to any of the villages of the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint, and the plaintiff had not been in possession of that disputed lands within 12 years of the suit, the possession being the possession of the deity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 66,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the instant case, the contract was for supply of pouches which were required by defendant for packaging certain medicines.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Sub-section (1) of s. 195, to the extent it is relevant lays an obligation on any person on securities or any other sum not being dividends chargeable under the provisions of the Act, to deduct tax at source at the rates in force.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 25,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was again re-admitted in the hospital just six days thereafter on 1.4.96 and then discharged after one week's hospitalisation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 75,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Aggrieved by the said order, Home Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu and others filed Writ Appeal No. 479 of 2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 76,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 121,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It will be noticed that the Supreme Court did not altogether ban the evolution of a new head of public policy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That in the year 1998, a massive cyclone hit the coast of Gujarat and caused severe damage to the appellant's property, machineries, equipments etc. at the refinery site.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 65,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It lays down that no election to either House of Parliament shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority, and hi such manner, as may be provided for, by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reliance was also placed on Tribunal's decision in K. Viswanathan v. CC , which was relied on in Ion Exchange (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 71,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 109,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "File be consigned to record room subject to furnishing of bail bonds u/s 437 A Cr.P.C. \n\nAnnounced in the open (ASHOK KUMAR) Court on 14.07.2014 MM\u00ad07, SOUTH EAST, SAKET, NEW DELHI, FIR No. 80/11 Page 26 of 26",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 78,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 86,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 130,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 169,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 180,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "First, we shall take the facts of Writ Petition No. 1177 of 1974.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, Shri. Dharap, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that there is an unfair labour practice under item 4(c) of Schedule-II of the MRTU & PULP Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 23,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 195,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 218,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From this major premise or fixed point anchored and rooted in Section 13 of both HMA and CPC, the exceptions carved out by the Supreme Court would need to be examined.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 72,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 84,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 92,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 140,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In paras 7.4 and 7.6, the learned Judicial Member has highlighted as to how Shri Salauddin had explained his earlier statement dated 2.3.1993 in subsequent statement dated 11.3.1993 with reference to entries in his books of account.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 141,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 181,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dy.Registrar was competent to pass winding up order as powers were delegated to him vide notification dated 18.10.77 issued by Delhi Administration, Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 116,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 147,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 154,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accepting the verdict, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued G.O.Ms.No.139 dated 25.07.2007.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 51,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 89,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When they were at Sharjah, Amna Muzaffar requested that her two brothers also be called there and get them employed some where, which was done by Mohd. Waqar, and after that, there was change in the behaviour of Amna Muzaffar, and she started treating him with cruelty and started demanding divorce.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 25,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 157,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 225,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab and Ors. [1971 (Supp.) SCR 688], the question posed was as to what constituted a religious or linguistic minority, and how it was to be determined.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 68,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is a matter of record that the representative of the assessee has not disproved the findings of inquiries made at Jodhpur which was duly communicated to him along with a copy of statements of alleged shareholders, \"but has filed copies of affidavits of some of the persons which are placed on records.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 124,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Majority of three judges, dissented by minority opinion of two judges, had held that the words \"things done\" in para 6 of the French Establishments' (Application of Laws) order was comprehensive enough to take within its ambit not only things done but also the effect of the legal consequences flowing therefrom.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This aspect is canvassed by the defence, pointing out that the injuries were inflicted only on the leg of the accused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Challenge to the validity of the above Clause 13 of the Standing Orders is based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India which are being reproduced hereunder for ready reference:\nArticle 14. Equality before law: The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 52,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 106,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 135,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 204,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 355,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What needs to be adverted to is that complainant is to be examined to bring on record \"Legal Evidence\", and not just to have the evidence of \"owner of the Negotiable instrument i.e. cheque\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "See Alien Berry & Co. v. Union of India, .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 39,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To achieve this aspect, the Legislature had deleted (b) clause of proviso with an intention that the interlocutory orders should not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is evident that the drawer has failed to make the payment CC no. 126/14 Bhoopindra kumar Vs. Meenu Verma of cheque amount in question within 15 days of the receipt of aforesaid notice, thus, the present complaint U/s 138 NI Act has been initiated against the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 107,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 224,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 231,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question that the Supreme Court posed for itself was as to whether the injustice resulting from the practice of discarding bidis and not making any payment to the workers could be checked, controlled and regulated by the issuance of a notification.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 35,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Referring to the decision in D.S.NAKARA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (1983 1 SCC 305), the Apex Court held that by adopting the principle of severability by striking down the words of limitation in the enactment, the provision can still be upheld.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 75,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A few lines occurring at page 119 in the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Attorney-General for British Columbia and Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company and others may be quoted with advantage.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 123,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 165,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused driver.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Amarsingh, Bhanwarial, Narpat Singh II, Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Mohd. Ahmed Khan, all the petitioners are admittedly permanent employees and since the bedrock of the impugned orders of termination of their services is Clause 13, the termination orders are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 11,
"end": 21,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 61,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 79,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 226,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The contention of the petitioner is that it is not open to the assessee, the second respondent herein, to question the order passed by the CIT on 01.04.2010 on the ground that he did not validly assume jurisdiction to revise the assessment orders.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 156,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA MACMA No. 1808 of 2005 30-03-2015 The National Insurance Company, rep. by its Branch Manager, Chittoor, Chittoor District",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 72,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 86,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 118,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 156,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 175,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That itself amounts to cruelty by filing a criminal case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Equally me building of national and State highways involves the creation of bridges, culverts, etc. over large rivers or smaller streams, which vest in the Government and can only be done under the umbrella and cloak of the sovereign governmental powers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The witness further deposed that on 1st April, 2003 he alongwith police party had gone forests at Gopalpur and Kanchanpur villages and on 2nd April, 2003 behind the bushes, he found his son Vikash Jain with three accused persons namely Pradip Kumar, Gopal and Naval Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 106,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 121,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 153,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 201,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 248,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 259,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 271,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter the ownership of property in which tenanted premises is situated fell in favour of Smt. Jeet Kaur, who expired on 21/04/2004.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 108,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 135,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the date of the incident, that is, on 05.09.2008 it must be about 8.45 p.m. that Happy (Tejinder Bawa - appellant in CRA No.1046 of 2011) and Suraj Ahluwalia (appellant in CRA No. D-1026-DB of 2011), President of Shiv Sena, Bal Thakre and his Gunman Shammi Kumar came on a black colour Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. PB-10BE-4979.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 104,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 139,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 160,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 200,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 225,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 237,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 265,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In contrast, the impression that we get by reading Section 2(s), which defines \"shared household\" is that the \"household\" which is referred to in the said provision, relates to the property and not just to the group of people who dwell under the same roof or the family living together.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 63,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If he had to be a member, then the conclusion of the Nagpur High Court in this case that the dispute between the co-operative bank and the plaintiffs relating to their liability which arose out of their capacity as treasurers was referable to the Registrar seems to be correct.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Consent of the girl in order to relieve an act, of a criminal character like rape, must be an act of reason, accompanied with deliberation, after the mind has weighed as in a balance, the good and evil on each side, with the existing capacity and power to withdraw the assent according to one's will or pleasure.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He denied that Pushkar (appellant No.4) was a parking attendant in Hotel Le Meridien for the last about 16 years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 84,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly in June 1970 a dispute was sought to be raised before the District Deputy Registrar .",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the aforesaid background, the plea raised by learned counsel for petitioners is not tenable for relaxation of qualification.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Justice B.N. Srikrishna, the then sitting Judge of this Court was appointed as the sole Commissioner to head the inquiry.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 23,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This revision petition was disposed of by Order No. 2122 of 1977 dated December 14, 1977.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having given our careful consideration we are unable to agree with the view taken by Seth, J.P.W. 7",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 89,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The registration certificate was granted about three months thereafter on 3rd June, 1966, i.e., about three days after the sale in question.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But it was found by the Upa Lok Ayukta that the second W.P.(C).No.33916 of 2008 & con. Cases.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 38,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 79,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The assessee further contended that interest paid was an allowable deduction under Section 36 of the I.T. Act, 1961, being interest paid on capital borrowed for the purpose of business which included the payment of income-tax on the income of the business.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 93,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 115,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner Uthan Pada Das and petitioner Abhimunna Ghosh having already attained the age of 65 years in 1997 and 31.10.96 respectively, the question of extension of their services does not arise but it stands admitted that during their extended period they still have been granted salary at the old scale.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 60,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 125,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question arose as to whether the living allowances and salaries paid to the foreign technicians is taxable treating the same as constituting salary earned in India as per section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act as it stood at the relevant time include which falls under the head \"Salaries\" if it is earned in India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 162,
"end": 167,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 191,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 213,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 317,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The doctor, after examining them declared both dead.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the same date, i.e., 19th April 1995, the High Commission of the Republic of Singapore made a request to the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India to assist it in securing the provisional arrest of Rajan Pillai for the W.P. (C) No. 1894 of 1998 Page 5 of 48 purposes of extradition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 39,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 89,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 161,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 225,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 297,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The statements of P.W. 3 Anup and P.W. 9 Ravi have been recorded on 11st June, 2006 i.e. two days after the incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 29,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 45,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 83,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "With regard to scope of S.320 Cr.P.C., in the case of DASAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER, (2014) 12 SCC 666, Apex Court has held as follows:\n \"7. Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code (the Code) pertains to offences punishable under the Penal Code only.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 29,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 37,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 110,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 160,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 191,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 255,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n PW-8 is Sub Inspector Saudan Singh, who is I.O. in this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 37,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We do not think it necessary to examine several other decisions which have been cited, and we would merely add that some of these have been examined in detail by Balakrishna Ayyar, J. in W. P. Nos. 291 and 292 of 1957 (Mad).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 162,
"end": 179,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 217,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under this circumstance, in paragraph No.9, the division bench of Apex Court has held that;\n\"In the present case, admittedly, no notice was issued by the Vth Metropolitan Magistrate to the appellant before accepting the final report submitted by the CBI and deciding not to take cognizance and drop the proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 253,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, necessarily Muthalamarappan Mala could not be such an extensive Mala.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The parties to the petition were married at Sholapur on December 12, 1957.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 52,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 73,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have already considered the facts relating to bogus purchase invoices in respect of oil cakes shown as purchased by the assessee from 33 bogus suppliers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The documents being registered should have been proved through the concerned Sub Result: Application dismissed Page 5 of 17 Chander Kant v Laxmi Chand Ex.No.75/2010/03 Registrar/other government official/executor and not in the manner as sought to be proved",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If he had paid the fine amount, the same will be refunded to him.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In respect of offence u/s 3/181 MV Act, during the course of final argument, accused Abid @ Guddu admitted before this court that he FIR No. 196/2011, State Vs. Abid Guddu was driving the motorcycle without having any driving licence, as alleged by the IO/PW7 in his chief examination.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 31,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 38,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 97,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was contended by learned counsel that an order was made by the President on 26th January, 1950, by which the President directed that the tax on sale or purchase of goods under the U. P. Sales Tax Act shall, notwithstanding that such imposition of tax was contrary to the provisions of Clause (2) of Article 286 of the Constitution, continue to be levied until 31-3-1951.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 202,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 313,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 333,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 372,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For all that each accused knew, the separate blows he dealt were alleged in the charge to he the fatal ones, because that is implied by Section 221 (5), Criminal Procedure Code, But the fact was that although the deceased had 22 items of injuries, only 3 on the head were grievous and the remaining 10 were simple i.e., did not even endanger life.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 151,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 176,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "and was chased by the public, but he escaped.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The object was to verify claims of these displaced persons from West Pakistan in respect of their properties left behind by them in West Pakistan at the time of their return to India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 77,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 145,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 182,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The oral evidence on this point I consists of the deposition of claimant Jagalia, Ex, 38, that of claimant Ditia, Ex. 39 and the driver Shabhai, Ex. 44.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 80,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 112,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 143,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If it is not, then Section 22 was no bar to the maintainability of the suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 29,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said Yogas arc not merely thcorization in the metaphysical spheres but have a tremendous bearing in the pragmatic world.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, we reverse the order of the Tribunal in both the cases on this point.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Rs. 10 lacs for a period of 6 years Deposition of awarded amount with STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 109,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 120,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In such an event also there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to rebook the said consignments from Gaya to Ranchi under fresh consignments notes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 104,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 114,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As was said in State of Rajasthan v. S. Chawla, (1959) Supp 1 SCR 904 = (AIR 1959 SC 544) the entries in the lists must be regarded as enumeratio simplex of broad categories.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 89,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, it is always necessary to remember in that connection the observations of Parke, B. in (1834) 149 ER 1044 already referred to which not only define what a privileged occasion is but also the principle on which it is based.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 92,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 114,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Merely because the stone slab was not plastered, the evidence regarding recovery cannot be doubted.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Investigating Officer, Himatgiri Gosai, was examined and police statement of Laljibhai was duly proved through his evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 42,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The court mentions that accordingly it recorded first answer given by the witness.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has been submitted that the those witnesses were none else but accomplices and were induced by Navy by continuously placing the orders on them despite discovery of story of so-called illegal gratifications allegedly paid by them to the petitioner.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Apart from the compensation for acquisition of the said premises, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from the State on account of mesne profits for the use and occupation of the said premises by the erstwhile tenant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n21. Section 173(8) is a new provision introduced by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as \u201eCode\u201f), which was not there in the earlier Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 20,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 90,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner was also examined on 28.4.2014 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court on 11.01.2013 in MACA NO. 792/2006 titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Ranjit Pandey & Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 45,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 110,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 131,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 191,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff has to allege and prove that all the terms of the contract are not contained in the promissory note.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "What the notification has in view is not a hospital who pampers those in high places but one who gives free treatment to those who find it difficult to survive let alone afford the luxury of being treated in a private hospital.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The trial Court ordered the petition and directed the 3rd defendant to pay the stamp duty and penalty on Ex.B38, and challenging the said order, a revision was filed in this Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However, when P.W.2 Rajesh Kumar Srivastava was examined in court, he has not stated a word about receipt of any secret information by him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 43,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is no reason to suppose that the Civil Procedure Code, the Transfer of Property Act, the Contract Act are excluded from this overriding effect given to these laws.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 59,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 89,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 107,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Returning Officer could not have been unaware of the fact that the respondent was getting a second application for recount written and he was duty bound to enable him to complete it and present it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The tax in respect of contract carriages (omni buses) increased to Rs.1,000/- with effect from 1.4.1994; Rs.1,500/- with effect from 1.4.1996 and again to Rs.2,000/- by Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1998 (Tamil Nadu Act No.27 of 1998) with effect from 1.7.1998.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 103,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 141,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 256,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 282,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By reason of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Nayar Act, the father is not the guardian of his minor children in respect of their tarwad property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 57,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 74,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n ii. The bail application (M.Cr.C. No.10417/2010) of Satish Lodhi was dismissed by this Court on 26.11.2010, copy thereof was sent by the Registry on 31.12.2010 to the Sessions Judge, Jabalpur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 50,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 67,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 109,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 162,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 194,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After the case was received by commitment, charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against Bhup Singh, accused, and under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, against Omeshwar and Mahender, accused, was framed, to which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 92,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 112,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 144,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 165,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 190,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 208,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 221,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Criminal Appeal Nos. 803, 863 and 871 of 2001 are by A-1, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-18, A-20, A-21, A-22 and A-40, challenging their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sec.148 IPC, and the sentence of life imprisonment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 45,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 197,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 230,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 234,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All the same we are unable also to subscribe to the proposition that there is no trial until the accused pleads guilty or when the Magistrate proceeds to take evidence under sub-section (5) or sub-section (7) of section 251-A Cr.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 174,
"end": 225,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 233,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Trial of Ram Charan was separated and trial of Jagat Pal abated due to his death during trial. \n4.Accused Mahendra, Kamla, Raju alias Raj Bahadur, Balwant were charged for offences punishable under sections 364, 302/149, 201, 342 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 114,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 121,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 145,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 154,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 229,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 233,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The finding by this Court on Section 14(1) (e) DRCA was that the accommodation available with the landlord was more than sufficient for his needs and that he did not bonafide require the tenanted premises.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 51,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Annexures-O and P were produced to show that such premises was leased and rent was paid.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If that be so, it must follow that the definition of 'political sufferer' not only makes the children of such sufferers distinguishable from the rest but such a classification has a reasonable nexus with the object of the rules which can be nothing else than a fair and just distribution of seats.\" \n 17.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n3. The circulars, dated March 27 and June 12, 1967, and the cabinet decisions upon which they are based are unlawful",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 52,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of H. M. Kashiparekh & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1960] 39 ITR 706, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that it is the real income of the assessee that is liable to tax because income-tax is a tax on income.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 68,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 113,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "it bad as it did not disclose all the questions & answers put & received must also fail.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The case of the complainant as per the complaint is that complainant is a law abiding citizen of India working with M/S AVON TRIP.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 102,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even the word \"bearer\" on the cheques was not crossed out.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "New heads of public policy cannot be made out as already held in R. C. Mitter & Sons' case [1959] 36 ITR 194 (SC). \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 113,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, Ex.X.7, D.W.1 categorically stated that earlier they intended to enter into agreement, but later they have entered into agreement with fifth respondent.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, defendant no.1 examined himself as DW-1, Sh.Raj Pal s/o.Sh.Ram Kishan as DW-2, Sh.Desh Raj s/o.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 70,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 109,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Another Division Bench in CWP No.4405 of 1998 titled \"Manju Jain & another Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & others\" decided on 02.04.1998 has followed the judgment in Aruna Luthra's case (supra) to return a finding that there is no provision in the Regulations to levy penal interest, thus, the levy of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. was set aside.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 45,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 123,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 146,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 188,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": ". Ram Yadav S/o Sh. Jai Kant Yadav, R/o Village Mangooda, P.S. Dhanshyampur, District Darbanga, Bihar is the complainant in the present case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 11,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 56,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 75,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 94,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 101,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By the laws of England, every invasion of private property be it ever so minute, is a trespass.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 22,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is the case of the complainant that upon her persistence, the accused persons, in partial discharge of their admitted debts and liability towards the complainant, issued a cheque bearing no. 402041 dated 17.6.2011 for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/\u00ad drawn on Andhra Bank, Preet Vihar, New Delhi - 110002 in favour of Complainant\"Fashion Link\" signed by accused Sh. Naresh Kumar Bansal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 207,
"end": 216,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 282,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 293,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 383,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The single Judge of the Mysore High Court in A. Manjundappa's case (AIR 1965 Mysore 73) (cited supra) held as under :\n \"3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 86,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "CONCLUSION 16) It is well settled that leave to defend is granted to the tenant in case any triable issue is raised by him, which can be adjudicated by consideration of additional evidence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Transporter, Thiru.Iyyappan, of Palani, Didndigul District has also given a statement on 04.09.1997, endorsing that the vehicle was hired to Thiru.Karimal S/o.Kandavel, Ganesan, S/o.Sangili and Velan S/o. Subramani for the purpose of transporting sandalwood.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 31,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 43,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 62,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 103,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 158,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 171,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 180,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 193,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 203,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 218,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "7. Was the cess payable by the first defendant in Indore as a part of the freight and, if so, whether it remained to be -recovered due to mistake?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 56,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, if any other bank agrees to provide the special scheme for victims of the road accident on the above terms, the deposit be permitted to be made in that Bank subject to the convenience of the victim/legal representative of the victim of the road accident\". \n\n 32.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n Heard on IA No.7385/2015, an application for deleting the name of respondents No.2 Manju and No.3 Sameer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 91,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 107,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Adjacent west of the room/shop of the informant there is Saurabh Medical Hall, in front whereof also there is open space where the dead body of Sunil Kumar Singh the brother of the informant smeared with blood was found lying flat on the back with head of the deceased on the southern side.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 77,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 161,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Spl.C.C.No.134/1999, the accused is alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.1,01,379/- during the period between 09.01.1995 to 24.08.1995",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 22,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 130,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Elaborate and detailed arguments are advanced by both sides by inviting our attention to the pleadings, the orders impugned, the order in revision, the legal provisions and the rulings of Apex court and this High Court on the subject.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 188,
"end": 198,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n 20.Complainant has also filed written arguments wherein he has reiterated and reasserted the facts of the case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "With regard to the second point, it was contended before the AAC that as the return was filed on 7th August, 1963, and the assessment was completed only on 27th December, 1965, the ITO should have exercised his discretion to reduce or waive the interest under the provisions of Rule 48 of the Indian I.T. Rules, 1922, or under Rule 40 of the I.T. Rules, 1962.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 113,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 175,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 285,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 316,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 334,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 358,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Departmental action has been taken in P.R.No.312/03 under Rule 3(b) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, Madurai, framing three charges against the petitioner and the other police constables.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 214,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case it has been held that the essence of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be exhaustive, so far as it goes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 77,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It seems that it was sent to his old address.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is not at all possible to accept the argument that the time spent by the I.T.C. In the departmental proceedings should not be taken into account for the purpose of explaining the delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 82,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 231,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 251,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The terms for renewal are contained in Clause (4) of Condition No. 25 of the Tender Notice and the petitioner does not challenge his liability to get a renewal on the terms as contained in Clause (5).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 69,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 199,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also stated that on the date of incident at about 10-11 Om Prakash son of Koja Ram approached to him and informed that the persons of Muslim community of Village Hariar had surrounded their hut.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 85,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 171,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Once such a provision was made, there is no doubt that an application before the Court has to be made within 3 years after the expiry of 90 days from the date of the application and if any application is made beyond the time so fixed in view of Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, it is liable to be rejected in limine.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 245,
"end": 256,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 294,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, motive behind the crime is relevant factor for which evidence may be adduced.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n 50) ISSUE No2 in M.V.C.No.6640/2013: PW3 has stated in her evidence that, her daughter Priya sustained fracture of both bones of left hand, abrasion over forehead and blunt injury over right side cheek.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 38,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Paras 8 and 9 of the report in Susamma Thomas (Mrs.) (supra) are extracted hereunder:-\n \"8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 45,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the said writ petition, Constable Ramachandran Nair filed a counter affidavit dated 11.01.1999 in which he made a confession that he had shot Naxalite Varghese on the instruction of the then Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Lakshmana.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 162,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 242,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above observations of the Tribunal made on the basis of the observations of the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel also how that the Tribunal was alive to the distinction between the character of the subsidy given with the object of promoting industrial growth in a particular area and the subsidy given conditional upon the commencement of production and after actual commencement of production.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 113,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Mohta Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1976] 38 STC 11, the assessee was a dealer in cotton sewing thread.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 66,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Ex. PW1/D1 is the statement dated 20/01/2003 of the plaintiff recorded before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Ex.PW1/D2 is the certified copy of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM(M)527/1999.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 108,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 191,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 208,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the bazar-day permits were proposed to be cancelled in the draft scheme, it cannot be argued that the scheme did not intend exclusive operation by the Corporation on the routes covered by the bazar-day permits.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The third defence that there was no notice of dishonour is again answered by the provisions of Section 52(3) of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 to which a reference has already been made.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 108,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 143,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was held that once an award has been made a party cannot raise more disputes which he/ it could and ought to have been raised.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 12-4-1991 the counsel for the 2nd respondent i.e., Sri T. V. Ramana endorsed on the said complaint petition\" and the complaint was \"dismissed since not pressed\" by the learned Magistrate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Plaintiff being the highest bidder, his bid was accepted and he deposited an amount of Rupees 2,949/-.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is, therefore, clear that if this Court decrees the suit, the decree can be executed under the reciprocal arrangement in the U.K.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 128,
"end": 132,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I fail to appreciate how the Customs authorities can bypass the orders passed by the Tribunal dealing with the identical issues.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": " \n This section is based on the principle of construc-tive trust, which has been defined in the standard English and American Text Books and is an extension of the principle that a trustee shall not be allowed to make profit out of the trust (E. B. Powell, The Indian Trusts Act, p. 388). \n 31.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 244,
"end": 256,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 279,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fourth ground which has vehemently been argued by counsel for the petitioner is that the age of retirement of Chairman has been fixed at 72 years with the sole intention and object of accommodating respondent No.6 at the behest of respondent No.5 and the same would fall foul to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manmohan Singh Chaudhary (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 356,
"end": 380,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To sum up, the basis of every levy is the controlling factor.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This intimation could not be treated as communicating to the appellant that he had a right under law, to be searched before the said authorities.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "of which the Plaintiff- Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia, Defendant No.1 Smt. Sandeep Kaur Ahluwalia and Defendant No.2, Ravinder Singh Ahluwalia are the partners in equal share. ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 65,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 125,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 170,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "My father therefore, could not come to Hyderabad to file Rx.B157A and 157B and therefore had given me this paper to file in this Ilon'ble Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 48,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 74,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As prayed, let the writ petition be listed after a week.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the present case, there is no material indicating that the work is not available.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 23.10.2004, whey they again contacted Mahavir Singh then he replied that he had no knowledge as to where the truck is at that time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 18.10.1999 he recorded the voluntary statement of P.W.6 Kadher on the basis of which he arrested the 5th accused Ravisankar and the accused Mariappan, since deceased and sent them to judicial custody.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 65,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 126,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 152,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fact in issue or relevant fact is whether appellant Arun took any part and if so what part in the murder of Sadhana.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 60,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 119,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY DIVISION KARWAR UTTAR KANNADA 3. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KARWAR UTTAR KANNADA ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1-R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 124,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 161,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 229,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 258,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before considering how far the cashew-nut purchases made by the respondents are, on the findings returned by the High Court, entitled to the protection of article 286(1)(b), it is necessary first to ascertain the scope of such protection.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 155,
"end": 172,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The court held that the claimant who opts for accepting the lump-sum compensation based on structured formula would get the relief at the earliest.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The petitioner and several others then approached the General Foreman who intervened and ordered the petitioner and others to join duty.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned Judges relying on a Calcutta case reported in Rogers Pratt Shellac Co, v. Secy. of State, AIR 1925 Cal 34, observed:-- \"It is clear therefore, that income may accrue, to an assessee without the actual receipt of the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 40,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 117,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Let fresh bailable warrant of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) be issued through Superintendent of Police,\n\nDhar to the respondents No.1 Sikandar and No.2 Aziz for a date to be fixed by the Registry to secure the presence of the respondents No.1 and 2, made returnable within six weeks.\n\n\n\n (P.K.Jaiswal) (Jarat Kumar Jain)\n Judge Judge ns.\n W.P.No.1361/2013 14/12/2015 Parties through their Counsel.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 116,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 149,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 163,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 312,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 350,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 432,
"end": 448,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 449,
"end": 459,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 8 of the NDPS Act of 1985 and Rule 53 of the NDPS Rules of 1985 contain a prohibitory clause.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 33,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 71,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The deceased was then dealt dharia blows by the defendants in the neighbouring field of the second respondent Parshottam and murder of the deceased was committed by belabouring him cruelly and intentionally out of enmity and malice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 120,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n30.The Ld. Trial Court referred to Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 82 to deny the benevolent provisions of release on probation to the appellant and to award substantive sentences for the Crl.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 86,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "4/21 Darvish was convicted for the offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act while other co-accused persons namely Yash Sharma and Lekhraj were acquitted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 65,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 115,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 127,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There was an offer to send details of the routes where augmentation of trips was considered necessary and to supply the names of suitable operators for that purpose on receipt of a reply from the State Transport Authority.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, Special Case No. 24 of 1982 and Special Case No. 3/83 pending in the Court of Special judge, Greater Bombay Shri R.B. Sule are withdrawn and transferred to the High Court of Bombay with a request to the learned Chief Justice to assign these two cases to a sitting Judge of the High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 38,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 133,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 191,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the instant case, since the property was pledged to the respondent bank and for non-payment of the loan amount the property was attached for the purposes of sale, provisions of the Act, 2002 will be applicable in the instant case which bars such suits and grant of injunction.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After referring to these decisions, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar [1964 (6) SCR 623] further clarified the legal position thus:\n\"\u0005\u0005.In dealing with a case against an accused person",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 127,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also in the evidence of PW.24 that accused was taken by the police with other witnesses to a distance of 15 to 16 kms. from Hunsur towards Mysore, where mahazar Ex.P.48 was prepared and signed by him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 136,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 151,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "operated with the Commissioner of Income-tax most willingly and produced the documents of title and furnished all other particulars and handed over possession of the property and also attorned the tenancy of a portion of the building in favour of the Central Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 251,
"end": 269,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The report of radiological examination of the prosecutrix PW 2 Monika is also Ex. P/5, which shows x-rays of elbow, wrist joint and pelvis were taken for determining the radiological age of the prosecutrix and it has opined in that report Ex. P/5 that the age of the prosecutrix PW 2 Monika was about between 15 to 17 years,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 69,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 290,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The unsecured loan shall not carry any interest during the implementation period and such unsecured loans may carry interest at the rate not exceeding the average rate of interest on the Institutional Rupee Loans for the Project or the rate of dividend paid on Equity capital, whichever is lower.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The evidence of Champalal Jain (P. W. 1) is, more or less, to the same effect.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 30,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In regard to the enumerated matters in Section 68(2), there is a statutory recognition that the State Government has power to make rules with regard to them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 52,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus unless and until the Assessing Officer bid obtained the details and information regarding the exact bifurcation of provisions under various heads described above, it could not have been said as to what amount pertained to which particular head and whether the head 'sundries' also included any doubtful debts.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Before the Supreme Court, the State contended that the Board of Revenue was not conferred with such authority and that the circular in fact granted an exemption.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 24,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That is how the same is before us. \n\n2. RSA 116/2011 has been preferred impugning the judgment dated 9 th April, 2010 of the Civil Judge rejecting the plaint in the suit preferred by the appellant as well as the judgment dated 4 th March, 2011 of the Learned Additional District Judge dismissing the first appeal preferred by the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 52,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 117,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 243,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The only Avadh case to which we have been referred is Dost Mohammad v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Oudh 310.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 14,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 97,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner No. 5, M. L. Daga, of the three Rules is the agent of the owners in respect of the above collieries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 28,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was also rightly held that Manoj Sood (No. 2) was not meant to protect their right which, indeed, was born under order dated 11-10-1989, passed subsequent to that decision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 40,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 138,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The bulk of the beneficiaries are rural indigents and the rest urban workers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Again, there is no indication in this chapter that the Mutawallis of wakfs-alal-aulad have some different powers in relation to the usufructs of the wakf property or in relation to the management thereof.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "N. K. Sen, J., who dealt with it held that the Magistrate had been under a complete misapprehension about the nature of the possession of the petitioners before him, because the only possession which they had claimed in the proceedings and were still claiming was possession as tenants under the Bhuan Chandra Bhar Estate Limited.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 329,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dr. Gurmanjit Rai, Lecturer, Forensic Medicines, Medical College, Amritsar (PW-1) conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Sucha Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 74,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 151,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is pertinent to note that the alleged transactions took place between 1990 and 1993 as per the FIR registered in Crime No.15 of 1996 dated 24.06.1996 by the C.B.C.I.D..",
"entities": [
{
"start": 116,
"end": 135,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 152,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 169,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On September 9, 1981 a detailed memorandum was prepared for cabinet discussion.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 20,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n5. MOP No.722 of 2007 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam is the claim by the minor children for the death of their mother.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 22,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 137,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case the assessee entered into an agreement with an oil company by which she sold to the company 20 acres of her land.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He took his brother to Hindu Rao Hospital in a police jeep where he remained admitted for about 10 days.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 41,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But at the same time, it may be pointed out that so far as the State of Rajasthan is concerned, it is conceded by both the parties that the Indian Parliament has not up till now enacted any law on the subject of extradition of the fugitive offenders who, after having committed offences in other parts of India, take asylum in Rajasthan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 81,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 157,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 310,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 336,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case, the jagir was a grant from the Rulers of ex-Jodhpur State and, therefore, the doctrine of incorporation does not seem to be applicable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 72,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": " \n Does it violate the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 67,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, all the three accused persons,namely, Aman Bhardwaj @ Bobby, Kapil Sharma @ Monu and Mohd. Tayyab are acquitted for the offence U/s. 201 of IPC read with Section 120B of IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 104,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 143,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 150,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 173,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 180,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The writ petitioners have challenged the order of the Director of Consolidation of Holdings Punjab passed under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holding (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act. 1948 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Act) in this petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 122,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 207,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": " \n (viii) Oil & Flour Mills v. State of Mysore [C.R.P. No. 1157 of 1961 (Karnataka High Court)]. - In this case this Court held that seegekai powder (soapnut powder) prepared out of seegekai (soapnut) was not a different commodity and, therefore, cannot be taxed as a separate item.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 94,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(5) The Civil Revision, which was heard by this Court, was from the order dated 2-9-1970, which was passed in M. J. C. No. 3 of 1970.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 132,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the further evidence of Investigating officer it has come on record that in view of fingerprint expert report and on police authorities coming to know that the appellant was involved in this crime and was in Chhindwara (M.P.) District Prison, necessary steps were taken by the Investigating Agency to secure his presence and on effecting his arrest, supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 213,
"end": 246,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The evidence against the appellant is wholly circumstantial, and consists mainly of (1) the existence of a strong motive, (2) the conduct of the appellant on the day when the murder was committed, (3) the recovery of a blood- stained axe and a false beard at the instance of the appellant, and (4) a confession made by him 'before the Magistrate, P.W. 21, on 3-6-1952.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 359,
"end": 367,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ravula Venkat -do- -do- 0-03-02 3-07-07 01-07-25 5-6-4 Reddy SC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 39,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 54,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His Lordship Justice K.T. Thomas in Hamsa v. Ibrahim, in fact answered all the doubts raised in this reference.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 52,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fourth respondent one Mr. Abbas Ali, claimed to be the Inspector of Excise has also filed a separate counter.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 39,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of this, the learned counsel for the assessee urged the Bench to allow the depreciation as these transactions are genuine lease transactions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is reiterated that apart from the above amount, the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on their respective shares from the date of filing of the original petition.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This Court held in the said case that Rule 9 (2) of the Rules fixing strength of ethyl alcohol in toddy is not arbitrary or unreasonable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 48,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "AND S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5573/2012 Mahendra Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 98,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In his opinion there was no evidence of recent sexual intercourse.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But the underlying principle is the same.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Central Counsel of Indian Medicine has revised the norms for the functioning of Ayurveda Colleges and prescribed 13 Department systems as basic minimum standard for the functioning of Ayurveda Medical Colleges in India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 38,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 213,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 222,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On receiving such complaint at Police Station Suatala, an offence under Sections 394 and 342 of I.P.C. was registered against Ambika Prasad, his son Abhishek Dubey and other unidentified persons at about 3.45 PM.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 53,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 92,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 102,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 139,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 163,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Plaintiff No. 2- Ramesh Prasad had taken some loan from defendant No. 2- Kushal Singh on 21/5/1984 and 11/10/1985 of Rs. 4,000/- and 4100/- and on said dates executed sale deeds respectively in the name of defendant No. 1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 85,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 98,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 113,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under such contract, the goods which are imported by the Government under a licence issued in favour of the Controller, will be taken delivery of by the petitioner as agent of the Government and then delivered to the respective consignees.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The contention of the petitioner that respondents 2 and 3 ought to have disproved his case to succeed in their cases also cannot be accepted in law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Investigating Officer of that case has not been examined in defence to state that Manohar Lal (PW-14) had been cited as witness in the said case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 93,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Law provides for a sentence of either description upto one year or with fine upto Rs. 1,000/- or both for the offence under Section 323 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 135,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 139,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It then quoted from a judgment of Supreme Court in Ambica Prasad Mishra Vs. State of U.P., reported at AIR 1980 SC 1762, in para 23 as under :\n \"23. ...",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 119,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case again the provisions of Orissa Mining Areas Development Fund Act were Questioned on the ground that the said Act could not be in force after the coming into force of the Central Act with which we are concerned in this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 77,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said Maxim means that general words do not derogate from the special.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As the Act VI of 1958 was repugnant to a Central law on the same subiect it was void under Article 254 because it did not receive the President's assent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 21,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 102,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Respondents above named state as follows:\n \n\nOn the direction of the Hon'ble Court, the Respondents have given proposals to give effect to the Agreement dated 29-1-1982, except to the extent it stands modified/varied, as specifically mentioned therein, because of the subsequent events.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 164,
"end": 173,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To corroborate his statement, he examined PW4 Sardar Joga Singh, his relative who was following his car in a jeep.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 63,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also not in dispute that complainant has urged in the grounds of appeal before the National Consumer Disputes Redresal Commission, that Post Mortem is a must to know exact cause of death.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 135,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All appeals of the State arising from the judgments of the learned District Judge dated 29.4.1995, 6.5.1995, 8.5.1995 and 8.3.1996 awarding Rs. 9,15,000/- per acre to the claimants are hereby partly accepted .and the claimants instead of Rs. 9,15,000/- would be entitled to get the above amount of Rs. 6,53,400/- per acre with all statutory benefits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 107,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 117,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 130,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Smt.Hema Kulkarni, the learned counsel appears for accused No.6 in Criminal Appeal No. 372/2008.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 95,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the result, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In other words the High Court upheld the view of the Tribunal on the first question while on the second question it took the view that the unabsorbed depreciation and development rebate were deductible before arriving at the figure that would be exigible to the deduction of 8% under, s. 80E(1) and therefore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 285,
"end": 294,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We, accordingly, find and hold that the compensation for the loss of Appellant's future earnings must be computed on that basis.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "P.W. 35 the wood stall keeper Tilakchand, who saw him on his way to pick up his victim, is definite that the appellant was not wear- ing a coat at the time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 40,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, the learned member of the Tribunal did not accept the evidence tendered by the medical officer, Dr.Veeranna Satnoor (PW8) regarding his evaluation of physical disability at 40%, and has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of future amenities in life, Rs.3,200/- towards conveyance and special diet and Rs.28,800/- towards loss of earning due to disability, in all, Rs.76,000/-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 124,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After when the investigation was over, the police submitted a crime report against the three appellants in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, who, in his turn, committed the case for trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 152,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "she had knowledge of it only after the death of Chimpirayya, her knowledge dated back to the date when the Will was executed, 'and, therefore, when Chimpirayya died he must be deemed to have died separated from the family with the result that the Will would operate on his separate interest.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 159,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court below has come to the conclusion that the reason given for not filing written statement, though sufficient opportunity was given on 11.10.2002, 15.11.2002 and on 9.12.2002, is nothing but false.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 152,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 153,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 164,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 181,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the above evidence and particularly lack of expert evidence it is difficult to conclude that accused No. 1 Sukha had committed forgery to secure a passport to leave India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 117,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 175,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That Article 14 gets attracted in a case of disproportionate punishment was the view of this Court in Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P., also.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 15,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 129,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That order of the State Government is at An-nexure-A to the petition.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "And rights and interests of citizen of the independent sovereign state continue to be governed by legislations enacted for colonies by the British Parliament.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 157,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Copy of the chargesheet is not filed and it can be said that police FA No. 14/13 & Anr. \n\n did not file chargesheet for such offence against the respondent No. 1, driver. \n\n 12) Copy of driving licence of respondent No. 1 - Vijay Kharat is on the record at Exh. 36.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 224,
"end": 236,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "India is one of the signatories to the Convention and it played a commendable role suggesting suitable amendments in the preparatory conferences.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the writ petitioners the amendment that has been brought forth has ushered drastic changes in the Principal Act frustrating the whole object and purpose of the Act and hence, the same is totally unconstitutional.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\"Now here the first six items, amounting to Rs. 20,74,973, may Perhaps reasonably never be regarded as the equivalent of cash, but the seventh item of Rs. 17,34,596, consisting of the debtor's own promissory notes, was clearly not an equivalent of cash.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This resolution was communicated to the Bar Council of Kerala by registered A.D. post on 12.2.1997.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 61,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 98,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "is a lis an\taffirmation by\t one party and denial by another,",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The words used are \" in respect of any year\" and not \" in respect of the year \".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the basis of the said information of accused no.1- Kishor, an offence vide Crime No.26 of 2005 was registered as motor accident offence and the investigation was entrusted to PW-10- Police Head Constable Motiram Hiray.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 97,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 220,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He deposed that Ramesh deceased and appellant Rajender were residing together in a quarter and on 15.10.2006, he started watching television in a room in Commando Complex, Newal and Ramesh was lying on the cot and Azad Constable came there, who was also on duty.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 54,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 177,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 188,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the assessee should earn a profit from exporting goods out of India in Order to claim deduction under Section 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 78,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 126,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 146,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His main contention is that as on the date when the hire-purchase agreement was entered into, the vehicles still stood in the name of Chakra Traders, and that there was no obligation to register the charge under Section 132 of the Companies Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 212,
"end": 223,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 244,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "/s. \n\n Birla Jute Mfg. Co. Ltd., Satna 93.50 upto an annual production of 225,000 tonnes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 38,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In India, Parliament inserted Section 178-A by the Amending Act 10 of 1957, but it did not, in its wisdom, go as far as Section 290(2) of the English Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 8,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 10,
"end": 20,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 74,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 134,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 153,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is however well settled that a, writ of certiorari lies only against judicial or quasi judicial authorities or tribunals and records need be produced in this Court for quashing the proceedings if held necessary as was observed in Udit Na-rain Singh v. Addl. Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 233,
"end": 291,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that even though the business of the petitioner-company is akin to the business carried on by a commercial bank, a different standard has been adopted for banks both in the public and private sectors and the Reserve Bank of India has not made any attempt to control the levy of service charges by banks.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 259,
"end": 280,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What the decree-holder now wanted was to get the bhumidhari property of the judgment-debtors attached and sold and in this application of course, a prayer has been made that if this property was found insufficient for the satisfaction of the decree, the balance may be realized from the other movable and immovable properties of the judgment-debtors.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He was ordered to be released on parole after his conviction and while on parole, he jumped the parole and absconded.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "At this stage it is also relevant to notice the sketch prepared on 28-2-1985 by the official of the Urban Land Ceiling Office of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 76,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 118,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 171,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It will not be necessary for us to decide the second con-tenlion of Mr. Palkhiwalla and we have not heard Counsel for the Revenue on the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 83,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent states is that the income subjected to assessment is the agricultural income from the sthanam properties of the Zamorin Raja for the previous year ending 31-3-1958 and that, during that period Sreemanavikraman Raja was the Zamorin Raja.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 173,
"end": 185,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 224,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 275,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 296,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The acceptance of the resignation of the managing agents and the appointment of Thapars as managing agents formed part of the same resolutions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "2. The detailed facts as mentioned in the plaint can be stated chronologically in the following manner: \n License deed to the plaintiff was granted for five years from 1st June, 1968 by NDMC to run an open air restaurant in Connaught Circus, New Delhi, which was so started and run under the name and style of 'Ramble Open Air Restaurant'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 182,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 190,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 240,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 251,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 337,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The importance so attached is reflected in the following decisions rendered by the Apex Court :-\na) AIR 1992 SC 523 AIR 1979 SC 65",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 93,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 130,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The DRI officials who had carried out the investigation and to whom the cheque had been given have not been examined by the complainant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 7,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Chakrabarty expressed his inability to produce better materials on information, at present available to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further stated that under Section 24, persons authorised by the Central Government can enter upon and inspect any mine only for the purpose of ascertaining the position of working of a mine and they do not have any power to ascertain about the payment of the mineral revenue due to the Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 88,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Press Commission itself had merely suggested a basic minimum wage for the consideration of the parties concerned but had suggested that so far as the scales of wages were concerned they were to be settled by collective bargaining or by adjudication.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "What happened to the tumbler is not known.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The waiver under S. 21 is limited to objection in the appellate and revisional Courts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 22,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So also the accused challenged their conviction and sentence under Section 323 of I.P.C. \n\n 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 78,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 88,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "List of Vouchers and other Documents handed over to CBI by Senior Manager and Assistant Manager.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 56,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Syndicate is the chief executive body of the University under Section 21 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 76,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel has referred to Ex.PW9/A at page 83 of the record of the trial Court and also the statement of defendant-respondent No. 1 Deep Chand.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 152,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I hold, accordingly, that Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 applies equally to dutiable as well as to non-dutiable goods and, accordingly, the contention raised by the petitioners that the section can have no application to Nepal Cargo since the said Cargo is totally exempt from Customs duty, is absolutely without merits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 62,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 238,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On these facts he called upon the assessee to explain why the registration and electrification charges collected from customers cannot be added as revenue receipts.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "They were exempted from paying any toll to LTTE on their agreeing to hire houses in Tamil Nadu for stay of LTTE cadre and on their being promised help by LTTE.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 47,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 94,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 111,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 158,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To ensure that the complainant or victim of crime does not remain in dark about the investigations regarding his complaint/FIR, the complainant or victim shall be kept informed about the progress of investigations.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the background of such facts the Court observed:\n\"Therefore, it has become obligatory on the appellants to satisfy the court as to how, where and in what manner Vadivelu parted company with them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 164,
"end": 172,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That this form of extrinsic aid to the interpretation of statutes is not admissible has been generally accepted in England, and the same rule has been observed in the construction of Indian statutes-see Administrator-General of Bengal v. Prem Nath Mallick [1895] 22 I.A. 107-118.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 122,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 278,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "appellant\twas prosecuted for having made statements dafamatory to\tthe then Law Minister of the Government of Maharashtra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 126,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Following the said decision relating to the earlier year, reported in CIT vs. Motor Industries Co. Ltd. (1986) 158 ITR 734 (Kar) : TC 27R.159, this question is answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 141,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appeal file be consigned to Record Room. \n\nAnnounced in open Court (Sandeep Yadav) on 13.05.14 Additional Sessions Judge\u00ad5 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 31/31",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 81,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 94,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 154,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Cadre of Teachers Gr.III in the State of Rajasthan is divided in two categories viz; (i) the teachers working under the Panchayat Samitis and (ii) the teachers working in the Education Department, Government of Rajasthan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 54,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 224,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We may however add that if the warrant Form in full had been made use of and the entries in the columns on the reverse had been duly made, then the warrant upon reading both sides of the Form, would in spite of the defect mentioned earlier, have amounted to a substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 344 (1A) since the intention of remand would have been fairly clear.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 308,
"end": 324,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Crl.A.No. 2269 & 1663 of 2008 :-37-:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 29,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Against the orders imposing penalty, one of the partners of the firm moved the Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras in revision but without success.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 113,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As a matter of fact there has been a definite attempt to avoid the meetings of the company after commencement of the business of a competitive industry viz., Andhra Polymers Pvt. Ltd., and Ramak Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 158,
"end": 183,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 216,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, the plaintiff paid the cost of the four vehicles to the dealer M/s. Automotive Manufacturers, Secunderabad on 30-11-1983 and the vehicles were delivered to the 1st defendant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 118,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 132,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The definition of 'appropriate planning authority' is defined under Section 2(3) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, as under: \"Section 2 (3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 80,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 134,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 160,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as the aforesaid shipping bill dt.30.04.92 is concerned, the witness stated, after having gone through the same and the annexures that these were processed by Sh. Chakrobarty Vaid, Superintendent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 49,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 186,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case Kania C. J. said: \n \"The law providing reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19 may contain substantive provisions as well as procedural provisions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 18,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 129,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On her cry a number of neighbours including Chandrama Singh (P. W. 3), Kedarnath Panday (P. W. 5), Jaddu Singh (P. W. 6), . Madheswar gingh (P. W. 7) and others who were all then at the house of Kedarnath Panday at a distance of 30 banses from the house of the appellant attending the recitation of the Ramayan rushed to the darwaza of the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 59,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 87,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 110,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 139,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 211,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court recently in Bonua Ram v. State of U.P. noticed :-- \n \"In D.S. Nakarav. Union of India, , relle on by Shri Salve and followed in Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., , that a statute is not properly called a retrospective statute because a part of the requisities for its action is drawn antecedent to is passing,\" \n 77.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 56,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 103,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 129,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 182,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, it is submitted that there is no statement of Rajinder Singh (PW-4) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 71,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 105,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 113,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case was dismissed on 29.4.1985 on the ground that property belonged to Nagar Palika and not Gaon Sabha.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 35,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 88,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 107,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have gone through the Full Bench judgement of B. Agarwal Stone Product Ltd. (supra) and found it was categorically held therein that Section 142 (1) read with Section 239 (1) of the Adhiniyam entitles the Zila Panchayat to frame the bye-laws and levy the fee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 78,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 177,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also referred to the statement during search, of one Shri Shyamlal Arora, supervisor, dt. 11th May, 1987, who had stated that on money charged was 30% to 40%.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 107,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 421, the Supreme Court emphasized and while interfering with the judgment of acquittal by the High Court stated that the greater sense of responsibility is needed to be provided in cases of charges of sexual assault on women, particularly of tender age and children.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 64,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 83,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further representation of the petitioner, if submitted in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 23.7.2003, shall be considered before conclusion of the departmental inquiry and passing final order.\" \n\n17.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 114,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "2. Whether the Plaintiff Association which is admittedly in administration of the Trust property can be removed without resorting to the procedure set out in Sec. 92 of CPC?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 158,
"end": 165,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 172,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is impossible to find a government of laws alone and not of men in the sense of eliminating all discretionary powers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As regards the future prospects in Rajesh and Ors. v Rajbir Singh and Ors. 2013 (6) SCALE 563 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: Suit no. 289/14 Anita & Ors. v Naresh Kumar & Ors. Page no. 21 of 31 \"11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 93,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has submitted that it amounts to adjudication under Section 10(1) of the I. D. Act and while exercising the powers under Section 33C(2) of the I. D. Act, the labour Court has no power of adjudication.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 85,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 138,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 155,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After grant of bail to co-accused Dildar Khan and Iqbal Hussain Khan by the two Hon'ble Judges Nahna again filed a third bail application and it was urged that on the ground of parity Nanha should also be granted bail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 45,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 68,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 100,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 189,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A notice was, therefore, sent by petitioners through an advocate to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on 6th September, 2003 (Exhibit-G) i.e. to Mahasangh, Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Dairy) and Collector of Bombay, requesting them to start election process immediately by announcing election programme failing which the petitioners would take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 117,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 147,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 219,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The report of the Chemical Examiner mentions that a sealed phial was received from the police officer by letter No. C/010 of 1961 dated April 18, 1961, but there is no evidence that the seal was the one which was affixed by Dr. Rote on the phial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 150,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 232,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": ", the Court is certainly required to be guided by the provisions of the CPC more particularly Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC etc.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 75,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 109,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 120,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court was of the opinion that they were unsustainable since they did not meet with the requirement of Section 8(3), which required reasons to be stated for reaching the decision that it would be in the interest of mineral development to renew TISCO's lease.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 123,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 257,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What is important is Sub Section (4) which provides that the answers given by the accused may be taken in to consideration by the Court in the trial in which he is examined and may be put in evidence for or against him in any other trial for any other 31 crapeal479-92- offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 36,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Jaybhan Patidar was in-charge of the Police Chowki situated at M.Y. Hospital, Indore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 84,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The survival of the American Constitution is generally attributed not so much to the amending Article V of the Constitution but to its vagueness which was exploited by the great judges of the Supreme Court of America who by their rulings adapted the Constitution to the changing conditions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 41,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 123,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 216,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This means that a person who goes there has not to seek anybody's permission to enter it provided he either has business there or as a spectator behaves himself.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, answered this question by saying that the same is squarely answered by two earlier recent decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard as can be seen from paras 8 and 9 of the judgment, which are re-produced below:-\n\n \"8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 156,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"Evacuees\" and \"evacuee properly\" were not matters enumerated in List I or III and consequently the Central Legislature had no power on 13-3-1949 to make laws regarding them by virtue of the provisions of Section 100.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 145,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 216,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the basis of this answer, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the Accused-1 and 2 have fired at the Deceased from point blank range.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW21 has further deposed that he alongwith IO reached at South\u00adWest, Special Staff office, Dhaula Kuan, where accused Aman Bhardwaj @ Bobby, Kapil Sharma and Mohd. Tayyab were arrested by the special Staff on 25/07/2003 vide DD No. 12A U/s. 41.1 Cr.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 67,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 102,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 139,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 153,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 170,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 219,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 235,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 245,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 253,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In State vs. Sunil, CRL. L.P. No. 502 of 2014 decided on 19.08.2014; Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed as under:\n \"11...... No independent witness was associated in the recovery of 4 kg of charas from a public place.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 45,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 67,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 93,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Punjab and Haryana High Court also relied on the decision in the case of James Gardner v. Edward A. Lucas [1878] 3 AC 582 at page 603.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 33,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 125,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sowbagiammal arranged for the sale of the properties to the third defendant and the predecessor-in-title of defendants 5 to 12 and to the fourth defendant and the vendees under the three sale deeds paid the amounts to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our opinion the impugned public notice, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition and the letter to the petitioner from SEBI dated 27-2-1998 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition were both issued under Section 12(1B) read with Section 16 of the SEBI Act and hence they cannot be said to be ultra vires.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 134,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 150,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 225,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 246,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 262,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, call was received at 1 pm in which again, he was asked to arrange money and he replied that he could arrange only Rs.1,50,000/-.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This judgment will dispose of both the writ petitions as the learned counsel for the parties agree that though the facts in writ petition No. 1313 of 1959 are somewhat different from writ petition No. 1307 of 1959 but the questions for determination are the same and both of them can be disposed of by this judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 154,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 213,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nl) The petitioners shall furnish all the relevant documents for opening of the saving bank account and Fixed Deposit to Senior Manager of UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 148,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 180,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On May 27, 1959 the appellant repudiated the suggestion that he had made a false declaration of his age and asserted that the matter could not in any event be reopened.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 15,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "was collected from Gurgaon and processed in Delhi 5.3 CW4",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 26,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 49,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As regards actual delivery, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Davenport and Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 100 ITR 715 (SC) that constructive or symbolic delivery is not sufficient, must be actual delivery.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 49,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 127,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is stated that he was kidnapped on 14.5.2004 at about 3.00/3.30 p.m. when he was returning from his school.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 47,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Assuming the amounts were not loans, but part payments of the hire, they were still not chargeable to tax under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, because the part payments had not been received by the owners bin India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 155,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 228,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In cross-examination, he stated that he cannot give details of the year when deceased Sukhna complained about harassment at the hands of the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 92,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Chief Justice of Delhi High Court by his letter dated February 19, 1981, addressed to the Law Minister, did not recommend an extension for Shri Kumar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 37,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 75,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 153,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The gate and doors of the house were locked from inside.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The finding is contray to the evidence and is palpably ureasonable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The police party headed by SI Hanuman Singh (PW18) parked their vehicle at a little distance of Hans Market and proceeded towards the spot on foot.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 43,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Appellate Court's judgment, it is also mentioned that Bhagwan Kaur uninterruptedly remained in peaceful possession of the entire suit land since the death of the deceased Chanan Singh in 1969 till this date.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 73,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 190,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the result, the Labour Appellate Tribunal gave the appellant company permission to retrench \"subject to the terms and conditions of Act XLIII of 1953, provided that each workman is paid at the rate of half basic wages and dearness allowance for the whole period from the date of lay off up to the date of retrenchment (less sums already received as lay off compensation)\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 152,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "5.A Telecom Commission was constituted on 6-4-1989 comprising a Chairman and four full-time Members:\n1. Member (Production)\n2. Member (Services)\n3. Member (Technology)\n4. Member (Finance)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 22,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the light of the statutory provisions, neither the petitioners can claim inclusion of post or scheme not given therein nor the Department can do it without further amendment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He also mentioned that besides him Pranab Chakraborty (PW-8), Nahar Ranjan Deb (PW-4), Satyendra Tanti (PW-9) were also present there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 53,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 78,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 102,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In my view, there has been no such amendment with respect to other sub-items of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called Central Excise Tariff) and in absence of such amendment the conservative Central Excise understanding reflected in Brother Syiem's order with respect to Central Excise duty should continue.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 140,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 289,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Crl. Appeal No. 907 of of 2007 (Y) PW25-Dr.M.Sathikumar, who was the Medical Officer, Forensic Department, Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode conducted autopsy over the dead body of Rosmin(elder daughter of deceased Suja).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 30,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 55,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 142,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 221,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The impugned order of detention was clamped on November 28, 1985 and the period of one year as provided in Section 13 Of the National Security Act has also expired.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 64,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 117,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 146,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first proviso to the said Section had also used the word \"entertain\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The said Award in the instant case is more akin to the award in the case of Messrs Sudarsan Trading Co. v. The Government of Kerala (supra) which has been held by the Supreme Court as non-speaking award.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 131,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 180,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the language of the Constitution a Judge does not lose the qualifications prescribed in the second clause of Article 217 on the attainment of the age of sixty years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 35,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 123,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "D.W.6 said that he spoke to D.W.5, Srinu of Lalithanagar, Palasa Seshu and Bheemavarapu Raj Kumar @ Ravi and learnt from them the details of the incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 43,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 56,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 70,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 104,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, decision of a quasi judicial authority would be vitiated if it is based on no evidence or if it is arbitrary and the conclusion which the authority has arrived at could not be reached by any reasonable person or body of persons.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Enquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the present case, however, we are concerned with a specific statute, namely. Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. 1956.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 89,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 138,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In June 1978, Application No. 102987 was filed in Thailand on behalf of the Needle Industries U.K. as owners of the Trade Mark 'Pony' which is clear from the Trade Mark Attorney's letter dated January 22, 1979.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 36,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 58,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 209,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 55,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra and Ors. (supra), Supreme Court only laid down guidelines for grant of bail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 34,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is inconceivable that PW 8 Joraram and PW 9 Chetram, who had no grouse or malice against the appellants, would deliberately omit the name of Jaideo who is their arch enemy and substitute in his place the names of the appellants as the assailants and that too for no rhyme or reason.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 37,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 54,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 150,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(N.K.Gupta) Vacation Judge AKM M.Cr.C. No.7928/2014 09/06/2014 Shri R.B. Singh, Advocate for the applicant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 51,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the deposition of PW25 Deepak Gupta, DGM, Vodafone Essar South Ltd., the call details of mobile phone No. 9811134191, in the name of Sanjay Gupta from 01/05/2003 to 29/07/2003, were extracted from the system and were provided to the police, which are Ex. PW25/B. \n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 48,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 80,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 158,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 174,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 188,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further alleged there were no outstandings due to the family as claimed by the plaintiff.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The plaintiffs have not sought possession of those properties.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The only change that is relevant for our purposes is, that under the old law, the non-registration of the copyright had not the effect of entailing the dismissal of an action in respect of infringement of copyright commenced when the Act of 1914 was in force see, Balantrapu Venkata Rao v. Valluri Padmanabha Raju.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 264,
"end": 313,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But the Government, unilaterally changed the terms of the settlement by an order dated 10-9-1993.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 96,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n (Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge manju Criminal Revision No.2288/2012 25/03/2014 Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 18,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 62,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 73,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 97,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ministry of Finance reads as under :- \nF.No. 664/99/88 OPIUM GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) dated the 27th September, 1989. \n To Collectors of Customs (Preventive). \nNew Custom House, 2nd Floor, Ballard Estate, Bombay-400 038 Sir, Subject: Authorisation of officers under section 36A(1)(d) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 80,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 124,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 155,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 255,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 323,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 377,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the appellants are insisting upon enforcement of their right through the judicial pressure, they need and seek the protection of law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n9. Having drawn my attention on the petition of appeal and the trial court record it is submitted by the accused that he had no Criminal Appeal No. 4/15 Page no. 6 of 16 knowledge about the proclamation under section 82 of Cr.P.C issued against him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 170,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 220,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 230,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similar deemed explanations prescribing higher rate of tax were very much there in all previous notifications issued under Section 3 of the Taxation Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 132,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 152,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I may now deal with the question as to whether the learned Senior Civil Judge was right in disallowing the prayer of the election petitioner to declare him elected instead of the returned candidate.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In our opinion, however, when the test is 'possibility' of confusion in medicinal preparations, as held by the Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd., and the Courts have been asked by the Apex Court to take special care, in such cases, since confusion may harm and result in unpleasant consequences, if not disastrous results, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted injunction as prayed by the plaintiffs.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 124,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 151,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 201,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rules 7 and 8 lay down that the suit does not abate by reason of fee marriage of a female plaintiff or defendant, or on the insolvency of the plaintiff unless the assignee or receiver declines to continue the suit or to give security for the costs thereof within such time as the Court may direct.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner Chandrasekharan and his younger brother Vembu Iyer claimed to have taken on lease a one-room tenement and a vacant site appurtenant thereto, forming part of the property acquired in this case, from the owner Kurshid Jan Pasha, husband of Ghousia Begum, and to have started in that portion a hotel business under the name and style of Raia Ganapathi Refreshment Stall.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 240,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 266,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 349,
"end": 381,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The endorsement though in Marathi, should be of the doctor.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is needless to state that taking cognizance of an offence under S. 190(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and condoning delay in filing prosecutions u/S. 473 of the Code are judicial orders in judicial proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 79,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 113,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 165,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court found that the respondent Beti Joga was not commonly known at Beti Hadma.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 50,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per the postmortem report, body was received for examination on 16.01.1995 at 2:30 p.m. and the date and hour of receipt of inquest papers was also 16.01.1995 at 2:30 p.m.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 77,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 161,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "15th September, 2010 V.B. GUPTA, J. ab",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 20,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 31,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In a Court of Law or Equity, what the Legislature intended to be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained from that which it has chosen to enact, either in express words or by reasonable and necessary implication.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Reference in this regard can also be made to the relevant portions of the judgment of the House of Lords which was extracted by the Division Bench in its judgment:\n\"On this point the most important and decisive authority is Brown v. Dunn, reported in (1893)6 R 67.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 224,
"end": 263,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Allegedly, both the appellants identified the cover of the Australian passport as the same belonging to the deceased which they had thrown in the sewer.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the learned single Judge could not have validly imposed the condition that the appellant should not speak about the arrest of the Sankarachariyar in the alleged murder case, nor justify the same, nor speak with respect to the investigation connected therewith, as imposition of such conditions violate the appellant\u0012s fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 195,
"end": 210,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 438,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 446,
"end": 458,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During the course of the proceedings for the assessment of income-tax for the assessment year 1949-50, it came to the notice of the ITO that a large part of the sale proceeds were realised by the assessee by sending railway receipts consigned to self through V.P.P. to different parts of the territory, which at that time were comprised in British India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 348,
"end": 353,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Furthermore, as per PW.1 Karambir Singh, they had not seen any injury on the person of Krishan and Balbir accused and they never came to know that they had received the injuries and were admitted in Civil Hospital, Assandh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 39,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 222,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is proved on record by PW22 Inspector Banwari Lal Meena who is neither the author of the recovery memo nor a witness to the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 58,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He married the respondent Ara-vindammal, who is his own niece on 13-9-1945.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 39,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 74,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For this purpose, the assessee has taken overseas entities as 'tested parties' and their margins on mean basis and compared the same with mean of identified comparables.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "All the prosecution witnesses are related to each other and also related to his in-laws and, thus, are interested witnesses.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The competence of the State Legislature to amend Central Act has been recognised in U.P. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. R.K. Shukla11O.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 60,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 132,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Deshbandhu Agarwal, the third respondent, per self, his wife (since died) and his son, respondents Nos. 4 & 5, submitted the tender on March 25, 1987 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 which was on negotiation accepted at Rs. 2,55,000.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 18,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 149,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having answered the questions, the Constitution Bench treated all interlocutory applications as regards interim matters as disposed of (see para 23).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 53,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "CORAM:\n\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "4. On May 24, 1978, onwards - NVR - 37 shares, the petitioner - 38 shares and Mrs. B. K. P. Rao - 25 shares.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 18,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 33,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In AIR 1968 SC 800, again suspension as an ancillary power was recognised.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have asked the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents to show us whether there is any such finding but he was not able to show such a finding recorded by the respondent No. 1 in case of petitioner Deshpande.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 218,
"end": 227,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I have heard Ld. Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsel Sh. A.K. \n\n Singh for the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It would thus appear that none of the contentions advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company to escape from the liability with regard to the satisfaction of the whole of the award can be accepted.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "For the reasons given in that judgment I am of the opinion that there is no substance in this contention.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The question is well settled in view of the decision of a seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P....... \n\n 25.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 138,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One of the oldest among these is the arbitration.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": ", 'Land-owner' is described in the Protection Act to mean a person who is defined as such in the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (Act 17 of 1887--hereinafter referred to as the 'Revenue Act').",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 49,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 126,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 187,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The police officers from Mumbai had told the witness and Shri Bhatia that two accused connected with the murder of Dr. Datta Samant were staying in hotel Welcome Inn, cri-appeal-864-00 Room No. 202.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 31,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 68,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In England also, social reforms were introduced to supplement or improve upon the Matrimonial Causes Act by enacting Family Law Reform Act, 1969 and also the Family Law Reform Act, 1987 to confer limited right of succession to the illegitimate children in the property of their parents or allowing the parents to succeed to the property of their illegitimate children.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 10,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 104,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 144,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 185,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After the decision of the above matter the Indra Sawhney's case again came up for discussion in certain writ petitions, which were 13.12.1999 reported in (2000) (1) SCC 168 (Second case).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 141,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 186,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh. Sushil Kumar, learned defence counsel for A-6 P.K. Sahi has contended that he has been made a scapegoat and he was not involved in any misconduct.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Merely branching or trespassing in another field does not mean that it is a legislation on those topics.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The respondent no. 3/ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. has produced R3W1, its Legal Manager who has stated in his affidavit EX.R3W1/A that offending vehicle i.e. HR 38 R 7272 was insured in the name of Sh. Jai Jai Ram Yadav for the period 24.12.2011 to 23.12.2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 61,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 230,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 256,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 270,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The NCTE issued Notification on 23.8.2010 to provide requisite qualification at different levels.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 8,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 41,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(nil) Subhita Kumari Versus State & Ors 50. 5550/2010 (nil) Naroj Versus State & Ors 51. 5578/2010 (nil) Vimala Devi Versus State & Anr 52. 5583/2010 (nil) Kum Komal Kumari Versus State & Ors 53. 5584/2010 (nil) Shiv Raj Nagar Versus State & Ors 54. 5595/2010 (nil) Poonam Muraria & Anr Versus State & Ors 55. 5607/2010",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 98,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 149,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 205,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 259,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 319,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 26.07.1998, accused no.1- Mapillai K.H.Sulaiman had engaged PW.2-Boja, PW.3- Paniyeravara Muthu, PW.4-Paniyeravara Baby and CW.5- Bera (not examined before the trial court) for plucking sweet potatoes in the land of one Prakash near Poojekallu of Kutta village.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 72,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 98,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 122,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 137,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 230,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 246,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 263,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court then further observed as follows (page 427) : \n \"The word 'manufacture' said Abbott, C.J., in R. v. Wheeler, (1819) 2B & Ald. 345 (349), cited in Stroud's Judicial Dictionary (3rd ed.) Vol. 3, p. 1734.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 101,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 170,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(3) The information memorandum referred to in sub-regulation 92) shall be dated and signed by all the directors of the scheme.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 64,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further provided that should Harvey die before attaining the age of 55 years, the trustees would stand possessed of the capital value of the deferred annuity policy, upon trust to purchase therewith an annuity for Mrs. Harvey with the above insurance company or other insurance company of repute.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 232,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Court finds that the said guidelines could be implemented by learned MM dealing with application under Section 125 CrPC seeking enforcement of orders awarding interim maintenance or maintenance.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 119,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 124,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the compensation inclusive of 6% interest from the date of application is not paid by the appellants to the claimant within ihree months from today, it will carry 12% interest from the date of default.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Kamalakshan, the first respondent, had filed a complaint on the allegation that Kuriachan Chacko had committed offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 5(c)(i) of the Act of 1978.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 96,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 148,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 173,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 203,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The exhibits were sent to CFSL for examination and as per the CFSL report Exhibits PX and PY, human blood of blood group \"A\" was found on the clothes of the appellant as well as his co-accused, which matched with the blood group of the deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 30,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 66,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It should also be borne in mind that in the case of a serious situation which renders the holding of an inquiry not reasonably practicable, it would be difficult to foresee how long the situation will last and when normalcy would return or be restored.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If, however, it is held that the said transaction was a private transfer, then it will be hit by Section 8 of the P.D. Act, in view of service of notice under Section 7 of the P.D. Act already effected upon the certificate-debtor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 106,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 122,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 168,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 184,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also admitted that he never informed the police anything about the dispute between the deceased and the accused regarding land, well or Patta.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, I hereby hold that the Complainant has proved and substantiated the allegations that the cheques in question Ex. CW1/1 and Ex. CW1/2 were issued by the accused in discharge of his legal liability and for consideration.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The effect of this dicta or observation of the Apex Court is that any stipulation in a contract of employment fixing the term of employment or providing for termination of service by giving a notice for certain specified period of time or payment of wages in lieu thereof will be void, arbitrary and discriminatory and also being opposed to the public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 375,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 383,
"end": 395,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is common for Parliament to confer by Act on ministers and other executive bodies the power to make general rules with the force of law-to legislate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 27,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whether the acts of the detenu forming the basis for arriving at a subjective satisfaction are too remote in point of time to induce any reasonable person to reach such subjective satisfaction must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The other rather unusual question interestingly raised by the State of Gujarat itself relates to improper conduct of trial by the public prosecutor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 78,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The report further notes that most of the members of the SAC were not the residents of the locality (Shella Village) and were living in Shillong while occasionally visiting Shella.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 60,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 115,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 144,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 179,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Plaintiff No. 2, AstraZeneca Pharma India Limited, is stated to be a company incorporated in India which entered into a license agreement dated 1st March, 2002 with plaintiff No. 1 to use the trade mark 'MERONEM'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 49,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 98,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 159,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"Section 2 (1) (viii)--\"market area\" means any area declared to be a market area under Section 4.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 30,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 96,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Crime No.174 of 2012 has been registered by the North Paravur Police in respect of the incident, charge sheeting the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304 A of the Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 20,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 68,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 174,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 199,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts of the case are that the assessing officer passed the assessment order for the assessment year 90-91 on 16.09.91 and determined the income of the assessee Under Section 115J at Rs. 41,45,574/-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 122,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 183,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection it is but right to remember that the law of evidence in India has been codified and the scheme thereof compels the Court to search for pigeon-holes of relevancy into which the material placed may be accommodated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 80,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In CWP No.10877 of 2008, petitioner Malkit Kaur, who contested the election for the seat of Panch of Gram Panchayat of Village Burj Bhalai Ke, Tehsil & District Mansa and nominated herself for the seat reserved for Woman and secured 441 votes and was declared defeated, has filed this petition for quashing the election result of respondent No.4- Satnam Singh, who secured only two votes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 23,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 47,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 141,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 359,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the fund is not being established and maintained, the M.P.S.R.T.C. cannot be allowed to ply the vehicles without insurance.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 69,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sangeeta (PW 50) has identified her ornaments in the court and in the cross examination, the only question put to her was about the weight and design.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant as an established shipper chose 1946 as their basic year but in that year they had made no shipments to Italy and so in the allotment of quota that was made in their favour, they got no quota for shipment to Italy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 123,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 227,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "None ap p eared f or the ap pellant ev en",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 07.10.2004, the blood samples were drawn from the appellants Jyotish Prasad and Ashish at Safdarjung Hospital.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 89,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 112,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both the impugned orders dated 5.9.2006 and 24.6.2006 were quashed and the matter was sent back to C.M.M., Kanpur Nagar to decide application of the petitioner widow for registration of her FIR afresh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 39,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 53,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 119,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Admittedly, the Appellant/Defendant herein has launched the drug, namely, Efavirenz 600 mg tablets and the tablets are tested at Lotus Labs Private Limited and it was manufactured on November 2006.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 155,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On October 13, 1939 one Krishna Nair made a complaint (Ex. AH) against plaintiff's men of beating and dacoity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 19,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case, the notices were issued to about 70 persons on the documents seized from the Bhatia Group.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 110,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Instead of that, after lapse of 10 years from the date of Division Bench judgment, the first respondent issued the fresh charge memo on 23-5-1990 by way of Government letter without any difference of earlier charge memo dated 29-8-1978.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 145,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 235,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This should be done vertically and horizontally.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(see a country view of our Supreme Court recently in Navinchandra N. Majithia v. Stale of Meghalaya and Ors.. JT [2000] Suppl. 1 SC 538).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 135,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That the injury found on the head of the deceased was caused by a blunt object and the injury found on the neck was caused by a sharp object.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was, therefore, contended that the provisions of Section 26 of the Bihar Act have no application to the case and the order of the Labour Court dated the 3rd June, 1960, is ultra vires and without jurisdiction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 79,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 170,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No.10735 OF 2010 1-YOGENDRA KUMAR JAISWAL S/O LATE JAGANNATH PRASAD R/O SHIVPURI, PROFESSOR'S COLONY ROAD, P.S.- SHASTRI NAGAR, DISTT.-\nPATNA- 800023.............................................................(PETITIONER)\n Versus 1-THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 41,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 279,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These companies were as follows:\n\"i. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. \n\nii. Hindlaco Industries Ltd. \n\niii. Tranex Holding Inc. iv. Indian Minerals Corporation Plc. \n\nv. VAW Aluminium AG, Germany vi. ALCOA, USA vii. Sibirsky, Russia viii. MALCO\" \n\nM/s Jardine Fleming, Global Advisor made an analysis of the various bids on the basis of the financial and technical capability, familiarity with India and overall credibility.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 69,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 100,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 127,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 163,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 195,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 210,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 232,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 244,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 267,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 394,
"end": 399,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case of H.D. Mundhra is that Roop Narain Ram Chandra (P.) Ltd. were indebted to the Corporation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000 as selling agents of the Kanpur Cotton Mills, Kanpur Textiles Ltd. and Elgin Mills Co. Ltd., that their financial condition was not sound, and that their offer was, therefore, not accepted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 66,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 173,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 195,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 220,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 14(4) of the Kerala Education Act also cannot be invoked to keep alive indefinitely, the proceeding for taking over the management of an aided school.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 41,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh. Sandeep Gupta has been examined as CW 1 and has relied upon the certified copy of resolution dated 18.03.2004 of Board of Directors of complainant as Ex. CW 1/A whereby he has been authorized to appear on behalf of the complainant company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 113,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the 21st July, 1950, the respondent Subodh Gopal Bose applied before the Additional District Judge before whom the' appeal was pending to make a reference under article 228 of the Constitution of India for a decision of the question whether the provisions of section 7 were void being ultra vires the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 22,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 56,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 101,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 175,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 204,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 271,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 316,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was wrong to suggest that the Police did not take Amrik Singh (appellant No.1) and his brothers forcibly.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 64,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Clayton Act prescribed a special procedure and punishment for trial of contempts, consisting of wilful disobediance of a lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree or command of any district Court of the United states or of any court of the District of Columbia, if the acts of contempt were also liable to be punished as criminal offences.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 220,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 264,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The present suit was filed on 16th January, 2003 with the prayer that a decree for possession, permanent injunction and recovery should be passed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The levy is only on the event of renting out a Three Star hotel or an auditorium; that too, only when it is rented out specifically for weddings or connected ceremonies.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Vishwanath interfered and tried to prevent the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "17. Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act mentions \"imposition of penalty in lieu of prosecution\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 44,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 31.8.1979 a statutory complaint was made to the Chief of Army Staff but that was not considered at all as there was no response from the Chief of Army Staff to the statutory complaint. \n\n23.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After completion of investigation, Station House Officer of Police Station Kanina instituted police report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C-for short) against the appellant, before the learned Illaqa Magistrate to the effect that it appeared that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 15 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 81,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 124,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 151,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 159,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 230,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 322,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Says, further, the Supreme Court : \"Where the two marks are identical, no further questions arise; for then the infringement is made out.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 32,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "27 Respondent have strongly objected to the maintainability of the appeal itself, mainly on the ground that appellants do not have locus standi to file the appeal and further being the purchasers during pendency of the suit, they could not be protected in view of the bar created by the section 52 of TP Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 287,
"end": 297,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 307,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The provision for payment of interest was envisaged simultaneously with the scheme of introduction of advance tax.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The assessee-company under a consistent method followed has been making such provision for bad and doubtful debts each year and to the extent recoveries are made in respect of the provision for bad and doubtful debts in earlier years the same is adjusted against the provision for bad and doubtful debts in the current year under the head \"Provision no longer required written off\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "No help is derived from the case reported In -- 'In re Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi', AIR 1920 Bom. 175 (G).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 105,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It can neither be said in fairness that the question whether the excise duty was duly levied or not prior to March 6, 1065 is irrelevant question in these appeals, nor can it be said in the face of the mass materials produced by the respondents that they are being taken by surprise, on account of this legal plea.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 122,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The State of New Hampshire imposed a tax on the logs of wood and the question was, whether it was in contravention of Section 8 (3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 26,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 131,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "State Of Karnataka and Ors. v. N. Madappa and Ors., 1996(9) SCC 284 and State Of Mysore v. Syed Ibrahim, AIR 1967 SC 1424 were relied upon to hold that it is the user of the vehicle which determines the liability to pay tax.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 67,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 121,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Division Bench held as follows : \n \"In my view, similar interpretation should be put upon Section 14(1) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 147,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n v) (Prahlad Singh v. Sukhdev Singh) AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1145 wherein in page No.1147, it was held thus:-\n \u0013....That the decision given by a court at an earlier stage of a case is binding at a later stage is well settled, though interlocutory judgments are open for adjudication by an Appellate Authority in an appeal against the final judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 66,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 113,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the circumstances, when LW11, Y. Sultana, is acting against the interests of the deceased just prior to the date of offence and is under the influence of her father, her non examination by the prosecution is not going to advance the defence any further.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He met with two persons Durgam Bhasker Babu and Krishna Kumari about three months back at SR Nagar, Hyderabad, due to financial problems they decided to organize brothel house and took the premises on rent for Rs.15,000/- p.m. about one month back.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 109,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondents have also stated that the District Jail, Ujjain has been converted into a Central Jail and about 515 prisoners who were earlier lodged in the Central Jail, Indore have been shifted to the Central Jail, Ujjain.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 63,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 178,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 224,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An electronic item whether it be an assembly or sub-assembly cannot be an electronic component-and as such cannot be imported \"electronic components\" appearing in Appendix 3 have been defined and listed in Serial No. 561(21) of Appendix 3 itself and no other item can be imported as electronic components.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 163,
"end": 173,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 238,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was urged that termination of service upon the abolition of a post leads to the loss of earned benefits to the civil servant, and we are reminded that the Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down that the loss of earned benefits is an important test for deciding whether a civil servant has been removed within the meaning of Article 311(2).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 158,
"end": 171,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 341,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the ex parte order passed on the 21st April. 1969 the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta has merely found that \"in spite of notice served on the opposite party he has not come to contest the claim of the petitioner.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 52,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 102,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For instance, in Shivdeo Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 1909 on a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by A for cancellation of the order of allotment passed by the Director of Rehabilitation in favour of B, the High Court made an order cancelling the allotment though 'B' was not a party.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 80,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 123,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 143,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reference also may be made to the observation of Krishna Iyer, J. in Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India and Ors. where he has said:\n Terminological similarities are an illusory guide and we cannot go by verbal verisimilitude.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 61,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 133,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused Nos. 1 to 3 (Jithakumar, Sreekumar and Soman) were police constables working under C.W.23 (E.K. Sabu) Circle Inspector of Fort Police Station who was heading the Crime Squad constituted for apprehending culprits involved in theft cases.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 31,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 52,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 108,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 149,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The order dated the 12th December, 1968 stated that the notice on the second party was returned unserved and that there was a direction by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta for the issue of a fresh notice to be served on the identification by the first party.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 39,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 188,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is well settled that such conduct of the petitioners would disentitled them to any relief at the hands of this court (vide Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. II, Third Edn., page 140, para 265 : Rex v. Tabrum : Ex parte Dash [1907] 97 L. T. 551, O. A. O. K. Latchmanan Chettiar v. Corporation of Madras [1927] ILR 50 Mad 130; AIR 1927 Mad 130 [FB].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 196,
"end": 245,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 348,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sri Sundaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the Decisions of the Supreme Court in CHUNCHUN JHA v. EBADAT ALI AND ANR., RAVAL & CO. v. K.G. RAMACHANDRAN AND ORS., SMT. GANGABAI v. SMT. CHHABUBAI & RAJ KUMAR RAJINDRA SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 99,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 138,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 180,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 214,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 278,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the Judgment and Order dated the 10th August, 1983 of the Orissa High Court in O. J. C. No. 1239 of 1983.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 55,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 80,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 109,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In her Cross- examination, she has admitted that a Criminal Case was filed against her and her father-in-law in KGF Court regarding causing hurt.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case, Apex Court found the evidence about the recovery of the ornaments and other articles too artificial to be believed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 24,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the reasons already given, these are all objections fatal to the suit.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He followed the rule laid down in the Madras and Nagpur, cases mentioned above and also referred to the decision by my brother Agarwala J., in --'Umashankar v. Rex', AIR 1950 All 234 (G). \n 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 44,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 55,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 135,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 186,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He had joined the Commission as Technical Assistant, Grade I, on 8-8-1975.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 73,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rule 27 of Or. 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes the conditions and limitations in the matter.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 17,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 48,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The statement of the complainant after it was recorded was signed by him in English and it was attested by Sub Inspector ('SI' - for short) CRA No. D-1026-DB of 2011 and CRA No. D-1046-DB of 2011 and -5- Murder Reference No. 6 of 2011 Ravinder Singh SHO, P.S. Division No.8, Ludhiana (PW-5) on 05.09.2008 in the area of Mini Fountain Chowk, Guru Nanak Pura at 11.00 pm.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 165,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 195,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 234,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 249,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 283,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 304,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 356,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The wife of MW-155 Rajappan hctd died on account of a situation caused by the atrocities of some unidentified personnel of Tamil Nadu STF.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 27,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 133,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Same day in the afternoon Santhan (A-2) on the instructions of Sivarasan went to the house of Robert Payas (A-9) and gave Rs.4,000/- to Ruben (A6), who was there at that time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 33,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 106,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 141,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Dr. Mrs. Nirmal T. Shah v. Sharavathi Petro Chemicals (Company Petition No. 38 of 1980 decided on 10-10-1984), Chandrakantharaj Urs J. has held that",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 89,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 111,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 130,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These instructions were necessitated by the introduction of the revised Scales of pay recommended by the Third Central Pay Commission.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 133,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent no.2, Deepak alias Deepu is present in person.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 35,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After completion of the investigation, charge\u00adsheet was filed in the Court of Ld. M.M. who after complying with provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions which in turn assigned the case to this Court for trial in accordance with law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 137,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 145,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This has indeed been settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, 1960-2 Lab LJ 592 : (AIR 1960 SC 1223).,\n \n\n19.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 123,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I shall, however, deal with the matter on merits because it was Shri Johri's next contention that if the accused is otherwise guilty on facts, he should not be permitted to get away on the basis of a mere technicality.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 74,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Classification made under the Rules could not be said to be violative of the right to have equal pay for equal work.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The prosecution admits intervention by B.S.F. P.W. 9 \"Sardarbhai Lavjibhai Karan has also admitted that the police station had been handed over the custody of the accused and the articles by the B.S.F. P.W. 5-Sardarbhai Lavjibhai Karan has also admitted that no accused and articles would be handed over to any agency without proper paperwork.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 80,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 235,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is preferable to posting the amount recovered direct from the cash book to the credit of the bad debts account without making any entry in the debtor's personal account, since it is desirable, for future reference, that this account should contain a full history of the occurrence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW 4, a purohit and PW 5 (his wife) also spoke to the appellant's earnings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He also made the video of incident.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In so far as Writ Petition No. 789 of 2003 is concerned, as stated above, the same is in connection with CTS Nos. 325, 430, 405, 330, 429, 331, 419, 329, 326 and 425 totally admeasuring about 4905.03 sq.mtrs. located at village Chakala, Tal. Andheri.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 42,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 165,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 235,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 249,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the result, the related grounds of appeal are allowed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "___ W.P.(C).No. 32721 of 2011 [S.O.1248 (E), dated 5th November",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 29,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The material facts are these: V. Ramaswami Naidu, the Kartha of a Hindu undivided family, held in the names of various members of the family 10,208 shares of Rs. 10 each in Agravas Estates, Limited, a company incorporated in Ceylon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 197,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 231,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to him, the name of the accused is Arjun Prasad Chowdary, but PW.21 stated the name of the accused as Arjun Serveher, when the investigating officer questioned him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 126,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The non obstante clause under Article 246(1) indicates the predominance or supremacy of the law made by the Union Legislature in the event of an overlap of the law made by Parliament with respect to a matter enumerated in List I and a law made by the State Legislature with respect to a matter enumerated in List II of the Seventh Schedule.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 125,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 182,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 228,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 315,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 339,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I have carefully gone through the elaborate judgment of Crl.R.PNos 2924 & 3906 of 2009 :-16-:\nthe trial court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 86,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But pursuant to saving Cl.4(x) of reciprocal agreement, such operators were allowed to ply vehicles for the period they hold valid permit stood saved and grant of renewal being a fresh grant; if private operators are allowed to ply vehicle on the subject route thereafter, it would be certainly unauthorized route and such of route permits could not be considered for renewal U/S 81(2) of MV Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 30,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 378,
"end": 385,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 395,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The courts are not experts in policy and public administration \u0016 hence Jowell's point that the courts should not step beyond their institutional capacity (Jowell, 2000).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 161,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Advocate General, Haryana, has referred to the past unpleasant events, which have taken place in the Haryana Public Service Commission with the initiation of enquiry against the Chairman and Members of the Commission, which ultimately resulted in their removal by the President after the decision of the Supreme Court as provided under Article 317.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 29,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 138,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 321,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 351,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Along with the affidavit a chart has been provided specifying the C.R. number, name of the complainant and the role of the accused. \n\n C.R.No. Name of Role of the accused and status of Complainant the case. \n\n I-26/2014 Shamjibhai Accused No.(1) Nareshbhai Geegabhai Ranchhodbhai Dudhat, Residing at 7, Priyanka Row DCB Police Dabhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 220,
"end": 230,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 286,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appellant Mantu was found guilty of the charge of Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 15,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 61,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 86,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the absence of the material evidence, by considering the age and family status of the deceased at the time of accident, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to consider the notional income of the deceased is of Rupees 6,000/- P.M. at the time of accident.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The first information report was recorded on the basis of the statement of Hazara Singh PW 7 recorded on 22-5-1988.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 87,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 114,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Anil Pawar (Investigating Officer) further stated that the complaint of PW-1- Madhukar Jadhav was recorded in the presence of PSI Shri Dongre in writing by the Police Constable Shri Wankhade as per the information given by PW-1- Madhukar Jadhav.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 93,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 141,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 190,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 244,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similar argument was raised before one of us sitting singly (Mohan, J.) and it was dealt with in M. Swaminathan v. The Chairman and Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., Madras (W.P. No. 12837 of 1986), dt. 22nd December 1986.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 66,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 240,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 264,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pal, J. speaking for a 3-Judge Bench, however, opined:\n\"\u0005Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of innocence, because by the latter, all that is meant is that the prosecution is obliged to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 3,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mudholkar, J. was of the view that the words \"to provide for her maintenance\" occurring in Clause (ii) would apply only when there was a duty to maintain under the general Mahomedan law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 102,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is submitted that if the impugned judgment is not rectified or set aside, the interests of more than 250 officers would be adversely affected.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In' respect of the Mahakoshal officers shown from serial No. 59 onwards it is seen that no formal orders were issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government prior to 31st October, 1956 fixing the rank of each officers.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 29,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 149,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 177,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even Sub-section (9) of Section 80-I authorizes the Assessing Officer to make adjustment in profit in case certain expenditure in his opinion has been charged excessively and allow deduction accordingly.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 36,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both findings are attacked by his learned Counsel Mr Raj Reddi, advocate representing Mr. T. Bali Reddy while, on the other hand, Miss V. Lakshmi Devi, the learned Government Pleader, tried to support the findings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 150,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": ": 22/03/2006 BENCH:\nH.K. Sema & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan JUDGMENT:\nJ U D G M E N T Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 59,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 95,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Just as a rate is imposed upon the occupant in respect of the house, so income-tax and super tax are imposed upon individuals in respect of the business.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Subsequently, with effect from 21.7.2006, new norms have been introduced, wherein there is no provision for opening the College in temporary premises.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 40,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has to be noted here that a proviso to main section also can create a substantive right in favour of class of persons and, in the present case, the proviso has created substantive right in favour of victim which has been defined within the meaning APEAL Nos.991/11, 992/11 331/11 & 854/11 of clause (wa) mentioned in Section 2 of the Amendment Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 251,
"end": 291,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 329,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner further pointed out that Government had already passed orders in respect of limestone deposits and had thus made the said rules applicable to the Dehra Dun limestone deposits (vide Government Orders Nos. 1296/UP/XVIII, dated 12-4-43 and 2419/L/XVIII, dated 27-7-43).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 161,
"end": 180,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 247,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 279,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On November 01, 2011 witness Uma Dhawan DW-3, was shown the will Ex.DW-1/1 and she deposed that the will Ex.DW-1/1 was the will which was executed by Sham Lal Chopra on February 09, 2006 in her presence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 20,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 39,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 165,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 186,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Subsequently, he sublet, assigned and parted with possession of the suit shop in favour of Sh. Subhash Chander/defendant no.9 without consent of defendant no.8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 110,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The subsequent stay at madras according to venkata subbaiah, should not be regarded as the place where they last resided together.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Their officiating an Agricultural Supervisors does not land to the accrual in their favour on any right to hold their posts and to be governed in the matter of their seniority by the length of their service as Agricultural Supervisors.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Her concern was her younger son Harshit who had already been removed to the hospital by Sanjeev Narula PW-5, who is the Crl.A. 635/2007 & Death Ref. 2/2007 Page 6 of 59 elder brother-in-law of Mukesh Sethi, the husband of Sangeeta Sethi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 102,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 254,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 285,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court determined rate of compensation relying on sale deed dated 11.7.1959, i.e., a document executed after almost three and half years after the date of acquisition notification.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 78,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Writ Petition No. 4007/2005 filed by Shri Balaji Baliram Bande, Member of the Zilla Parishad, Nanded who was elected from Jamb Division constituency of Mukhed Taluqa",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 27,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 100,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 135,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 165,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of his above contention, he relied on a decision of this Court in Jayalalitha v. The State, represented by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, etc., 1998 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 541.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 101,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 184,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, deducting 1/3rd of the annual income towards personal expenses as per Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deo Patodi [(2009) 13 SCC 123 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 29 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 963] and applying the appropriate multiplier of 13, keeping in mind the age of the parents of the deceased,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 189,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 27th February the learned Magistrate passed orders on Jitendra's application and directed it to be \"filed for the present,\" because he thought that in view of the petition of motion filed before the Sessions Judge, it would not be proper for him to make any further order in the matter at that stage.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This court in Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre Rubber Company of India (P) Ltd. v. Management & Others, held that since the introduction of sec. 11-A in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Industrial tribunal is now equipped with the powers to reappraise the evidence in the domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the said evidence relied upon by the employer establishes the misconduct alleged against the workman.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 99,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 146,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 183,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That the interpretation put to that effect on this provision by Mr. Justice Urs was correct and called for no interference.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 79,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In her statement, Mukesh (deceased) stated that she has got two Nanads (sisters-in-law), mother-in-law, father-in-law and her husband.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In similar circumstances, the observations made by Beaumont, CJ., in Emperor v. Ningappa Ramappa I.L.R. (1942) Bom. 26 : (A.I.R. (28) 1941 Bom. 408 : 43 Crl.L.J. 167) are very instructive and may be cited in extenso.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 59,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 166,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh. Labhu Ram was the original allottee as per the perpetual lease deed dated 15.03.1922 as filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 136,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accusation against the three respondents is that on 8.6.1986 at 2.0() P.M. they along with two others named in the complaint, shot and killed an elephant in compartment No. 13 of Kundurugutu Range Forest and removed the ivory tusks of the elephant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 64,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "9. Minister for Information & Broadcasting Discretionary Powers of :\n 1. Selection of DD Serials/other programmes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 42,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Kapse has drawn my attention to a decision of the Kerala High Court in P. N Ramchandra v. Section V. Annapurni Ammal wife of P. N. Ramchandra Iyer, .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 71,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 150,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per the contents of Ex. PW5/B, PW6 Surender Kumar sustained injury on Right Parietal area and aright Supra Occipital area of his head and there were \"deep penetrating cut on right parietal area and on right supra occipital area Sessions Case No. 6/14 Page no. 27 of 32 of skull\"; and seven stitches were given to him besides other treatment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 52,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One of the Magazines relied upon by the respondents refers to \"Another Denim Giant Enters India.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 95,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "104-106 of 2003#2003#Bikau Pandey andS Appeal (civil)#Appeal (civil) 4051 of 1996#1996#M/s Pepsi Foods Limited #Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh #2003-11-25#25622#4051#P. VENKATARAMA REDDI#Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 110,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 151,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 198,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 214,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If argument of Mr.Chagla is accepted the words \"under sec. 293\" would practically render superfluous and meaningless.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 62,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.1981 of the Orissa High Court in Original Judicature Case No. 412 of 1976.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 44,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 69,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 113,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All the\t petitioners except Simranjit Singh Mann filed fresh bail bonds.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 49,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also referred to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in the case of N.T. John (supra) for the contention that once the proceedings under this Chapter are commenced then no assessment be made by way of regular assessment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Judge Judge ns. Cr.A.No.722/2015 21.09.2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned Counsel for appellants Kashiram and Kishanlal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 32,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 102,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 116,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Income-tax Act, 1961, contains a special Chapter IX which is devoted to the subject of 'Double Taxation Relief\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 24,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 55,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is hereby ordered that the following Chief Commissioners of income-tax shall exercise the functions of the Central Government in their respective charges for the purpose of the provisions of section 269UF and section 269UG of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : ... \n\n5. Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore. \n\n (Sd.) N. K. Sangwan, Under Secretary to the Govt. of India.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 128,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 225,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 253,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 308,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 332,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 371,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defence of appellant Yadav was that he was not, in any way, connected with appellant Tripathi and has been falsely implicated in this case by interested persons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 97,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said fact has been established by the evidence of P. W. 6 Manoranjan and that of the doctor P. W. 4 Sunil Kumar Bhowmick who treated him while he was at the nursing home.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 72,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 124,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant's case is that the suit was filed with a malafide intention and oblique motive to shield or shelter its Directors from the rigour of the provisions of Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 184,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 218,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It ought to have convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 75,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 79,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sanction to prosecute the two applicants was obtained under Section 198-B (3) (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code from Sri N.G. Kaul, Home Secretary, U. P. Government, and the complaint was filed before the Sessions Judge, Lucknow.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 81,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 165,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 229,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the State of Maharashtra Section 9-A was added to the Civil Procedure Code by Code of Civil Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1977.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 27,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 39,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 77,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 138,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above mentioned terms and conditions contained in the brochure have been issued by Notification of the Punjab Government dated 30th January, 1997.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 124,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 149,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The District Magistrate, Neemuch, is at liberty to initiate proceedings for confiscation after conclusion of trial by the concerned Magistrate, in case, it is found that offence was committed by the accused and the vehicle in question was used in commission of the crime.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 32,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Appeal, Lord Sterndale, M. R. and Warrington and' Scrutton, L. JJ. distinguished the case on the same ground.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 74,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of Ramesh v. Savita, reported, in 3 MC 74 this Court was dealing with the question as to whether pending the application under Rule 13 of Order 9 the wife could maintain an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 53,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 157,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 213,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 239,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is obvious that the decision in Sarvate T. B.'s case 1966 M.P.L.J. 26 was not brought to the notice of this court while deciding Smt. Kamla Soni's case A.I.R. 1969 N.S.C. 186. (Civil Appeal No. 2150 of 1966 dated 26th September, 1969) or else this court would not have landed itself in such patent contradiction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 72,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 149,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 177,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 209,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 236,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The attention of this Court was drawn to the issues framed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad in CGITA No. 1476 of 2004 which read as under:\n Whether the reference is maintainable? \n\n Have the second party union got valid cause of action in this case? \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 132,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 158,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also stated, in his cross- examination, that he had made statement, under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that all the accused confessed their guilt, before him, individually.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 88,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 122,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand it is contended by Mr. P.C. Bhandari learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that there is no reliable evidence on record to show that after the agreement of sale was entered into between the purchaser and the seller on 22-3-1970 any offer was made either by the vendee or the vendor to purchase the suit property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 252,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such contingency however, has so far not arisen, on account of the petitioner himself having obtained even before his acquittal in the Moradabad case, an interim stay order dated 28-10-1991 from this court, prohibiting his transfer from the District Jail, Moradabad to any jail outside Moradabad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 144,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 189,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 265,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 295,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that situation he had informed that he would come and stay in his ancestral home on 15.09.2004.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana has submitted, on the other hand, that learned trial court has made a fair Crl.Appeal No.374-DB of 2002 .... \n\n assessment of the evidence coming from both the sides.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 40,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 144,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(since the complainant and her sisters are victim of sexual assault, their identity is withheld and they are referred to as PW1, PW2 and PW3). \n\n2.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 31.03.2008 adjournment was requested by ld. ARM which was strongly opposed by ld. ARW. ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 15,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is submitted that a complaint dated 17.09.2011 was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat and in terms of the provisions of Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., FIR No. 861 dated 24.09.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498-A and 506 IPC was registered at Police Station Chandnibagh, Panipat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 49,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 172,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 181,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 210,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 272,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 276,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 330,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further stated by respondent side that son of the petitioner is already well settled and is not dependent on the petitioner.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Paras 34, 35, 37 and 38 of the report read as under:\n(34) It is suggested by Mr. Seervai that Article 301 is merely a declaration by the Constitution marks and that it does not constitute any restriction upon the legislative competence of the legislature.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 105,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 149,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Perusal of the leave to defend application shows that the number of the family member of the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondent.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Whereas, on the other hand, if the time of performance is the essence of contract, any delay will render the contract CS No.194/2014 Hi Tech Polyflex Pvt Limited v New Life Pharmaceuticals Page 15 of 25 voidable at the option of the other party.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In view of the provisions of Order\u00adXII rule 6 CPC, it is clear that where admissions of the fact have been made either in the pleadings or otherwise , the court can, at any stage of the suit, pronounce the judgment on the basis of the said admissions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 49,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Vs. Dhaniram & Anr. reported in AIR 2011 Chhattisgarh 103. \n\n 7.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 57,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Then there are provisions for the payment of royalty to the State and sale of cement at concession rates to local consumers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This appeal arises out of a probate proceeding and is directed against a judgment and decree dated 16.09.1999 passed in Original Suit No. 5 of 1998 by which the application for probate to the Will in question was granted after a contest.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 109,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 147,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The remarks in the present\tcase were not\t of such a character, so\t as to\t call for the\t exercise of\t the extraordinary power of the High Court under s. 561 A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 175,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the complainant presented the said cheque for the encashment before his bankers, it came to be dishonoured with a bank endorsement as \"insufficient funds\" on 12.10.2009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 163,
"end": 173,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are conscious of the fact that sub rule (5) is part of the Rule captioned as single 'supervision of prosecution and submission of report' \u0016 referred to in clause (iv) of sub section (2) of Section 21.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 202,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There was an addendum to the conveyance and the agreement executed on 6th May, 2003.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 83,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "About kickbacks, there has undoubtedly been clear evidence and a reference to such evidence has been made by the Tribunal in its order.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Her statement can be reckoned as only an approximate statement.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After the High Court order dated 08.07.2013, the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Jaora has rejected the representation of the petitioners and the said order has been challenged by Shri Gopal Panchal and others by way of writ petition before this Court and the said writ petition is still pending.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 210,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He can reject items claimed as exemptions or deductions and arrive at his own determination of income and then proceed to determine the chargeable profits.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There is no explanation why as against this, the bus stopped in between and picked up Jagannath (D. W. 1).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 95,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "between the Governor-General in Council and any province if and in so far as the dispute involves any question (whether of law or fact) on which the exist- (1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 206. \n\n(2) [1959] F.C.R. 124 ence or extent of a legal right depends.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 179,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 204,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Defendants No.2 and 3, namely, Sudesh Kumar and Vidya Wati, also filed their joint written statement controverting the allegations levelled by the plaintiff.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 43,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 58,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the decision reported in (T. Arivandandam vs. T.V. Satyapal and another) AIR 1977 Supreme Court 2421, it was held in para-5 thus:-\n \"5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 103,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This decision also is of no help to us, as the Court did not decide on this point urged by the counsel for the appellant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He also preferred an appeal against the said order.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The other documents produced by DW.1 pertains to the entry made In the revenue records as per Exs.D16 to D21 and the receipts for having paid the land revenue as per Exs.D6 to D15. \n\n 15.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In view of the above findings and observations, DCP (South East) is directed to look into the above aspect by conducting fair investigation regarding the fact who is /are the real person/persons responsible for preparation and use of fake policy.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Then, why this blind faith in experts whom Jessel, M. R. described in Lord Abinger v. Ashton, (1873) 17 Eq. 358 at pp. 373-374, as remunerated witnesses available on hire to pledge their oath in favour of the party who has paid them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 49,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 111,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The copy of said complaint has sent to the Court of learned Magistrate on 19.10.1983, which was received in the Court at 3-00 PM i.e. after 4 days.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 84,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The procession was less than a kilometer in length.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "So far as the properties in suit are concerned, they are situated in four different villages namely, Goya, Salsood, Birdih and Bariatu.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 105,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 114,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 122,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 134,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before proceeding further we will deal with the question whether the Division Bench correctly refused to permit an argument that the impugned notice of 24-4-1960 fell under Rule 10-A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 152,
"end": 161,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 183,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first defendant, Syed Abdul Razack got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.20.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 38,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whereas in the evidence of some of the witnesses, it has come that 61 Cri.Confirmation Case no.3.2013 accused no.1 was holding katta and accused no.2 was holding knife. \n ",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Indeed, to prove her \"gross misconduct\", Ajoy Kumar Shome, assistant librarian of Victoria Institution, is examined as Sachindra's ninth witness.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 57,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 128,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The judgment in Reserve Bank (supra) was referred to contend that the provisions of the unfair labour practices can be enforced through the machinery contained in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 28,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 192,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If this be correct, then P.W. 2 Balaram Choudhury cannot be a member of the Sunri caste, having the surname of 'Choudhury', but no suggestion to this effect was made to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 49,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 121,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "TBIL made a reference before the BIFR (Bureau of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi) on 27th November, 1993 under Section 15 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 whereby it was stated that the company has become a sick industrial company under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 4,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 100,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 123,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 140,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 200,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 339,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been already remarked that the unbroken succession of wheat crops returned by the same land is often surprising, but sometimes the soil shows signs of complete exhaustion.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n The Supreme Court observed that the above observations will apply with added vigour to the field of education.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 20,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW2 had deposed that suddenly the lights were got on by the driver of the offending vehicle due to which he became stunned and lost Suit No. 334/14 Radha Devi Vs. Guru Enterprises & Ors.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In FAFO No.86 of 2010 considering the notional income to be Rs. 3,000/- per month and deducting 1/3 for funeral expenses, the annual dependency comes to Rs.24,000/-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 21,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "held that non-compliance of Sec. 50 of NDPS Act even in a case where recovery is affected from a trunk, after the investigating agency chooses to give such notice, would be fatal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 35,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 47,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So long as, as observed above, no factual investigation is involved, and on the admitted fact as appears in the appeal before the authority, when a prohibition is sought making out total lack of jurisdiction, this Court cannot hesitate to issue such a writ.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Viewed in this light, the proviso to section 147 of the said Act, carves out an exception from the main provisions of section WP(C) 4074/2007 Page No. 24 of 41\n 147.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 48,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is therefore but just that he should have the whole of January 1964 with a view to finding out a new lessee in place of Cultex guilty of having broken the agreement of April 30/May 1, 1964.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 171,
"end": 191,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The matter of termination of services of petitioner was considered in two parallel meetings on September 29, 1988, one under the Presidentship of Mehla Singh and another under the Presidentship of Surjit Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 113,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 157,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 209,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In further averments it is stated that the respondent no.9 Kripashankar Patel (wrongly mentioned as Shankar Patel) was not present on the date of incident as he was on leave for 10 days from 12.6.2012 because of marriage of his daughter Nandni scheduled on 18.6.2012, and he had resumed the duties on 24.6.2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 113,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 200,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 243,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 266,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 310,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and another, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460, wherein the Hon'ble",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 145,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As stated above, as many as six witnesses were examined including two officers of the Bank who conducted the preliminary enquiry and had recorded the statements of witnesses including Balwant Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 184,
"end": 197,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are not adverting to the other unnecessary details as it is very clear now that the claimants are pressing the claim for compensation only against the owner and the insurer of the M.A.C.A Nos.223 and 243 of 2007-B 4 lorry which had collided with the vehicle in which the deceased were travelling.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 183,
"end": 214,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Lower Appellate Court had mainly relied on the decision reported in Habib Seth's case 1968 All LJ 446 (supra) and had found on the basis of the same that Tajammul Hussain, the plaintiff, was not entitled to get any decree of possession in the present suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 105,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 174,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Kishore Bhargava 1992 Suppl. (2) SCC 92, the Chief Engineer who had given adverse entries against the officer in one year was appointed a member of the Screening Committee for deciding about the compulsory retirement of the officer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 83,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present challan, the accused was challaned for the violations of Section 66/192A & CMVR 138(3)/177 of M.V. Act,1988.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 105,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 123,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Other statutes providing for speedy action to meet emergent situations may well be construed as excluding the principle audi alteram partem.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The circumstances relied on are consistent with the entirely innocent relations of friends with a common interest in sports.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Section 19 gave power to the State Government to make rules and in the exercise of that power, the State Government made the Rules.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Lila Singh (appellant No.3) in his defence stated that he had been falsely involved in this case at the instance of Gurcharan Singh Sarpanch of village Panjmala.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 140,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 160,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I have already rejected the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that there has been any serious irregularity or illegality in procedure or failure to observe the principles of natural justice.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Announced in the open Court on 16th day of August, 2014 (SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI) ACJ/ARC/CCJ(West)/16.08.2014 E. No. 63/2013 Hari Shankar Vs Anwar Hussain and Others",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 55,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 161,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that the appellant Vijay Singh has not put forward the plea of the right of private defence in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 41,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 146,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 155,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Claims Tribunal is required to determine the application for payment of compensation either under section 140 or section 163A on the basis of no-fault liability and also on the basis of right to receive the compensation on the principle of fault liability on the basis of Law of Torts, as modified by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 read with Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 129,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 334,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 369,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "upon the interpretation of Article 217 (1)\n(a) of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 75,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The rules of construction applicable to taxation measures which are now well settled, some of which have been succinctly summarised by a Full Bench of this Court in C. Arunachalam -vs- Commissioner of Income Tax has ex-",
"entities": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 211,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Madhu (A.3) was identified by Dr. Latha (PW.1); and Akila (PW.2).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 39,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 57,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Panditji claimed that he knew Subhash Sharma and that he could help them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 44,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By the order dated 24-7-1987 J. P. Desai, J. dismissed the said application passing the following order:\n Heard Mr. S.S. Shah for the petitioners.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 28,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 125,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On account of her disability, she discontinued her studies.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The next witness on the defendant's side was one Bangesh Chandra Gupta, the guard of the train 743 Up.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 70,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, under Section 9(6) of the Code, what is required by the Sessions Court to see the general convenience of the parties and witnesses to hold its sitting at any other place in the Sessions Division than the place notified by the High Court, and that too, with the consent of the prosecution and/or the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "14. Protection of tenant against eviction: -\n Civil Revision No. 4025 of 2006 [ Section 14(6) of the Delhi Act restricts the right of a landlord to seek eviction in the event of acquisition of title.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 77,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 93,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 110,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On behalf of the respondent, Union of India, the arguments advanced by Mr. Roy Chowdhury have been mainly adopted and it has further been submitted that this writ petition is incompetent as the Bank for the purpose of Income Tax Act is treated and considered to be a company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 43,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 232,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nAnnounced in the Open Court (Anu Malhotra) today this the 01st day of District & Sessions Judge/ ARCT July, 2014 (West) Delhi ARCT No. 23/2013 Page 21/21",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the light of the above noted views expressed by the Apex Court in Jasvinder Saini (4 supra), the judgment in Prakash Chander (2 supra) may not be considered as laying down correct law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 127,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At this stage, it is relevant to extract the passage from the judgment of Vivian Bose, J. in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal : (AIR p.429, para 16) \"16.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 85,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 150,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'ble Madras High Court in case Sumathi Vs. Sengottaiyan and others, C.R.P. (PD) No.1591 of 2009 and M.P. No.1 of 2009 (decided on 05.02.2010), also took similar view while observing as under:-\n \"11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 29,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 124,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 147,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "v.\tNchanga Consolidated Copper Mines LTD [1965]58 ITR 241; followed",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 58,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Government has already issued a circular after considering the decision of Chanda Tamboli and Ramsukh (supra) and this Court also in case of Rajvendra and Ors. (supra) has very categorically laid down that the incumbents should be paid the minimum of the pay scale of 3rd Grade Teachers and they should be paid for the summer vacations also.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 154,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Varadachariar J., as he then was, pointed out \"that Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act which lays down that 'parties to a contract must either perform or offer to perform their respective promises' \" qualifies this statement by the words \"unless such performance is dispensed with or excused under the provisions of any other law.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 89,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During the pendency of the suit, one Indu Kakkar, appellant before the Supreme Court, got a registered sale deed from the allottee on 27-12-1989 of his rights in respect of the plot in question and got herself impleaded as second plaintiff in the suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 48,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is also no planning for community resettlement even though the Award of the Narmada Tribunal made detailed provision regarding rehabilitation of the oustees which required that there should be village wise community rehabilitation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 98,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such delay was, even otherwise, expected because the job was herculean one.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The mortgage is a document required to be attested by two attestors under section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act and in this case it is attested by two attestors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 84,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 116,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One or two subordinate staff was also included in the team and all the members of the team, so constituted by PW\u00ad8 K.K. Sood, alongwith PW\u00ad4 R. Roy, himself, reached Hotel 'My Inn' at 901, Chandiwali Lane, Paharganj, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 124,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 147,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 204,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 215,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 226,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is an appeal arising out of a suit for ejectment by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated the 28th June, 1979 of the Court of First Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil First Appeal No. 37-A of 1978, whereby it has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 28th July, 1977, of the Court of Third Civil Judge, Class II, Indore in Civil Suit No. 8A of 1972.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 128,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 184,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 223,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 295,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 348,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 377,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9876 /2012 Gajendra Singh Rathore Vs. RSRTC and Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 79,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "3. On 30-8-1968 respondent No. 4 Hakim Mohd. Shaukat Ali Khan presented an application to the Wakf Commissioner, Rajasthan, respondent No. 2, saying that the said building was wakf property, that its sale was invalid, that it was fit to be cancelled and that its possession should be recovered and entrusted to the Wakf Committee Dharamshala.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 15,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 61,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 122,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 341,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1) (2) Policy of Insurance- If drawn If drawn in 47. A.- Sea-Insurance [see Section 7 of Indian Singly duplicate for each Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899)] - part [ (1) for or upon voyage - [Five paise].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 86,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 149,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW.9 Digamber who was a witness of inquest turned hostile, but in his cross-examination he stated that he went to the house of accused Maroti at about 9.00 a.m. and had seen the body of the deceased with a piece of cloth tied around her mouth.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 13,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 141,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus so far as the point of interest of the minor is concerned, Jamuna Prasad has an adverse interest, not Smt. Pana.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The true position would appear from the deposition of PW11 that the notes marked Q418 to 436 were part of the notes recovered from Ranjit, State Bank, Syndicate Bank and the Municipality with which neither the accused persons nor the witnesses Ramzan or Thangaraj had anything to do.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 137,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 149,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 165,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 250,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 263,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sriyuths P. Sadashivan, Mariyappa, K.R. Srinivasan, Charian and Smt. Sadamba Rao were the Trustees of an Educational Society known as 'Javahar Bharati Education Trust' in Bangalore, of which, Sri P. Sadashivan was the founder-trustee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 59,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 166,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 180,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 209,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The punishment and order of sentence with regard to the offence under section 363 IPC i.e., RI for a period of 5 years with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, SI for six months, shall remain.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 81,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 85,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The assenting persons are examined as P.W. 7 (Perayya), P.W. 3 (Anantaramayya) and P.W. 2 (Pulliah), Sivayya, the other consenting party having died between the date of the adoption and the trial of the suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 53,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 77,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 98,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 108,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 9 was not enacted to curb the spirit of adventure among Indians or make them a nation of Koopaman- dookas.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 23 February 1968, notification under section 6 was published in the Gazette.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 19,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner was arrested on 9th November 2013 and was remanded to the police custody upto 13 th November 2013.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 112,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the matter was taken up for arguments on 31.7.2008, the aforesaid facts were taken note of which points out that Ms. Meera was not abducted by Shri Charan Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 55,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 127,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 165,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Madan Lal, 1999 (2) FAC 214, it was held \"admittedly there is presumption in law that a communication sent by post on the correct address of the addressee is presumed to have been received by him if it is not received back by the sender.\" \n\n71.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 60,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(c) the AO further noticed that the assessee Company claimed depreciation to the tune of Rs.14,17,500/- under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 127,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The order in Vinay Cement (supra) was passed by the Supreme Court on 7.3.2007 wherein it observed as follows:- \"Delay condoned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 25,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 77,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On an evening in April, 1984, when he visited her house uninvited, she protested to him strongly and told him that all that was unbecoming of a senior member of the Faculty.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The point for discussion is really Issue No. 1 in the suit which runs thus: \n \"Does Madras Act XV of 1946 apply to the property leased to 1st defendant and is he entitled to claim the benefit of its provisions?\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 105,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(11) The impugned order was passed on 11 June, 2013 and copy thereof was received by the petitioner on 17 June, 2013.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 116,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, reference need not be made to the Valuation Officer when the value of the asset is determinable as per the formula laid down in Schedule-III of the Wealth Tax Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 149,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 171,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was contended that though some of the castes included in Schedule-I of the Act may lack in political wisdom and may be inadequately represented in the political field, but they cannot be clubbed with the dominant castes, such as, Yadavas, Kurmis and Koeris, who are dominating in the political field.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 70,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was also laid down that where a quasi-judicial Tribunal records findings based on no legal evidence and the findings are his mere ipse dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers from the additional infirmity of non-application of mind and stands vitiated.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Harwinder Kaur wife of the accused raised a lalkara saying that who were they to stop him and on that lalkara Avtar Singh (appellant) gave a blow with his 'kahi' (spade) which hit on the forehead of Sucha Singh and he (Sucha Singh) fell down.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 121,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 210,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 230,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 25th March, 1953, of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No. 54 of 1953.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 61,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 134,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We may remind ourselves, here, that the elements comprised in sections 397 and 402 of the Act (Companies Act, 1956), are found in section 210 of the English Companies Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 82,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 115,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 141,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 170,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They have further submitted that before holding the examination qualifying marks were also not fixed by the High Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The photographs produced at Exhs. 47 and 48 of past and when compared with the photographs after the injuries, produced at Exhs. 50 and 51, it becomes quite evident that not only she has sustained disfigurement of face, but the whole integrity of the face is violently shattered.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Since accused respondents Hanuman Prasad, Parmanand, Jelhu Singh, Sanjay Kumar and Gaurav Kumar @ Ganga are on bail, therefore, they shall surrender before the trial court immediately and in case they do not surrender before the trial court, the trial court shall take necessary steps for arresting them and sending them to jail to serve out the remaining period of sentence. \n\n2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 40,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 51,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 64,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 78,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 103,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Order dated 18.03.2014 read as under :-\n\n \"Heard on I.A.No.1500/14, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. \n\n Learned counsel submits that the main eye-witness Prakash has not been deposed against the appellant Sikandar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 66,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 189,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 241,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Official Assignee having acquired knowledge about the telephonic conversation that had passed between Annamalai Chettiar and Ramdev Chokani on the evening of the 5th April, 1937, came to the conclusion that the insolvent had been a victim of a fraud perpetrated by the defendants and dismissed their claim.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 124,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 143,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 181,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri Madanlal, PW 85, Senior Inspector of CBI, New Delhi was the Investigating Officer of this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 56,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent No.1, Government of India (GOI), took a policy decision in the year 1992 to offer some of its discovered oil fields for development on a joint venture basis.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 36,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One Sahera Banu (sister of appellant-Zahira) filed the afore-noted Criminal Revision No. 583 of 2003 before the High Court questioning the legality of the judgment returning a verdict of acquittal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 100,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Meanwhile, opponent No. 2, Ramjibhai Nathubhai Chaudhari, who was driving a tractor No. GJM 9774 to which a trailer, No. GTE 9669 was attached, came there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 56,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We shall take lip first the second question, as argued by Mr. Majumdar about the true construction of Art. 235, Article 235 and the interpretation clause in Art. 236 run as under: -\n \"235. -",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 123,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 165,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "prosecution has failed to prove sale of contraband by Mohd. Aqil to any person on 19.09.2012 or prior thereto.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 64,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 92,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that the plea of want of notice under Section 80 C P. C. was raised by the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 67,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the version of PW-6 has been dis-believed, even if the arrest time is taken as 10:30 AM, this would in no manner advance the version of the appellant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": " \nMr. Ullal also strongly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhopalsugar Industries Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhopal .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 69,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 131,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further held that the effect of the acquittal of the three co-accused is that they did not co-jointly and with the appellant commit the murder.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He is therefore, entitled to his salaries for the months of October, November and December, 1954 and for ten days in January 1955. \n\n11.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There cannot be any controversy that Order XVI, R, 1, C. P. C. and Order XVI, Section 1(i) (including the proviso), C. P. C. (Rajasthan) cover the same field.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 53,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 62,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 114,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 124,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 135,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "e) Notice dated 16/07/2012 was issued to the defendant to vacate and hand over the actual, vacant and peaceful possession CS No. 162/13.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 26,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 135,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Juvvi Subbaramaiah and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered a similar question and held : \n\" As already stated, the two transactions in question are only a part of a larger activity of the assessee, and the other transactions were found to be admittedly in the nature of tejimandi contracts, prohibited outright by Section 19 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 367,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 415,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The relevant para reads as under:\u00ad \" 15 ... if the complainant is able to prove that the drawer of the cheque knew about the notice and deliberately evaded service and got a false endorsement made only to defeat the process of law, the Court shall presume service of the notice.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Date of Decision: 2.8.2011 Ram Dass Sadhu and another.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 26,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 52,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Chari contended that the High Court was in error in applying the provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act to the interpretation of article 13 (1) of the Constitution inasmuch as the provisions of this article were not analogous to repeal and did not amount to a repeal of the existing law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 92,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 119,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 159,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 179,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The complainant, DLC, has named the managing partner and a partner of SMC as witnesses, they were earlier arraigned as A-2 and A-3 in DLC's complaint 45/2011.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 20,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 73,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The objection under Article 14 was decided against the appellants by judgment dated the 22nd May, 1953.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 102,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A call was made by complainant at about 10 a.m. to accused Hari Chand who told that he along with accused S.K. Singh was coming in front of Cross River Mall.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 156,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sanat alias Bhontra, P. W. 5 who was one of the persons who had gathered there on hearing the cries of Nemai caught hold of Netai after the stabbing and Kamal who also had gone back to his house came out armed with an iron rod and struck at Sanat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 19,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 108,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 129,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 158,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 246,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW-3 Babulal stated that when incident took place he was at field of Chhitarlal and, Shrawanlal, Mahaveer and Jagdish were with him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 12,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 79,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 117,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court also observed in that case as follows : \n \"The discretion to receive and admit additional evidence is not an arbitrary one, but is a judicial one circumscribed by the limitations specified in O. 41, R. 27, Civil P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 223,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 235,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Indigenous manufacturers of High Security Plates can manufacture and supply registration plates on their own strength by complying with all standards and in conformity with all norms laid down in Rule 50 without entering into collaboration with any foreign partner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 196,
"end": 203,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Inasmuch as the first defendant has not disputed the correctness of the sale deed executed by the second defendant in favour of Defendant Nos.3 to 5, the sale of the Doctor's Lane house in favour of the said defendants is good and valid.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The 1st Appellant, Chintamanrao, is the Managing-Partner of the firm while the 2nd appellant, Kantilal, is its active Manager.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 102,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Explaining the effect of 42nd amendment the Constitution Bench at page 755 observed that \"All that has happened after the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution is to advance the point of time at which the representation of the employee against the enquiry officer's report would be considered.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 39,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 62,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 164,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He can call for the record of a proceeding pending before an assessing authority and pass such order in respect thereof as he thinks fit according to Section 21(1) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 163,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Gursahani, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, urged the following contentions before us :---\n(i) Maharashtra Country Liquor (Second Amendment) Rules, 1981 are ultra vires of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 174,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 210,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "v. State of Punjab: (2005) 6 SCC 1 wherein the Court observed as under:-",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 18,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 34,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In India, therefore, the said reciprocity clause/ provisions/ Notification by the Central Government is mandatory and therefore, in view of the admitted position prior to the date of agreement between the parties and the arbitral award in question, the provisions of Part II, as sought to be contended, are not applicable and therefore the arbitral award is executable/ enforceable in India as contemplated in Part I of the Arbitration Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 8,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 100,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 274,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 385,
"end": 390,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 410,
"end": 416,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 424,
"end": 439,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words, the case of the respondents was that at the time of the accident Respondent No. 2 had taken the vehicle-\"on a frolic of his own.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Otherwise also, when defendant in his cross examination himself specifically stated that no compromise had taken place with plaintiff on any date prior to 9-1-2013, then the reliance placed by counsel for defendant upon Ex. PW1/D-1 which is dated 27-9-2012 to show that compromise had taken place between parties vide this document is not acceptable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 155,
"end": 163,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 256,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One more document which was filed on record by the petitioners was the copy of the mutation certificate issued by the DDA showing Tej Singh, Manohar, Lal and the petitioners herein to be 1/6th shareholders of the property bearing no. 2956/41, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 121,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 139,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 148,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 153,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 254,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 266,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 277,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The applicant No. 4 offered to execute a fresh lease deed at a monthly rent of Rs. 2/- per square feet of the total area Subject to the condition that an additional area of 250 sq. feet will be provided for the residence of the Branch Manager and the residence in occupation of the Branch Manager will be released.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In paragraph 7 the witness has further clarified that he has named only those whom he had seen during the day on the bank of the canal but were not seen by him during the night.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "ACCOMPLICE:\n\tWhether a pointer an accomplice [See Representation of the People Act.] ...... 525 ACCUSED PLEADED GUILTY If lesser sentence could be awarded. \n\n Murlidhar Meghraj Loya etc. v. \n\n\tState of Maharashtra etc. .. 1 \tADMISSIONS:\n\tadmissibility in evidence",
"entities": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 214,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "JUDGMENT:\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 1977 of 1973.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have heard Mr. M. Mridul for appellant Surendra Pal Singh in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 29/79 and also Mr. N.N. Mathur appearing for non-petitioners No. 1 to 5, who are appellants in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 28/79.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 60,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 99,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 124,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 224,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In pursuance of Annexures A and B and Rule 7 of the Rules, the post of Assistant Registrar is not made of seniority alone and it involves comparative assessment of the officers appeared at the interview.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We do not think that the judgment of this Court in Narain Swedeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax(2) lays down any general proposition that the High Court hearing a reference is entitled to amend or reframe a question and call for a supplementary statement so as to enable a party to lead evidence which has not been led before the Tribunal or the departmental authorities.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 121,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A complaint was recieved by the Board that unfair means was used by the examinees at large scales at the said centre in answering the question papers of Intermediate Examination of 1973.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Per contra, Mr.Sathiyamohan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank contended that the writ petitioner was prosecuted for offence under Section 420 I.P.C., as he cheated 16 persons by representing to them that he will arrange for securing jobs to them in Saudi Arabia and he had received Rs.1.40 lakhs in all, took those persons to Mumbai and left them stranded there and the petitioner absconded from the place.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 158,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 165,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 278,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 349,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Public Prosecutor points out that in this case also, a bail application was pending on behalf of the detenu on the date when the order was passed, which was clear from ground No.(xxx) of the grounds of detention and, therefore, the detaining authority in this case could not be said to have been wrong in describing the detenu as a \u201cremand-prisoner\u201d though inappropriately.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Though Dr. Ashok Khurana PW6 claimed that about three months prior to the statement in court on 24-9-2001 petitioner Narinderjeet Singh approached him for consultation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 24,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 105,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 135,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "2. MG Brothers Lorry Services, \n Rep. by its Partners,\n YMCA Buildings, 2nd Floor,\n NSC Bose Road, Chennai-600 001.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 29,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent filed complaint no.125 of 1998 in the Women Cell, Delhi in September 1997 against the appellant's lawyer and friend alleging criminal intimidation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 45,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 70,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:\n 11/30 FA 169 of 2009.doc (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or write, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, qua warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 21,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pata Ram with other passengers was travelling in Nissan Jonga No. RRQ 7577, which was driven by defendant-respondent No. 4, Hassan Ali.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 61,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 134,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The person, who had been previously retrenched, raised the dispute seeking re-engagement and faulting the appointment afforded to a fresh hand.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The prosecution case further is that in the absence of an operating licence, the ownership of the two aircrafts also could not be changed from the name of M/s. Indamer and Co. (P) Limited to Capt Brinnand's name in the certificate of registration, kept in the Civil Aviation Department, Govt. of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 155,
"end": 187,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 204,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 285,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 301,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above - quoted observations make it clear that the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the proviso to Section 23D(1) furnished the criterion or the guideline for exercise of discretion conferred on the Director of Enforcement by Section 28.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 68,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 126,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 249,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was contended before the High Court that Section 14 covered the case, but Maclean C. J. expressly observed that they felt grave doubt whether the case fell within that section.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 54,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 84,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Except in the case of Mahesh Mehto and others vs. Shri Shankar Kumar Mehto (1999)(4) Crimes 461, in all other cases, it has been held:\nthat grant or refusal of bail constitutes an interlocutory order and no revision lies against such order under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. \n (Emphasis supplied) \n11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 95,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 260,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 271,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under sub-section (7) if the RTA refuses any application for grant of a permit, the reasons for refusal have to be communicated to the applicant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 21,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 32,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was submitted that the High Court was right in coming to this conclusion.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "First Appeal No. 430 of 1959, it clearly amounts to confirmation of the finding of the Court below, so far these plaintiff-respondents are concerned, and now that finding cannot be modified by this appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 28,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was stated that after the accident the police reached at the spot and took the injured to Trauma Center, where MLC No.334149/12 of the injured was prepared.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 130,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Circular dated 23.07.1987 provided for a six tier structure to be maintained in the Corporation for the Land Development, Agro Chemicals, and the Finance and Accounts Departments.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 29,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All the 39 workmen challenged their order of termination by filing separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 108,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 137,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While deprecating the practice by giving admission to the students in the respective educational institutions on the strength of interim orders, the Apex Court observed as under:\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 149,
"end": 159,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All this prima facie shows that petitioner No.1 and his family comprising himself and his wife need one room with attached bathroom, the two sons of petitioner No.1 namely Abhishek Goel (24 years) and Pursharth Goel (19 years) need at least one room each.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 172,
"end": 185,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 215,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ashok Kumar and Kewal Krishna preferred a petition for Special Leave before the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 16,
"end": 29,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 93,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is clarified that 8% meant for widow and 2% for divorcee would be on the 30% seats meant for women and not on the total posts.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is clear that though the surname Saha may have been assumed by members of other trading castes like the Gandhabaniks, there are families amongst the Sunri caste who are economically advanced and form a definite group and whose only insignia are the surname 'Saha' and their dislike for the original occupation of distilling liquor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 265,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Sevaka Perumal etc. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1991 (SC) 1463, Supreme Court held that :-\n \"In a trial for murder it is not an absolute necessity or an essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 66,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 81,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the said statement, P.W. 1 clearly stated that he knows A-3 right from the year 1987; while so, when it came to evidence he spoke as if A-3 was a stranger to him.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned Advocate-General has given three reasons in support of that contention.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As it was the mistake of the counsel he filed a petition for necessary amendment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Vasu Deo Ojha's case the Division Bench found the slips on which reliance was placed for the State, to be unacceptable as warrants because the endorsements on the slips bore no date nor stated that detenus concerned were remanded to jail custody.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The crux of the allegations against the appellant/accused is that on 02.12.1997 at 12 mid night, he trespassed into the residential building of deceased Suseela, aged 45 years, the mother of PW1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 79,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 160,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The jewels of the petitioner was received by the respondent and pledged in a bank.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It appears that the accused persons got confused with the two paras referred to above and therefore, thought fit to file an application for clarification/modification being Misc. Criminal Application Nos.15677/2014 and 16609/2014.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 173,
"end": 229,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\nThat on 14 December, 2008, the students of Institute of Business and Bio-Science, Kota, came on tour and after visiting Behrod arrived at Jaipur on 15 December, 2008.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 26,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 87,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 127,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 145,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 166,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Court was capable of operating on sale transactions concluded outside the province of Madras.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In James Dunber Smith v. Her Majesty the Queen, (1877-78)3 App. Case 614, 623 JC Sir Robort P. Collier, speaking for the judicial committee of Privy council, used the phrase `the requirements of substantial justice', while in Arthur John Specman v. Plumstead District Board of Works, (1884-85) 10 App.Case 229, 240, Earl of Selbourne, S.C. preferred the phrase `the substantial requirement of justice'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 102,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 156,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears to me that there would be no rational basis for classification in putting impleaded parties or their representatives against whom the suit has been dismissed as one class, different from persons who were not unpleaded in the suit.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He further deposed that CBI had interrogated him in this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 27,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that an inadvertent mistake, which had occurred during the presentation of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., wherein through oversight, statements of two eye-witnesses/injured, namely, Gurdev Singh son of Hari Singh and Teja @ Tejwinder Singh son of Rattan Singh, could not be attached with the report, although, both of them were cited as eye witnesses/injured and their medico legal reports were attached with the report.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 147,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 155,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 245,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 263,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 290,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 310,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this regard, the Petitioners have produced Ex.P.28 Salary Certificate dated 03.12.2014, which disclosed that, at the time of accident, the deceased was working as a part time Accountant in M/s Sri.Ram Builders and Contractors and his last drawn salary was Rupees 9,500/- per month.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 89,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 228,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff examined two witnesses, the first being one Adi Nath Das Gupta, as assistant in the firm of Sarawgi Trading Co.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 76,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 125,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection it is also necessary to refer to the evidence of one Vinod Kumar Roosia PW 11 who was examined to prove the inquest panchnama.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 90,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as the contributory negligence is concerned, while refuting the contention of appellant respondent, the Tribunal relied upon the statement of PW-2 Peer Mohammad who is an eye witness. PW-2 Peer Mohd., has made statement that accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the Bus of the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 154,
"end": 167,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 205,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An application was filed under order 9 rule 7 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex\u00adparte order passed against the respondent No.3 which was allowed vide order dated 2.4.2012 of my learned predecessor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 49,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 71,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 75,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 191,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "------------ Profit & Loss Account for the year ended 31.3.1995 is also relevant which is reproduced hereunder:- ALOK NURSING HOME PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31ST MARCH, 1995 INCOME SCHEDULE AMOUNT(Rs.) AMOUNT(Rs.) ------ -------- ----------- ------------ NURSING HOME CHARGES 3,839,830.00 CONSULTATION CHARGES 304,615.00 OTHER INCOME ------------ RENT RECEIVED 25,000.00 INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS 22,172.30 47,172.30 --------- ------------ TOTAL 4,191,617.30 ------------ EXPENDITURE ----------- BANK INTEREST AND CHARGES 82,224.74",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 63,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Moreover in Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors., [1980] 3 SCC 719 at 72-23 para 5 &\n6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 85,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[(Vide Karan Singh and Ors. v. Emperor, AIR 1928 All 25; State v. Fateh Bahadur and Ors. AIR 1958 All. 1; and K. Abdul Rahiman and Ors. Divisional Forest Officer and Anr., AIR 1989 Ker. 1 (FB)]\n \n\n20.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 55,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 104,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 192,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Investigating Officer also did not find any blood anywhere.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Jethmalani, rightly drew analogy from the dictum in Paragraph 101 in the case of Union Carbide Corporation (supra) wherein it is observed that the President cannot be liable W.P. No.3346/2015 to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he in the discharge of the duties of his office; and for this purpose his person must be deemed, in civil cases, at least, to possess an official inviolability.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 110,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 195,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This case was registered by CBI on 04/01/2013 on the written complaint dated 27/12/2012 of Sh. Himmat Singh Brar, complainant (herein after referred as PW6) Director\u00adIris Cabs Private Limited that his company had laid claim for Abatement and Cenvat credit in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax Division\u00adII, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 31,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 45,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 87,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 112,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 191,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 330,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In case of State of Gujarat v. Pratamsing Narsinh Parmar, (supra) the question for consideration in that appeal was, whether the Forest Department in the State of Gujarat wherein the respondent was appointed as a 'Clerk' can be held to be \"an industry\" within the meaning of the said expression under the Industrial Disputes Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 56,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 146,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 170,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 328,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, he alongwith father and brother of Prosecutirix went to PS Kamla Market and informed the police about the same.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 1.9.2006, they have brought P.W.1, an unwed pregnant girl of 16 years old, to Thayarammal Poly Clinic, Coimbatore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 116,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The objection was dismissed by the Deputy Custodian on 7-3- 1951.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 64,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The sample marked Ext. `A' was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of NCT of Delhi, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi for Chemical analysis.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 113,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 124,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What is meant by it is explained further by widening the ambit of the section by use of the word 'shall' and the expression \"all suits of a civil nature\" unless Regular Second Appeal No. 2805 of 2009 [13] \"expressly or impliedly barred\". \n\n 28.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 161,
"end": 199,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That the aforesaid observations are 'law declared' by the Supreme Court of India, and are binding 20 Cri.Appeal 972-12 on all Courts Tribunals within the Territory of India, cannot be doubted for a moment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 80,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 172,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She has stated that the accused No. 2-Kiran, the accused No. 3-Lalit, the accused No. 4-Ranglo (Ramesh) and the accused No. 5-Ashok and two unknown persons were giving",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 68,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 94,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All these cases are clearly distinguishable, and the only rule that emerges from these decisions is that no tax can be levied without the authority of law, the very principle which is embodied in Article 265 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 196,
"end": 207,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 227,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(R.K. GAUBA) District & Sessions Judge (South) Saket/New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 13,
"end": 62,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case, if there was no impediment in law the High Court could therefore, though allowing the appeal of the State by dismissing the plaintiff's suits against it, give the plaintiff a decree against any or all the other defendants who were parties to the appeal as respondents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But it is a judgment giving effect to the right of the petitioners to annual cash bonus under the Settlement by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "They were charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 60,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 64,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Section 200 Cr.P.C. reads as under :\n200. Examination of complainant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 14,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 15,
"end": 22,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In All India Films Corporations V. Raja Gian Nath (1969 (3) SCC 79) relied upon supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined about how rights of mortgagees are extinguished.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 67,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 112,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Chapter XII provides the Crl.R.P.No.3953/2007 13 procedure for information in investigation of the offence by the police.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n16. In ARUN KUMAR AGARWAL v. RADHA ARUN 4, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court observed similarly under similar circumstances as follows: \"Where such adulterer is named in the petition and evidence is let in to show that the spouse had intercourse with such person, the Court will have to record a finding that the spouse had a voluntary sexual intercourse with such named person.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 41,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Objections were filed by the employer and rejoinder was filed on 16.8.2005 (annexure no.25) by the Federation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 74,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the order sought to be implemented are dated 17.4.1969 and 19.5.1970, the execution application which was filed in 1971 was well within three years of the period of limitation expressed in section 122 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 74,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 206,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 243,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That Articles 31-A and 31-B of the Constitution with the 9th Schedule are void.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 27,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 47,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 69,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Tribunal's application of the law or inference from such fact that he still remained a clerk 2nd, therefore, was a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act is a manifest error patent on the face of the proceedings and within the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in the Kamath decision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 153,
"end": 176,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 289,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 303,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Scheme of the Act as well as the Rules provide the safeguards not to levy any excise duty when the factory suspends its production for more than 15 days continuously after adhering to the procedure for availing the abatement from the levy of excise duty.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We find that though the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section4A was brought into statute from 14.05.2003, how to re-determine the RSP in the case of mis-declared RSP was not \u0013prescribed\u0014 by the Central Government till the issuance of Notification No.13/2008-CE(NT), dt.01.03.2008.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 66,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 107,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 282,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of \"Bakshish Singh Vs. State of Punjab\" (AIR 1971 SC 2016) and \"Kanbi Karsan Jadav Vs. State of Gujarat\" (AIR 1966 SC 821) in which it is held that the accused would have given an information and dead body was discovered on that information then it is not a conclusive proof against the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 136,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 200,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Applications pending under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme as on the date on which this new Scheme is approved by the Executive DINESH KUMAR Committee of the Central Board will be dealt with in 2015.07.06 11:08",
"entities": [
{
"start": 133,
"end": 155,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 209,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was also submitted that further investigation during pendency of the petition and pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 19.10.2011 had served no purpose at all, insofar as it has been conducted under supervision of the same higher officer and has not unearthed any material leading to explaining the whole conspiracy and the role played by individuals other than the persons already accused in the charge-sheet filed, as aforesaid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 133,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner after the accident was taken to a private hospital from where he was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 114,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These appeals are preferred against the judgment and award passed by the learned Member of MACT as stated above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 95,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As far as addition towards future prospects is concerned, the issue has been examined at great length by this Court in HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Lalta Devi & Ors., MAC. APP. 189/2014 decided on 12.01.2015.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 209,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 223,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the statement of PW-20, it is evident that after getting treatment in civil hospital for two hours, the patient was shifted to Jindal Hospital at 10.30 a.m.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 147,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The autopsy of the limbs was done on 20.2.2005",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 46,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Chief Justice further held that the nature of proceedings in contempt were such, as not to bring them within definition of an offence within the meaning of Criminal P. C.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However, he was rightly convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Section 404 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 102,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 106,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further deposed that he came to know the name of drivers as Dharamvir and Anil and of cleaner Sukhvir Singh from Mahavir Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 81,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 110,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 129,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Ltatdguaghev.efnb1oyet:1 in Section 19(1) of the Karnataka Civii Courts Aet_ 'statihg\"e:'V_.tt{en the a1t1ount or vaiue of the subject matter of \"._tZ.h\u20ac o:'i.gt'h;9.1 suit or proceeding does not exceed Rupees Ten appeai shat} tie to the District Cotm', Clearly denotes that h it\u00e9s the value of the subject matter at the origins} preeeectirzg that determines the appeliate fomm.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 75,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Sridharan would engage us in a very detailed discussion, but what one finds is that if the legal issue is settled, SRP 77/83 WP2119.16.doc then, the peripheral or secondary matters can always be considered and decided on case to case basis.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As could be seen from the impugned judgment, the Mahazar, IMV report and seizure of the vehicle was done on the same day i.e., on 27.03.2007- the date on which the complaint was lodged which was about 2 months after the date of the alleged accident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 141,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S .T.. Road', \\.A|| are' Mlgslim by Caste \" --,and__R/at Kollegala Taluk, _ \"'--'_K0_lle\"gala town, . Charnarajanagar District.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 72,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 126,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n It may be said that Section 11 applies when the failure is to use all reasonable dispatch in entering on and proceeding with the reference and not when it is to use all reasonable dispatch in only proceeding with the reference.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 32,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ogston ana Tennant Co. almost copied these words \"London Candles\" with their labels.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 22,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Ms. Naveen Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana argued that Abhishek aged about one year and seven months was seen last time in the company of the accused on 10.5.2003.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 57,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 177,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Chagla submitted that the plaintiffs had, more than three years prior to the filing of the Originating Summons, disputed the interpretation of the same clauses of which they now seek an interpretation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "RCA No. 132/2011 has been filed by Regular Civil Appeals No. 37/2011 & 132/2011 Page No. 2/14 the defendant no. 1 by which his application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 156,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 171,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But this is not the only consideration that should weigh with a court in applying the provisions of the Act to prosecutions thereunder.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Against this order, records indicate that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Bhopal under section 27 of M.P. Public Trust Act 1951 and the same was dismissed on 02-03-2010 on the ground that the order is not appellable under Section 24 of the M.P. Public Trust Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 127,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 157,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 198,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 262,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 291,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned A.P.P. fairly states that though technically no case under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code is made out; harassment to Renuka is sufficiently established on record by examining these witnesses, as also P.W.11 - Laxminarayan, who happens to be father of Renuka.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 80,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 101,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 135,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 235,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 271,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the decision of the Board of Revenue.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 78,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 107,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Prima facie, one should have thought it was difficult to believe that not only the designation of Sanyal was changed and he was described as a Junior Grade Assistant but also his emoluments increased to Rs. 575/- per month and yet his work remained exactly the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 104,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The aforesaid application was finally disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on 15.2.2001 interalia, directing the Dental Council of India to take appropriate action to recognise the degrees of the students.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 84,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 133,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is well-settled that a decision of the Supreme Court cannot be ignored on the ground that there the Lordships have not considered the question of public policy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 55,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n \"The Indian National Congress (INC) has pioneered reservations for minorities in Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh in Government employment and education on the basis of their social and economic backwardness.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 38,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 90,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 101,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 120,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case, however nothing like that has happened: on the contrary, the Magistrate was postponing the inquiry from lime to lime and was awaiting the submission of the final charge-sheet by the police.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In my view, therefore having sought an interim relief and an order thereon having been passed, the respondent/workman cannot possibly be contended to seek the same relief as an interim relief in the present application.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If it can be said that these armed constables had to take their orders from the accused head constable Pore as the official in-charge of the police out-post at Kolad then they might as well be directed by the accused head constable, to give effect to his threat, to take Dattaram to Roha in a hand-cuffed condition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 107,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 165,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 279,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 287,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now coming to the Leather Industries Development Corporation -- which is the Corporation concerned in W. P. No. 854 of 1979 -- it was directed to be created by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 835, dated 7-9-1973.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 60,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 123,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 211,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff filed the replication and reiterated the averments made in the plaint.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was, under these circumstances, that the trial Court awarded R.I. for 3 years, to the accused, for the offence, punishable under Section 376 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 143,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 147,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before the Tribunal, claimant No. 1 was examined as PW 1 besides one Syed Mohamed as PW 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 81,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There the Hubli Municipality published a now revised assessment-list under Sections 80 and 81(1) of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1925, on 31-3-1939.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 28,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 96,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 139,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 153,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said test was also contemplated to be conducted for the Self Financing Affiliated Colleges of Education in the State of Haryana.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 131,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Providing for imposition of a premium which is nothing but a fee, will have to be held to be ultra vires, the provisions of the MRTP Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 128,
"end": 136,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "it is no business of the police to continue with the investigation or to start a fresh investigation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We, therefore, quash Ext. P-2 order to the extent it suspends the results of the petitioner's Pre-Degree examination and debars him from appearing for any examination or conducting studies.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Date of decision: 21.12.2012 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Patiala ......Appellant(s) Versus Smt. Rajo Devi & ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 28,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 116,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the petition has been filed U/s 166 M.V Act it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that she sustained injuries in an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, the driver of the offending vehicle No.DL\u00ad2C\u00adAP\u00ad5911. \n\n11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 38,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 46,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been further observed that the Parliament advisedly did not provide for enlargement of time because every elected office has a fixed term, and the election petition challenging the same must be disposed of most expeditiously.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 48,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n d) The Registry shall forthwith communicate the order to the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram forthwith.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 120,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The concept of compensatory taxes was propounded in the case of Automobile Transport , in which compensatory taxes were equated with regulatory taxes.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court observed that the provision of Section 96 (2) (b) (ii) of the Act of 1938 is in parimateria to Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act and referred to Skandia Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan ,(1987) 2 SCC 654 and quoted with approval the following observations:-\n \"12.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 72,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 137,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 242,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The third and unreoorted case Cri. Misc. Case No. 737 of 1969.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 61,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not disputed before us by the counsel on both sides that there is only one Court at Kolhapur, viz., the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 98,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 17 of the Registration Act clearly provides that any document (other than testamentary instruments) which purports or CS No. 07/13 Page 22 of 35 operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future any right, title or interest whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs. 100 and upwards to or in immovable property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 14,
"end": 34,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 3rd respondent Sarpanch filed O. P. No 33 of 1966 on the file of the Principal Munsif-Magistrate's Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 53,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The driver had the competence to drive such a vehicle, tractor with a trailer carrying goods being of light motor vehicle category transport vehicle which is the question involved in the instant case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was held that it was not necessary that the person or corporation rendering services should be situated outside India and it was sufficient to attract sub-clause (viii) that services are rendered outside India even if the person or corporation performing such services is situated in India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 120,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 171,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 212,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 292,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To buttress his contentions, the Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of Assam High Court passed in the case of Bholanath Thakur and another Vs. Sarvananda Kotoky and others, reported in AIR 1966 Assam 41.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 108,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 223,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There can be an escape from assessment only when there is an assessment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On this reasoning also we hold that the order of the CIT (Appeals) is correct.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that:-\n (i) The accused No.1 was the Manager of Bank of India, Hanumanthanagar Branch, Bengaluru during the period from May-1999 to July-2001 and accused Nos.2 to 5 were the Directors of M/s.Nandh Product Promoters Pvt.Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 136,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 147,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 274,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There has since been quite a number of important decisions of this Court, other High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Constn. conceives of an impeachment of the President of India, Comptroller and Auditor General of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 107,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One may refer to Section 5.4.1(3) here.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 33,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I must also note that the legislature does have experience in enacting provisions conceding the powers for confiscation to specified non-judicial authorities who are to exercise quasi judicial functions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However, the petitioner-company again started investing the deposits in the manner prescribed by the 1987 Directions on and from January 31, 1992.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 145,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this factual scenario, it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge and remand both the suits to the learned trial court for trial.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was also denied that compensation assessed by LAC in respect of the land acquired is either inadequate or that it does not represent the true market LAC-07/13 Page:-4/14 value of the land as on the date of notification U/s 4 (1) of the L. A. Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 224,
"end": 231,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 248,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Smt.Vimla Jain) Judge manju Criminal Revision No. 463/1999 11/04/2014 None for the applicant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 15,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 59,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 70,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On merits it has been argued by Mr. Bhat that the essential ingredients of Section 7 of the Act have not established inasmuch as no official work was pending with the accused-appellant and the allotment work was done by the Manager and, hence, he could not have shown any official favour.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 84,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 100 deals with administrative powers of Zilla Parishad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The co-accused, Aruna Chadha moved an application seeking clarification of order dated 25.07.2013 passed by this Court in Crl.M.A. No.14966/2013 and 14965/2013 and in Crl.Rev.P. No.305/2013.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 159,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 189,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Rajasthan High Court in Bhuramal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan took a similar view.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 24,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 67,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court mentioned some of the factors which are required to be considered in deciding whether the language of a particular enactment is to be understood as indicative of the retrospective operation of the Act and held that normally a statute is to be interpreted, as far as possible, not to defeat vested rights.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question posed was that since presently there is a valid order remanding them to judicial custody, even if there was a prior infringement either of Article 22(1) or 22(2) of the Constitution or Section 50 of the Cr. P.C, the said illegality stood cured and in any case has become irrelevant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 152,
"end": 174,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 194,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 208,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 223,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further argued that RW-1 Inder Singh in his cross examination dated 28.09.2013 while admitting that respondent no. 1 Darshan Kumar is a tenant in the suit premises in his individual capacity went further in stating that respondent no. 1 Darshan Kumar is not residing in the tenancy premises since long and is residing at Rajouri Garden, BLK-189 (MIG) Flat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 43,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 137,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 257,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 342,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the name of availability of the commercial premises, the petitioners have got only the first floor and second floor of the property bearing no.3/13B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi, which is entirely in occupation of the tenants.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 177,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further averred that the 1st petitioner-Association also submitted another application dated 18-4-2006 under the Right to Information Act 2005 to the Public Information Officer-cum-Municipal Manager of Bapatla Municipality seeking for copies of (i) documents submitted by the 9th respondent at the time of the nomination in the month of September 2005 and (ii) Caste certificate filed by the 9th respondent at the time of filing of nomination.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 108,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 228,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Consequently, both options (3) and (4) are correct.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If so, that jurisdiction,\"as restored under Ordinance XXVII of 1949 by the amendment thereby of the said items 62 and 63 thus bringing it into line with section 188, Criminal Procedure Code, with the requisite adaptations.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 67,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 120,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 164,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 189,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case no offence under Section 304 of IPC is made out against the applicant, as the deceased is trained lineman and he should have taken due precaution and care before restoring the power supply.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 126,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 133,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The contractor was being repeatedly asked to furnish security deposit in terms of the contract.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "An earlier decision of the Kerala High Court (1964 KLT 298) gave rise to a Commission appointed to recommend which sections of the people required special treatment under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution, having regard to their social and educational conditions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 181,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 201,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It further held that if caste is taken as themselves as the sole basis for determination of social backwardness of a group of citizens, the test may break down in relation to many sections of Indian society, like Muslims, Christians and Jains.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 192,
"end": 206,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The material common facts relevant for the purpose of disposing of these revision applications are as follows:",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The appellants, M/s. Lundgren and Rollven, have to show that it passed to them and passed, too, before the beginning of the voyage.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 41,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dr. PS MALIK Addl. Sessions Judge N/E Karkardooma Courts, Delhi",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In his order of provisional assessment the ITO set out his grounds for rejecting the claim of Siemens.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 101,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That was again rectified under Section 154 and assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 12,705 on September 16, 1958.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 125,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whereas, the RW 1 Sh. Jakir Ali in his affidavit Ex. RW 1/1, filed in the year 2013, stated that the respondent was inducted as a tenant ten years ago i.e., 2003.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 31,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Circle Inspector of Police, Kundara police station in Crime No.108 of 1999 of Anchalamood police Crl.Appeal No.1585/05 & R.C.No.1/05.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 54,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 78,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 100,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 136,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It would also be subject to the same limitations as held in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India.' \n \n\n 11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 89,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The other learned Judges - namely, Gupta, Tulzapurkar, Fazal Ali, Desai and Pathak, JJ - who were parties to the above judgment have all agreed in general with the view expressed by Bhagwati, J. on the question of locus standi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 53,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 64,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 71,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 82,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 190,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On November 1, 1950, Dr. K. P. Banerjee was appointed the Assistant Medical Officer of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate, whose management is the respondent in this appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 19,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 111,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These particulars supplied by the election-petitioner were in the nature of his supplemental pleading.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "To cover up that, totally false allegations are being raised against the accused persons, it is contended.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In view of the decision cited (supra), I have also awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant and a further sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss to the estate to the claimants apart from granting interest at 12 per cent per annum.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The workman Munni Lal directly filed the claim petition against the management raising the industrial dispute of ID No. 340/11 Munni Lal Vs. M/s USO International Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 1 out of 28 his illegal termination.\n\n2",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 169,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 206,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioners who have transferred the shares through respondent No. 2 and thereafter it is respondent No. 2 who has set them up, their conduct is not bona fide, therefore, in equity they are not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under section 155 of the Act and the court will not be justified in exercising jurisdiction in their favour.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 240,
"end": 251,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to negligence of non-applicant No. 1 Rajendrasingh and compensation was payable to the claimants by Rajendrasingh and the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 106,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 169,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel further submits that the view taken by Shinde J. and Deshmukh J. does not notice provisions of sub-Section (2) of section 16 of the Amendment Act, 2002 so also the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of State Bank of Hyderabad and Sumesh Singh (supra) and will therefore have to be held as per incuriam.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 61,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 77,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 140,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 167,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 207,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 247,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 264,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As already indicated, the statutory (1) [1952] S. C. R. 583.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 59,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Firstly, that he has not received any legal demand notice from the complainant and Secondly that the blank signed cheque in question Ex. CW1/2 has been issued by him as security to the complainant at the time of taking of the loan and not in discharge of his loan liability as alleged by the complainant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This is more when the provision is discriminatory as it creates a discrimination between the petitioner University and the other University created under the M.P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 158,
"end": 194,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the purpose of brevity, the various petitions, orders, rules, etc. shall be referred to as follows:-\n (1) Air India as \"A.I.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "To carry the matter further : Suppose the Federal Parliament were to, lay a tax on the owners of motor cars, and carts, and guns, and dogs and sheep.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As is apparent from the above, the brands discontinued in Tamil Nadu by the first petitioner and the others, have been approved in Andhra Pradesh at the existing prices (1999-2000).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 68,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 145,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On March 1, 1960, the Governor issued a notification containing Order No. GAD 7 ORR 60 dated March 1, 1960, ordering \"that for direct recruitment to appointments and posts in the services of the State, reservation for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes shall be 15% and 3%.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 16,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 106,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In his cross-examination on behalf of accused Bharat Bhusan nothing of consequence has come out and statement that he had gone with Bharat Bhushan to the cinema House has not been shaken.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 146,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "THE UTTAR PRADESH ABSORPTION OF RETRENCHED EMPLOYEES OF GOVERNMENT OR PUBLIC CORPORATIONS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE RULES.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 117,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Satya Narayan Singh was not granted any permit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, the Ld.Addl.PP has relied upon the judgment reported as, \"(2007) 2 SCC 170\", titled as, \"Ramdas & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra,\", wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:\u00ad xxxxx \"24. ...........",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 93,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 146,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 183,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of State of Punjab v. Balbirsingh , the Supreme Court has observed that Section 43 which deals with the power of seizure and arrest in public places is slightly different from Section 42 of the NDPS Act in certain respects.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 45,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 198,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 214,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Moopil Nayar or senior member of this family for the time being was the ruler of the Kavalappara State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 106,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh. Kamal Kant Khandewal, handwriting expert was also examined as R4W3 and relied upon photo enlargements Ex. R4W3/1 to R4W3/9 and their CD Ex. R4W3/10, his report Ex. R4W3/11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 24,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In order that a deduction may be claimed under its provisions it must be proved first that there was an expenditure, secondly, that the expenditure was not in the nature of a capital expenditure- I am leaving aside the personal expenses-and, thirdly, that it was laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee's business-I am leaving out profession or vocation. \"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 24.09.2008, informant Amit Kumar Saxena went to the P.S. Malviya Nagar and gave a written complaint (Ex.PW1/A) to police that on 18.09.2008, he left for Saket Mall from Noida at about 6:00 p.m and reached at Saket Mall at about 6:45 p.m.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 73,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 142,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 177,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has also argued that the findings of the said court as well as the reports submitted before the Ld. Trial Court by the Protection Officer, clearly indicate that the appellants were in 'domestic\u00adrelationship' with the respondent and the respondent was residing in a \"shared household\" with them, during the relevant period.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "At about 6:00 pm they were present at Nehru Place bus terminal, a secret informer met him and informed him that a person namely Abid @ Guddu who is a BC of PS Govindpuri will came at near Shamshan Ghat, Kalkaji to meet some person at around 7:00 pm on motorcycle bearing no. 2496 alongwith illegal arms with him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 49,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 140,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 169,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 210,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Justice Chaturvedi, before whom this application came up for hearing held that the application under (1)(1952) 1 L.L.J. 195. \n\ncl. 5(a) was maintainable and the Appellate Tribunal had erred in holding otherwise.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 127,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 139,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All these witnesses were included in the list of 36 witnesses mentioned above.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is stated that in the State of Tamil Nadu when 88 omni buses are paying tax on floor area basis and while so, the writ petitioners, who provided seats below 36, cannot make grievance on levy of tax on floor area basis.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 44,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The third objection of the objector is that the bid of Mohd. Yunus of a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- was accepted and he was asked to deposit 25% of the amount of bid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As discussed above a suit can be withdrawn with or without permission of court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW14 also admitted to have got registered criminal cases against ASI Sukhdev Singh, HC Mahender Singh of Police Station Hari Nagar prior to May 2007 and at that time Sh. N.M. Singh was the SP of CBI.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 101,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 130,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 180,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 198,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under the Constituition of United States of America Amendment 14, no State can make of enforce law which abridges the privileges or immunities of the citizen of the United States.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 51,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 178,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The section salesmen, propagandists, local travelling salesmen, local salesmen and drivers did not belong to the depot establishment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Ordinarily, one would not make such a demand to a person whom he knows is not in a position to meet it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Farooq Hasan, J. \n\n1. Kanaram, Hanuman, Bhanwar alias Bhura, Jeewan, Gopiram, Ratna Ram, Chhitar, Phula and Mohan, all the appellants in this appeal are aggrieved against the judgment dated 23rd April.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 38,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 67,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 76,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 96,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 103,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 113,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the facts of the case before it, by applying the aforesaid principles, the Supreme Court held that quashing of charge in the criminal proceedings at that stage was not just and proper.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[1960] 2 SCR 311, The General Manager,\nSouthern Railway v. Rangachari",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 73,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Opponent No. 1A/4, Laljibhai Joitabhai, was party to the original petition also as opponent No. 1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 38,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Court, with utmost respect to the learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court, cannot accept and follow the said judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent 1 Santi Ranjan Somaddar was employed by the petitioner since 1-2-1947 as an assistant bill clerk.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 34,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 80,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, it is stated in that document that he was a resident of KGF at the relevant point of time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 78,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All these writ petitions have been filed by the Government of Puducherry and its Subordinate Officials challenging the common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, dated 17th September, 2007, in various original applications filed by different applicants.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 72,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 184,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 212,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri Singh was referring to us in the above context the evidence of PW3, the Investigating Officer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To permit any such action would be a negation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 96,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even Patna High Court CWJC No.17151 of 2014 dt. 19-04-2017 though, we find no case made out for allowing the prayer made by the petitioner for declaring second proviso of Section 3(2) of the Entry Tax Act to be ultra vires; nor do we find any case made out for holding that recovery and imposition of entry tax on the petitioner by the impugned order is illegal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 21,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 43,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 58,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 183,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 204,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case of CT. A. CT. Chidambaram v. CT. A. CT. Subranianian, AIR 1953 Mad 492 was also referred to by learned Counsel and reliance was placed on the principle laid down by Venkata Rama Aiyar, J., as he then was, at page 497, paragraph 12 of 'the report.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 79,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 192,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, he has not adverted to his statement given on oath as DW1.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Sections 260-A and 268-A of the 1961 Act will now have to be interpreted by reading the two harmoniously, so as to give effect to the aforesaid two provisions keeping in mind the objects and the reasons on the basis whereof Section 268-A was inserted into the 1961 Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 24,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 237,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now before we proceed to consider the true meaning and connotation of the words \"not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit\" occurring at the end of the definition of \"charitable purpose\" in section 2 clause (15), it will be convenient to dispose of a short contention raised on behalf of the Revenue in Tax Reference Nos. 10 to 14 of 1975.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 205,
"end": 226,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 353,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The section makes it clear that excise is levied only on the amount representing the manufacturing cost plus the manufacturing profit and excludes post-manufacturing cost and the profit arising from that post-manufacturing operation, namely selling profit.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Pirthi Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, also reached there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By that resolution the Municipal Council considered the appeal filed by the. respondent Vidya Varidhi Thirtha Swamiar against the proceedings of the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council dated 18 April, 1970 refusing licence for exhibiting cinematograph films in the building situated in Moodanidambur village.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 117,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 208,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 310,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 621 of 1970 which was decided along with Writ Petn No. 619 of 1970 (D. N. Chanchala's case supra) by the Supreme Court had challenged the validity of Rule 4 (h) of the rules for selection of candidates for admission.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 47,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 102,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 119,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 154,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 196,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is greater danger, in India, of increase in violent crimes if capital punishment is abandoned, particularly, in respect of professional criminals.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 33,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As far as the issues framed are concerned, it was contended that though in terms of Section 5 of the Act, the 1st respondent is to dispose of Ext. P1 in accordance with the procedure as applicable while trying a suit under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, issues were not framed with notice to the parties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 93,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 253,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 20(2) does not provide for a claim in anticipation of a breach of the statutory provisions, under which the employer is bound to pay the minimum wages, if the contract rate of wages was lower.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Madras Act, which was extended to Pondicherry, was as it stood on let April, 1966, and the Pondicherry Legislature made it effective in Pondicherry by passing the retrospective Amending, Act, which Act itself as. published On 9th November, 1966.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 49,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 118,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 151,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 248,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "R. M. Hajarnavis and G. C. Mathur, for Intervener No. 2 in C. A. No. 132 of 1955.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 80,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On calculation Suit No. 625/12 Page No.7/11 on that basis, the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 3,56,400/- and after addition of a sum of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- the total amount would be Rs. 4,01,400/-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 43,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(2) The propositions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in A.R. Antulay case5 adequately take care of right to speedy trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 65,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 146,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Surely, it could not have been the intention to convey that the Tribunal erroneously relied on the Calcutta High Court judgment while deciding the case of RIL, because what the Tribunal in Bajaj Auto Ltd. actually said was that the facts of Bajaj Auto Ltd. were different from the facts in Balarampur Chinni Mills Ltd. (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 204,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 256,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 318,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "3) The National Human Rights Commission undertook a comprehensive review of the existing Act and made recommendations for comprehensive amendments therein vide its Annual Report 2001-2002.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In exercise of the power conferred by Section 9 of the Act of 1956, the Central Government promulgated The National Highways Fee (Determination of Rules and Collection) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2008).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 47,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 90,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 180,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri S.K. Jain, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, P.W. 6, has stated that he inspected the business premises of M/s. Roda Ram Lal Chand at Baba Bakala in Amritsar District, on September 2,1, 1963 and from those premises, the Dasti Bahi, ex. P.Y., was taken into possession by him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 14,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 142,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 157,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 178,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 202,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 242,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Chairman of the KEB sent a reply dated 27-2-1999 explaining the position of KEB: \n\"Bangalore City, for a large part is served by overhead lines extending over 13,574 kms.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 23,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 52,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 83,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 101,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I do not think it is necessary to apportion the blame between the Accountant-General and the State Government in the matter of preparation of accounts for the purpose of these cases.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Since MCrC was filed in 2004 itself and ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 24.12.2005, the argument that the appellants were aware about the judgment and decree in 2004 is devoid of substance.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 93,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has its registered office at 530/1, 3 and 4, Village Bijwasan, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 64,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 75,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though the learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab stated that there had been an enquiry, we fail to understand as to how there can be an enquiry without regestering a criminal case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 60,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in a very recent judgment in Zolba vs. Keshao and others, 2008 AIR SCW 2739, where the Supreme Court held as under :-\n \" The use of the word `shall' in Order 8 Rule 1 by itself is not conclusive to determine whether the provision is mandatory or directory.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 121,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 146,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 212,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC Act)\u00ad05, (ACB), (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Corruption Case No. : 33/2008 FIR No. : 71/2006 Case Identification No. : 02401R0465682008 PS : Anti Corruption Branch Under Section : 7/8/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & 420 IPC STATE Versus Om Prakash S/o Late Shri Bhagat Ram R/o Village & Post Office Mundhela Khurd, Delhi \u00ad110073.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 36,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 107,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 137,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 198,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 249,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 287,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 293,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 297,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 303,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 321,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When this appeal was heard, section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code after its amendment of 1976 was in force.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 39,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 67,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As has already been discussed above, the accused were not identified initially 19.5.2003 when the incident had occurred inasmuch as a search for the accused was made at various places by Harpreet Singh Inspector/SHO (PW17) and by ASI Kanwaljit Singh (PW14).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 201,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 249,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That takes us to the impugned seniority list of 1974.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "12. MW-136 Papa son of Detainecijbr 8 days Hegde Madaiah in MM Hills.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 56,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 68,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This witness has deposed that the respondent was conducting business of M/s Amigo Industries and was looking after affairs of M/s Amigo Industries and was also interacting with customers and clients.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 92,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 146,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact a Bench of this Court in Sundaram Finance case (supra) while considering the scope of Section 9 of the Act has approached the problem from this perspective and incidental observation has been made that Section 11 does not require the Court to pass a judicial order appointing arbitrator.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 49,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 220,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[1077G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1979.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 85,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "the Apex Court has observed: \n\n \"3. It is now well settled legal position that the Irrigation Department and Tele\u00ad\n communication Department are not an `Industry' \n within the meaning of definition under the Industrial Disputes Act as held in Union of India v. Jai Narayan Singh, 1995 Supp. (4) 672 and in \n State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Verma, JT 1996(2)\n \n 455.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 502,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 707,
"end": 742,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I again told him that as per our office order I was to give water only for one hour for a particular area and if he wants supply for any further time more he may go to our office and obtain order to that effect.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court held that the new Act applies and Section 6 of General Clauses Act is not attracted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 61,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 84,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "YOGESH S/O C MAHADEVAPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS NO.6531, BASAVAKRUPA, 16TH CROSS NAGESHWARAN LAYOUT,NANJANGUD MYSORE DISTRICT WORKING AS MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR AT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE AT BANGALORE WEST 7.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 13,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 117,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 195,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As a result of the above discussion, Appeal Nos. 801 of 1993, 798 of 1993, 800 of 1993, 797 of 1993, 794 of 1993, 796 of 1993 and 795 of 1993 are allowed and the awards passed against the insurance company are set aside.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 141,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Needless to say in case of any difficulty in respect of any of the directions, it is open to any person or party concerned to make appropriate application for consideration. \n\n This matter is disposed of in the above terms. \n\n GITA MITTAL (JUDGE) September 29, 2009 kr",
"entities": [
{
"start": 227,
"end": 238,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 265,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From bare perusal of documents Ex.DW1/A and DW4/A to Ex.DW4/D, in the light of aforesaid judgment, it appears to be just a guideline to the State mentioned therein to set up administrative machinery to work out the details contained therein in order to implement the Scheme.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was argued on behalf of the petitioners in this case that Hari Prasad Sah, respondent No. 3, was not discharged by the petitioners but he left the job of his own accord.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 76,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 06.12.2003, a complaint was lodged at P.S Rajender Nagar by Sh. J.K. Gupta, brother of deceased to the effect that his brother Dr. R.K. Gupta r/o Apartment no. 89, Priya Apartments, Sector\u00ad14, Rohini, Delhi left his house at 10.00 am for his work place Sir Ganga Ram hospital on 05.12.2003.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 59,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 144,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 202,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 209,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 278,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 292,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, simply because the service Rules have not been amended, that would not be enough to say that the concept of graded promotion is still in existence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Further, it was submitted that the prosecution case Crl.A.Nos. 786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 15 about use of a dagger, for killing Manoj, is falsified by the FSL report, which revealed that the blood stain on the dagger did not show any reaction, on its testing. \n\n25.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 86,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 135,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 160,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Legal notice of demand dated 14.08.2008 is Ex. CW1/L, Registered post receipt and UPC certificate vide which the aforesaid notice was sent is Ex. CW1/M and Ex. CW1/N respectively, the returned AD Card is Ex. CW1/O and the reply sent by the accused dated 29.08.2008 is Ex. CW1/P. CW-1",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 39,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 264,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In another case R. v. Australian Stevedoring Industry Board (1952)88 CLR 100 the High Court of Australia was called upon to review the conduct of a Board empowered to cancel the registration of an employer of dock labour if \"satisfied\" that he was unfit to be registered or had so acted as to interfere with the proper performance of stevedoring work.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 76,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 104,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "20) According to Dr. Subhash Jain (PW4), deceased told to him that she got burnt while cooking food which he recorded in her pre M.L.C. Report Ex. P/4, whereas according to dying declaration Ex. P/8 recorded before him by S.R.Vishwakarma (DW1), deceased told that she got burnt while preparing tea on the stove and spreading of kerosene from the cane.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 237,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But the Government of Maharashtra issued two. resolutions after the bifurcation of the State of Bombay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 33,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 102,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain Crl.Appeals.2137 & 2223/2005. 24 of evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 124,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI MAC App. No.368 of 2005",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 38,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Incidentally we may advert to the content of the expression \"professional activity\" as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Dr. Devendra Surti's case [1969] 34 FJR 376 ; AIR 1969 SC 63.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 141,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 183,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in its judgment in MACA 682/05 dated 13.1.2010 Union of India Vs. Nanisiri have laid certain guidelines which are as under regarding depositing of award amount.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 62,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 79,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 107,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Devi W/o Shri Ram Kumar D/o Late Shri Kashi Prasad R/o Mohalla Brahampur Ghaziabad, UP.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 4,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 14,
"end": 23,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 72,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 82,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 86,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Eventually, the suit has been instituted for the recovery of the outstanding dues under the Bills of Exchange together with interest. \n\n3.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He strongly recommended to the Chief Minister against interfering with the said reservation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Straight lease transactions :\n(1) M/s Kedia Distilleries Ltd. \n\n(2) M/s Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Company Ltd. \n\n(3) M/s Prakash Industries (4) M/s Carews Pharmaceuticals Ltd. \n\n(5) M/s Seethapur Plywoods Industries (6) M/s Patheja Forgings & Auto Parts Ltd. \n\nIII.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 61,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 108,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 137,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 173,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 213,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 256,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is, therefore, difficult to imagine how the election petitioner, Harekrishna Konar, could call the Returning Officer as his own witness.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 85,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Dy. S.P. then proceeded to village Tunga along with complainant Sitaram, Shivkumar, Rameshchandra and Mohanlal, Sub-Inspector Mahaveer Singh, Head Constable Sureshchandra, Madansingh Rajnarain and Radheyshyam Constables",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 44,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 86,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 101,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 114,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 144,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 174,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 196,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 212,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now during evidence P.W.1 namely Chandrashekar who is Manager of the complainant company has filed his affidavit as chief-examination in which he once again restated the facts alleged in the complaint as discussed above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 46,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The prohibition relating to the use of a statement made to a police officer during the course of an investigation could not be set at naught by\t the police officer not himself recording the statement of a person\t but having\tit in the form of a communication addressed by a person concerned to the police officer.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "10) Petitioner Shobha was hale and healthy and she was aged about 24 years and she was working as tailor at Prajawal garments behind Tirumala hospital, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore and she was drawing salary of Rs.6,500 per month and due to the accidental injuries, she is unable to attend her duty and she is not getting her income.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 21,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 165,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 176,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The statement of the law was quoted with approval (1) (1867) L.R. 2 C.P. 651. \n\n(2) (1866) 6W.R. 228. \n\nby the Privy Council in Beni Ram v. Kundan Lall (1) and in Narayan Das Khettry v. Jatindranath (2).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 76,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 151,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 198,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, the respondent filed S.B.Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.1106/2011 before this Court and the same was allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 18.2.2011.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 80,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 175,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In terms of the order of this Court dated 12.12.1996, an Expert Committee was in fact formed by the State of Meghalaya vide notification dated 8.1.1997 with the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests as its Chairman.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 52,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 118,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 151,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further pointed out that the Gujarat High Court placed strong reliance on Bradbum's case, presumably because the text of the judgment of Bramwell, B., in the reprint did not contain a passage which has been reproduced by the Patna High Court in Union of India v, Supriya Ghosh, AIR 1973 Pat 129 at page 136.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 152,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 244,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 293,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE (BADAR DURREZ AHMED) JUDGE MAY 24, 2010 bg/",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 10,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 19,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 57,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While the earlier trial was at the final stage, it appears, police apprehended original accused No.6 Asaram and original accused No.7 Shailesh and they were sent to trial separately.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 107,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 142,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Coming now to the aspect of compensation to the victim, who is a minor girl aged about 11 years, the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again observed that that subordinate Courts trying the offences of sexual assault have the jurisdiction to award the compensation to the victims being an offence against the basic human right and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 352,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 381,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The order cannot be said to be wrong when the only ground mentioned for impleading the Chief Minister as a party was to make it incumbent on him to file an affidavit, which he was not legally obliged to, if he was not a party.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He placed reliance on AIR 1983 SC 1225, Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Anr. v. S. Sardar Ali and Ors. and added that scheme of law luculently spelt out exclusive spelt out exclusive jurisdiction under the Adhiniyam and exclusion of jurisdiction under the Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 123,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This item was sought to be explained before us by Mr. Tarkunde that this expenditure was incurred with the help of the subsidy received from the State and the Central Governments.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 178,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The IO gave him a rukka which formed the basis of the FIR which was registered in Police Station, Okhla (Ex. 8/B).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 103,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After investigation of the case by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short \"C. B. I.\"), charge-sheet was submitted on 20-8-1976 before the Special Judge, C. B. I., North Bihar and cognizance was purported to have been taken on 30-8-1976.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 70,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 134,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 182,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 243,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Maintenance of law and order or repression of crime may be inalienable function, for proper exercise of which the State may enact a law and may delegate its functions, the violation of which may not be sueable in torts, unless it W.P.(C) 24015/2011.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 230,
"end": 248,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, in view of the environmental problems created by indiscriminate mining of sand, in addition to the above, this Act was also brought into force by the Legislature.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We fail to understand that if the High Court has quashed the FIR in C.R.No. I-155/2008, how the charge sheet, which was filed after investigation of allegations made therein, could survive and be directed to be read in another case and other consequential orders be also read in another case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 86,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The prosecution case is that the appellant Khushal was on bad terms with Baboolal who was on very friendly terms with the leaders of the opposite faction aforesaid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 50,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 81,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ms. Kamlesh Kumari Meena Versus RPSC & Ors 105. 7097/2010 (nil)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 57,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have recorded his statement in detail.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On March 21, 1963, the Inspector of Central Excise attached to M/s. J.K. Steel Ltd., Rishara issued the following notice:\n \"COLLECTORATE OF CENTRAL EXCISE WEST BENGAL No. 6 Range RIS. I. \n\n Date: 21-3-1963.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 17,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 92,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 166,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 205,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This exception, obviously, is the creation of the statute concerned and not the Transfer of Property Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 104,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "J.B.KOSHY, A.K.BASHEER & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 11,
"end": 22,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On that aspect we entertain no semblance of doubt at all.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW1 stated that he was working on fixed salary of Rs. 10,000/\u00ad and he used to receive salary in his account but he had not filed any account statement of his bank.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Petitioner's grievance is that the water which is exclusive for the ryots of the State of Andhra Pradesh is wrongly appropriated by the State of Karnataka.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 104,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 154,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia has been fair enough to cite decisions both against and in favour of the Revenue.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of Shamshul Huq v. Secretary of State, AIR 1930 Cal 332 (M), Lort-Williams J. said at page 334 that Section 77 has nothing whatever to do with either detention or conversion of which the plaintiff complains and for which he claims compensation; this does not mean that even when the goods are lost, the plaintiff's case would be that of non-delivery.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 71,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 86,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 122,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this concept of the term the place of business or the source from which they originate would in the case of-certain businesses be the place where they can be said to accrue or arise.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In C. W. J. C. 509 of 1967, Mr. Ghose contended that once an order of reinstatement is made the Labour Court has no power to give by way of compensation only six months' pay and not the entire wages for the idle period.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 26,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Kerala High Court also seems to have taken a similar view in 1981 KLT 21, which again does not appear to be a case under a taxation law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 21,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 76,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is stated in the affidavit on behalf of the Department that one of the pancha witnesses namely Lt. Col. Raj Behari Lal was actually sitting in the house of the petitioner even before the search party entered the premises.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 121,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as appellant Ajay Kumar is concerned, he had claimed that he was a juvenile before the trial Court but the application moved by the said appellant in this regard was dismissed after the decision of the trial Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, insofar as the appellant no.2 / accused no. 6 Amarsing s/o Kisansing Thakur is concerned though the conviction as recorded by the learned trial Judge is maintained, the death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment for 30 (thirty) years imprisonment without remission, before he can be considered for premature release.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 63,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "12. Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Additional Commission of Income-Tax, Delhi-I & Ors.,(1975) 99 ITR 375, has observed as under:-\n \"The reason is obvious.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 20,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 117,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this writ petition the writ petitioner was allotted with Quarry No.1A situated in Survey No.68 part in Edayankodumanthangal Village, Kancheepuram Taluk, Kancheepuram District by way a valid bid for a period between 22.05.2007 and 21.05.2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 134,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 154,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 177,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 228,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 243,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "8. PW 8 Constable 503 Anirudh Singh who had prepared the Chick F.I.R. dated 18.03.2003. \n9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 35,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 86,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "12) The scope of the section has been enlarged in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India: AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 3148 so as to include premises let out for commercial purposes also within the scope and ambit of a petition under section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 99,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 173,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 300,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 311,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What is stated in the written statement an aforesaid by defendant No. 3 gets full support from the evidence of witness Kantilal recorded by the learned trial Judge at Ex. 237 to which we have made a detailed reference earlier.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 127,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Admittedly, at the time of occurrence, accused appellant No.4 - Naresh Kumar Doshi, 300 Kms. away from the place of accident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 82,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Karpagam (PW-133) also bought one HMT watch as gift for the newly weds with the consent of her husband.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plea taken was that, even though the applications could be made under s. 33C(2) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to proceed under that provision of law was barred by the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 83,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 225,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The consolidated order Ext.P5 shows; serial No.128 Attingal (SC), serial No.129 Chirayinkeezhu (SC) and 133 Vattiyoorkavu (General).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 59,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 94,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 121,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is denied in the written statement that the answering defendant failed to perform his statutory duty.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Debabroto Mookherjee, G. S. Chatterjee, for respondent No. 1 tin Cr. A. No. 213 of 1968). \n\nDebabroto Mookherjee, P. K. Chakravarty, Prodyot Kumar Chakravarty, for respondent No. 1 (in Cr. A. No. 214 of 1968.).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 87,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 112,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 158,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 207,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A Comprehensive Bill, called the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vidheyak has accordingly been prepared to provide for the establishment, incorporation and functioning of a Housing and Development Board in this State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 80,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondents R.F.A. No. 3008 of 2008 [35] State of Haryana .....",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 57,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The visitors, official and non-official, have power to call for and inspect jail records.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Protima Dutta v. State [1977 (81) Cal WN 713] while relying on Hanumant Case the Calcutta High Court has clearly pointed out the nature and limits of the doctrine of proximity and has observed that in some cases where there is a sustained cruelty, the proximate may extend even to a period of three years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 48,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 74,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The apprehension of incrimination from the answer sought must be substantial and real as distinguished from danger of remote possibilities or fanciful flow of inference.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In such circumstances, he would be entitled to file a complaint before the Lok Ayukta.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway, J. in these words:\n\n \"Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 59,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reverting now to the evidence of witness Bhatt, he testified that the widow of the deceased (the first appellant) had made an application on or about May 4, 1978 seeking employment on the ground that there was no other earning member in the family.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 46,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 161,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further instructions specifically speak about\" preparation of three copies original, duplicate and triplicate of the work slip.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This was certainly not the case either before the High Court or before this Court....",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A copy of the said DD entry was handed over to SI Sharad Kumar (PW-78) who along with Ct. Meenu Mathew left for the spot.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 62,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 102,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 8th Sept., 1972 a new partnership deed was entered into between Bansi Badan Mullick, father of the appellants and the respondent No. 1 Rabindra Nath Chatterjee for carrying on partnership business under the same name and style 'New Dasakarma Blandar' on similar terms and conditions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 86,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 162,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are, therefore, of the view that the Larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court though earlier one, is binding on us as the same has been rendered by three Hon'ble Judges.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "7/ The same issue is involved in W.P. No.5625/2015 which has been filed by one Sharad Tikamdas Kabra seeking the writ of habeas corpus challenging the arrest order dated 20.5.2015 and raising the additional ground that the Special Court of Additional Sessions Judge is not the designated court under Section 43 and 44 of the PMLA and that the proceedings before the said Special Court are not competent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 50,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 100,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 179,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 265,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 317,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 329,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The authority also carried out test known as 'Density test' which is the test to arrive at substantive satisfaction as to whether there is adulteration in the petroleum products.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the present case having regards to the terms of Section 18(1) it appears clear to us that the intention of Parliament was to cover the entire field and thus to leave no scope for the argument that until rules framed, there was no inconsistency and no suppression of the State Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 64,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 120,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-~l'Age of injury is more than 48 hours. \"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Subsequently, three sons of late Sh Atma Singh entered into a RCA No.18/2014 Surinder Singh Bhogal v Gurmeet Singh Bhogal & Ors Page 4 of 18 collaboration agreement with a builder i.e. respondent No.4 herein for raising construction over the plot in question after demolishing existing structure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 76,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 127,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "22.Even on the basis of the post-1966 law, Shri Palkhivala has argued that taking legitimate cognizance of the peerless position of the appellant as Prime Minister of the country, judicial discretion must least disturb not merely her seat in Parliament but her office in Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 252,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court followed the decision in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 272, in which, dealing with the interpretation of Rule 27 of U.P. Forest Service Rules, 1952, the Court construed the word \"may\" used in Rule 27.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 117,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 171,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 206,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 258,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In both the writ petitions, the 4th respondent is one C.A.Varghese, whose appointment as Headmaster of the High School, led to the contested proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 66,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the claims arising out of accidents prior to the said amendment, the multiplier could not go beyond 16 as held by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and Ors. .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 122,
"end": 135,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 238,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Culminating into dismissal of review petition by the Supreme Court vide order dated 27th June, 2006, notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was issued on 25.11.1980 for large scale acquisition of land in many Revenue Estates including Revenue estate of Village Satbari.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 66,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 99,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 129,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 145,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 170,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 274,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One decision in which a different view was expressed is the case of Municipal Corporation v. Ratnaprabha.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 104,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A copy of the report was also ordered to be sent to the State Bar Council for such action as it may deem necessary and notice of the CM was also ordered to be sent to the respondent-U.T. Administration for March 8, 1983.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 73,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 201,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 219,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Y.Madhavi, M.Sc. (Agriculture), worked as a Deputy Manager in the ARSKs Section at the Corporation's Head Office in Hyderabad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 125,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused was prosecuted for contravention of the provisions of the Iron and Steel (Scrap Control) Order, 1943, by selling or causing to be sold scrap iron to different customers at a rate higher than that was authorised by notification.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, it was submitted by the respondents No.1 and 2 that the escape route sought to be adopted by respondent No.4 of charging Rs.10,000/- \"per case\" would not be permissible.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date: 16-12-2013",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 23,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On a reading of the said provision, there can be no trace of doubt that the owner of the vehicle is statutorily obliged to obtain an insurance for the vehicle to cover the third party risk, apart from the exceptions which have been carved out in the said provision.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "7.2 Certain modification in the said guidelines have been Page 20 issued by respondent RBI vide circular / letter 26.3.2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 92,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 125,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondents R.F.A. No. 3008 of 2008 [37] State of Haryana and another",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 57,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On July 1, 1962 when PW 17 and his father PW 19, R. P. Dutt went to the field with PW 16, Gopal Das, PW 15 Nand Lal and one B. N. Acharya with a trac- tor to level the land, the appellants came armed with spears and lathis attacked the complainants' party and caused injuries to PWs 17 and 19 and the tractor driver, B. N. Acharya.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 15,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 99,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 115,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 137,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 330,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "True, in defining the rule of locus standi no 'rigid litmus test' can be applied since the broad contours of PIL are still developing apace seemingly with divergent views on several aspects of the concept of this newly developed law and discovered jurisdiction leading to a rapid transformation of judicial activism with a far reaching change both in the nature and form of the judicial process.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It may be mentioned that the decision of the Division Bench in the said case was reversed on appeal by the Supreme Court by a majority AIR 1964 SC 538, but in the judgment of the majority the Supreme Court has not referred to the point mentioned above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 120,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 150,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 205,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the materials placed before us, in our judgment, the order of the High Court cannot be sustained for more than one reason.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This principle was stated in the following terms by Hidayatullah, C.J. in Tilokchand v. H. B. Munshi(1) \"The party claiming Fundamental Rights must move the Court before other rights come into existence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 64,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 103,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "98.The aforementioned facts and circumstances fully establish the offence under Sections 302/120-B of the Penal Code against the appellants Gurbachan Singh and Raj Pal Sharma also and there is hardly anything deserving interference with the view taken by the two courts below after a detailed and elaborate discussion of the evidence and material on record.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 116,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 155,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 174,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Moreover, the case of respondent No. 1-IIM itself is that the order is passed on account of loss of confidence in the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 42,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Police Station Christianganj, Ajmer registered an FIR bearing No. 66/2008 for the offence punishable under sections 394, 397, 307, 450, 120 B IPC read with section 34 IPC and sections 3/25 of the Arms Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 39,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 145,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 149,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 170,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 174,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 192,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 208,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If it affirms the conviction (1) I. L.R. 22 B.D. \n\n and thereby decides wrongly that the trial court had the jurisdiction to try and convict, it cannot be said to have acted without jurisdiction, and its order cannot be treated as a nullity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 48,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was argued that the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1939, were framed under Section 3 of the Registration of the Foreigners Act, 1939, the whole object of which was to provide for the registration of foreigners entering, being present in and departing from India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 61,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 90,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 138,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 267,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is however, observed by him in para 15 of his judgment that he was concerned in the case before him with a Super speciality, perhaps meaning thereby that the above judgment of the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar's case which deals with case of 50% non-reserved seats in broad speciality i.e. MS, MD, etc. would not be applicable to Super speciality.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 183,
"end": 196,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 212,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Revenue officer reported back that the land belonged to respondent No. 1 and was his private land and its value would be fixed at Rs. 3000 per guntha.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 17th April, 1977, the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 494 Criminal Procedure Code for permission to withdraw the case against Malik and Mehra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 19,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 81,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 105,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 155,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 165,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "J.N. Patel, J. \n\n 1. Heard Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel for the Applicant and Ms. Udeshi, learned Counsel for the Non-applicants.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 92,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In reply, respondent A.K. Agrawal has submitted that both the documents (Annexure P-1 and P-2) purporting to be the resolutions passed by the Board of Directors on 17.12.2007 and 26.12.2009, relied on by Arun Singhania to demonstrate that prima facie no case for prosecution is made out, are apparently forged documents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 174,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 189,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 218,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The contrary view taken in the cases cited by the leraned Counsel for the appellants does not lay down good law in view of the Supreme Court decision noted above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 140,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(MRS. S.R. WAGHMARE) JUDGE JYOTI M.A. No.524/2014* 07.08.2015 Shri JM Poonegar, learned Counsel for the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 19,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 61,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the aforesaid reasons, the convention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff can be accepted that although the present dispute raised by the plaintiff 'touches the business of the society and is covered by Sub-section (1) of Section 64, it being not included in any of the specified categories of disputes in Clauses (i) to (v) of Sub-section (2) of Section 64, is not referable to Registrar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 207,
"end": 236,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 361,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She has placed reliance on 'Manish Dixit & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 93'. \n\n34. Section 166 Cr.P.C. lays down the procedure to be followed by an Officer In-charge of a Police station where searched are to be made outside the limits of the Police Station concerned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 87,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 106,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 114,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These judgments therefore can not save the situation for Respondent accused Satish and Sadhana as also Vilas. \n 51.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In some cases, the manufacturers of the grey-fabric subject it to captive consumption and process\tthem in their\t own composite establishments.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has been proved from the testimony of PW3 and PW8 that specimen signatures of accused Neeraj Page no. 13 of 19 State vs. Neeraj Jain and others FIR No. 289/2010 Jain and original agreement deed were deposited Forensic Science Laboratory(FSL), Rohini, Delhi and thumb impression were deposited in Finger Print Bureau,Kamla Nagar Market, Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 95,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 259,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 344,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The imputability arises from the neglect of the civic duty of circumspection.\"\n 16) In Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1, the Apex Court while considering the case on medical negligence has stated as to what constitutes negligence as a tort and as a crime in paras 12 to 14 as under:\n \"12.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 158,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 174,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, I find that P.W. 1 has materially contradicted the complainant in this regard.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The case of accused appellant Madan \n\n72.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Neither theatricals nor public opinion shall matter in a big way when a judicial rendition is sought on the forensic application of evidence and law in a given case to find whether the persons that were brought to the dock have been proved to be guilty of the offences attributed against them beyond reasonable doubt.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If a person, under colour of exercising (1) [1956] A.C. 736. \n\nthe statutory power, acts from some improper or ulterior motive, he acts in bad faith.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 59,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was opined that holding of enquiry is not reasonably practicable since all 107 candidates are posted in different battalions at various places all over the country and it was not possible to collect them at one place.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The case of the prosecution is as follows:- P.W.1 is the cobrother of the deceased.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "O.A. No. K-269 of 1988 was allowed by the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal by judgment dated April 2, 1990 and the impugned notifications were quashed to the extent the amendments in Rule 2544 were given retrospective effect on the view that the said amendments in the rule in so far as the same were given retrospective effect were unjust, unreasonable and were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 22,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 51,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 105,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 191,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 385,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 405,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When Section 14 in terms specify the cases in which specific performance cannot be granted, it cannot be understood that S. 20 is a departure from the rigours of S. 14.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 15,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 126,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 167,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This contract of sale was entered into by it with one Brijlal Pannalal of Dhuliya and it could have waited and delivered the goods to Brijlal Pannalal on November 15, 1960, when it was to get delivery from the Dewas Flour and Oil Mills.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 81,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 150,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 171,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 235,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A history of the criminal legislation in India would manifestly reveal that so far as the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned both in the 1898 Code and 1955 Amendment the widest possible powers of, revision had been given to the High Court under ss. 435 and 439 of those, Codes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 46,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 116,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 265,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even if it may be assumed that Pappu, Mathayi and Joseph PWs were afraid to go to the police station in the darkness of the night, there appears to be no justification cogent reason for their not reporting the matter to the police early oil the following morning-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 36,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 45,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Alternatively, he submitted that rules have been framed by the Allahabad High Court making special provisions relating to the trial of election petitions which would override the provisions of the CPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 83,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 200,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There can be no doubt that the object of making a special provision for the advancement of the castes or communities, there specified, is to carry out the directive principle enshrined in Art. 46.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 188,
"end": 195,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "2.The Executive Engineer, Zone III Certiorarified Mandamus to quash Notice of demolition dated 29.9.2009 issued in its letter No.145 of 2009 Pending with an order of status-quo.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 104,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy,",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Then Mr. Khan filed the Writ petition on 24.8.87 for quashing the two telegrams and the order dated 5.9.85 of the Visitor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 106,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This doctrine was considered by this Court in its judgment in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath97 to which one of us (S. Saghir Ahmad, J.) was a party.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 88,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 124,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These basic covenants are as already above shown the inter se integration agreement dated 18th March, 1948, executed by all the rulers of the component States of Vindhya Pradesh and the Instrument of Accession dated 20th July, 1948, executed by the Rajpramukh in favour of the Dominion of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 106,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 177,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 231,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 259,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 294,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "My conclusion therefore is that the misdirection mentioned above has resulted in an erroneous verdict as regards these charges.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Further signature on the cheques in question Ex. CW1/3, Ex. CW1/4 and Ex. CW1/5 has also not been disputed by the accused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "With regard to subscription deposit scheme, assessee has booked an expense of Rs. 17,32,165 in Unit No. I whereas no* expenses under this head are booked in Unit Nos. II and III.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court held that \"it may be true that an offence under Section 422 is not included in the offences mentioned in Section 195(1) (b) or (c) and, therefore, the liquidation officer, acting as a civil or revenue court, could not under the provisions of Section 476 make a complaint for an offence which fell under Section 422.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 102,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 173,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 296,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 346,
"end": 357,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Versus Sh. Ramesh Sharma, \n S/o Late Sh. Raj Singh Sharma,\n Proprietor of M/s R.K. Computers & Technical Services,\n R/o C\u00ad140, Sector\u00ad50, \n Noida (U.P.) ......... Accused.\n\nCOMPLAINT U/s 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT Offence complained of : U/s 138 N.I. Act Date of commission of offence",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 26,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 115,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 222,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 256,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 324,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 333,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "2. On April 28, 1977 (?), the present appellant entered into an agreement with the pre-sent respondent to sell the suit property which is a demarcated part of premises No. 2, Andul Raj Road, Calcutta, and which had been allotted to the share of the appellant's father under a partition decree passed on an award in Title Suit No. 16 of 1944.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 20,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 199,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 340,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As my view is that the contesting respondent Laxminarain Gandhi had a right of appeal in this case within the meaning of Section 64 (b) of the Act and consequently the appellate tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the same, this application has no force and must be dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 63,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 135,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now the ingredients of section 146 IPC are; \n (i) The accused is a member of as assembly consisting of 5 or more people.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 34,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 38,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohar Singh's case AIR 1955 SC 84 have been consistently followed in subsequent cases referred to above and relied upon by both the parties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 82,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "17(b) That the suit property is not protected under the provisions of DRC Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 77,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It stated that the Delhi High Court's decision was dated 17th March 1980 and the Special Leave Petition filed against the said order was rejected by the Supreme Court on 16-4-1981.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 35,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 72,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 166,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 179,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This has to be born in mind that the present case is under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and this act was enacted with the objective that the children of tender age are not abused and their childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and they are given facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in condition of freedom and dignity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 106,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per prosecution by doing so, the accused has committed the violation of permit condition as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India in Writ Petition No.13029 of 1985.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 200,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Bad debts Account will be transferred to Profit and Loss Account.\" \n 26.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Section 2(1) of the Act provided that the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, as in force in the State of Madras immediately before the commencement of the said Act shall extend to and come into force in the Union Territory of Pondicherry subject to certain modifications and adaptations specified in that section.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 76,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 112,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 238,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The finding of the learned Tribunal Judge is based on sound reasoning and evidence on record particularly that of P.W. 1 Shri Mihirl Kumar Ray according to whom such extension was to be granted as a matter of course, and as such it cannot be said that the same finding is an outcome of any hypothetical conjecture having no relation either to fact or the realities of the situation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 142,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also submits that this issue has been referred to the Larger Bench in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company (2016) 4 SCC 298.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 111,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 190,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Firstly, we shall examine the question as to whether the show cause notices are beyond the period of limitation as per the amended provisions of the Act vide Finance Act No.2 of 1991.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 158,
"end": 182,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "e) Arivu (A-18) purchased a 12 volt car battery (MO-209) for the wireless set which Sivarasan was to install in the house of Vijayan (A-12).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 8,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 132,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In strict principle, this is an allowance of capital nature but it is now well settled that the allowance of depreciation has to be taken into account in order to ascertain the true profits of a business and, therefore, an assessee is permitted to deduct, in the computation of the business income year after year, the prescribed percentage of the value of the assets used for the purposes of business.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "this state of affairs continued till the date States Reorganisation Act came into force on 1st November 1956.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 71,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 108,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the third case it would not serve the purpose of the Act if the tenant was held liable to be evicted forthwith as is the view taken by the Punjab High Court in the case of Dial Chand (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 159,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 185,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They stated that the relationships between them and the second father were good.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the cross-examination of this witness by the learned advocate for the accused, this witness has denied that he had not written the complaint of the complainant as dictated by him.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. \n\n Cc. as per rules.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 104,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 119,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It yielded to the pressure tactics of those who according to the Government are out to terrorise the police force and to overawe the elected Governments.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The plea in the written statement is one of the denial of conduct alleged, and not of provocation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Just about that time, Suryanarayana (A-3), father of Saraswathi, came to know that the 1st accused was having a wife alive, and therefore he and P. Ws. 2 and 3 questioned the 1st accused about it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 63,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Except in the case of Shri Ziegler in Reference Application No. 48 of 1970-71, there is a dispute in regard to the validity of the assessment proceedings reopened under s. 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\").",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 74,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 178,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 200,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During the visit the undersigned visited the following mills of SAPPI : \n(a) Godwana Mill Manufacturing Paper Pulp, Newsprint and Kraft Liner Board; \n(b) Saicor Mill Manufacturing dissolving grade pulp; and \n\n(c) Staryer Mill Manufacturing coated, tissue and mechanical paper. \nThe Saicor Mill is the single largest plant in the world for production of dissolving grade pulp. \n(2) Zimbabwe (10th July, 1992 to 11th July, 1992)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 69,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 148,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 181,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 244,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 300,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 397,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 414,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 433,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The court is entitled to ascertain the intention of the legislature to remove the ambiguity by construing the provision of the statute as a whole keeping in view what was the mischief when the statute was enacted and to remove which the legislature enacted the statute.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "embodied an unqualified and, absolute-admission that he was not entitled to remain in occupation of the cinema house after 22nd May. 1962, and that in view of this admission of the defendant Shyamacharan the plaintiff-respondent, was entitled to a decree under Order 12 Rule 6 C.P.C., for possession of the cinema house",
"entities": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 137,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 203,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 276,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 283,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Amar Singh Raghuwanshi, SHO on the spot received a Dehati Nalish from PW1 complainant Santosh son of Champalal Prajapat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 64,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 97,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 119,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These provisions shall be applicable to all teachers except those having matric [Untrained] or lower qualification:-",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the context of our law, Sir Hale's enunciation has to be interpreted no more than emphasising that where the dead body of the victim in a murder case is not found, other cogent and satisfactory proof of the homicidal death of the victim must be adduced by the prosecution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(64). Coming to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Lal's case, it was a case in which writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking prayer for regularisation of his services and to increase his salary from Rs. 240/- p.m. to regular pay-scale.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court held that, in ordinary parlance, paddy and rice were two different goods and there was also change in the identity of the goods.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others (2004) 2 SCC 1 upon considering the effect of amendment carried out in Section 147 of the Act by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, it was held:\n\n \"By reason of the 1994 Amendment what was added is \"including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 71,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 139,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 190,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reference in this connection may be made to the deci- sion of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Fakira v. King Emperor (1).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 128,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From perusal of the communication (Annexure\u00adP/10) dated 17.06.2014, it is evident that the Chancellor has not exercised the power under Section 14(2) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 66,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 149,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of above, I do not find any merit in these second appeals, and same are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. \n\n(Mohammad Rafiq) J. \n\n//Jaiman//",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 144,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Apex Court held that the omission to file an affidavit neither rendered petition invalid nor did it affect the assumption of jurisdiction by the Chairman to initiate proceedings to determine the question of disqualification of the members of the House.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Moreover, we are of the opinion that the making of subsequent disclosure statement Ex. PW-1/H by Appellant Pradeep and Ex.PW-1/J of Appellant Dinesh is suspect.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 114,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 148,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is now well settled that under Section 30 of the Evidence Act the confession made by one accused is not substantive evidence against a co-accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 64,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "whether there is lurking behind\tit no minority at all and in any case, no minority institution.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "adverb \"exclusively\" governed\t the word \"use' only and did\t not govern the words \"prepared for use\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "e) From the letter dated 7.9.1991 (Exh.P-128) written by Trichy Santhan to Irumborai (A-19) prosecution seeks to draw inference that Irumborai (A-19) had prior knowledge about the killing of Rajiv Gandhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 33,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 71,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 142,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 203,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "4. On appeal in F.A.No.6 of 1993 this Court vide judgment and decree dated 24/02/1999 affirmed the finding of the trial Court that plaintiff, Jainarayan was not the exclusive owner of the suit property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 32,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 152,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By this application the appellants had sought quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against them under Section 406/420\" of the Indian Penal Code (for short the TPC) in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad and arising out of Case No. 674 of 1997 of Police Station Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 126,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 151,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 170,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 224,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 264,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 316,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the above point of view, Chakravartti C. J., was inclined, like the Supreme Court, to treat the Madras test as only a variant of the Calcutta test and he summed up his total reaction on this particular question in his own inimitable way and unsurpassable language in the following lines;\n\"Whether or not an appeal lies under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from any particular order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 86,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 107,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 146,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 339,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, it cannot be said that the lady directors were afraid of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act provisions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 99,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendant can provide the non-existence of consideration by raising a probable defence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As is discernible from the factual depiction the accused filed a review petition under Section 60 of POTA and eventually the review committee found that there was no justification to proceed against the accused under POTA and the State of U.P. was directed to release the accused persons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 97,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 105,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 221,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 243,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioners carry business inter alia as manufacturers of diverse kinds of fertilisers at their factory situated at Vishakhapatnam one of the fertilisers thus manufactured is Gromor NPK 14 : 35 : 14 under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\") excise duty was being imposed on fertilisers manufactured in India with effect from 1.3.1969.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 134,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 202,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 247,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 353,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 379,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Relying of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of OM NARAIN AGARWAL AND OTHERS v. NAGAR PALIKA, SHAHJAHANPUR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1993 SC 1440, the learned Advocate General would contend that the right of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution applies to equals and not to unequals.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 25,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 150,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 245,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 265,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On which he registered Crime No. 133/01 under Sections 396,302 and 307 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 39,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 70,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 74,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "is that while two Departments of the\tGovernment have taken one view the Department of the Comptroller and\t Auditor-General has taken a contrary view,\nwhich is neither warranted nor tenable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 122,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the Interveners : (1) Ramakrishna Sons Ltd.: S. P. Mehta, T. A. Ramachandran and M/s. J. Ramachandran, (2) M/",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 47,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When a law is impugned as being ultra vires of the legislative competence, what is required to be ascertained is the true character of the legislation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "They were requested to examine the rolls as finally published on December 31, 1981.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 82,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The object and purpose of prescribing regulations is to ensure that minority institutions do not fall below the standard of excellence expected of an educational institution and that they do not fall outside the mainstream of the nation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(c)The\tplea that penalty should be\tconfined only\tto wailful acts of omission and commission in contravention of the provisions of an enactment cannot be accepted because penal consequences can be visited on acts which are\tcom- mitted\twith or without a guilty mind.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We find that the report dated 23rd October, 1982 in terms was requested in respect of assessment year 1980-81 and the second report dated 2-4-1984 in respect of the period ending 31-3-1981 was obtained on 3-4-1984 and submitted before the assessment, in which the cost of construction was worked out at Rs. 11,54,800 as against the book version of Rs. 11,44,554.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 146,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 188,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 213,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1879 OF 1972 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 115 of 1974 Appeal by special leave from the Judgment dated the 29th January, 1973 of the Delhi High Court in LPA No. 155 of 1972.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 29,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 62,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 133,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 157,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 180,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendant No. 1 had also managed to get mutated the said entire suit property fraudulently in his favour on the basis of the said forged and fabricated WILL and the defendant No. 1 declared his father Sh. Naresh Chand Kakaria as dead while he was alive at that time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 209,
"end": 229,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sivarasan had brought P. Thirumathi Vimala (PW62) a letter from her mother in Sri Lanka.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 42,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 87,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the literal construction leads to an absurdity, external aids to construction can be resorted to.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We do not see any justification for this argument.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However, the respondent will be at liberty to raise this question in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum, if occasion arises.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The police asked whether he gave cyanide to the accused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "They reached at the place of occurrence when they were called by other persons.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He stated that none of the 4 persons informed him that Renuka was taken to any lady Doctor during night.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have to take into account all the features that appertain to the office and thereafter proceed to a conclusion.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Luthra submits that the impugned Act, namely, The Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, is invalid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 121,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was alleged that the meeting was held irregularly without any agenda and a resolution was adopted, despite Promode Ranjan Sarkar's protest, by which the appointment of Pramatha Nath Talukdar as Managing Director of N. R. Sarkar & Co. Ltd. was renewed for seven years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 193,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 241,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We would therefore proceed to deal with this question first.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In support of his argument Mr. Biswas referred to Section 75, sub-section (c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Padam Sen v. State of Uttar Pradesh, and the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Monoharlal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal, .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 77,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 108,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 156,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 195,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 245,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 282,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection, the learned counsel has placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh, reported in AIR 1988 SC 881.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 162,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of Harishankar Bagla and Anr. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh('), Mahajan, C.J. at pages 388-89 of the report said \"The Preamble and the body, of the sections sufficiently formulate the legislative policy and the ambit and character of the Act is such that the details of that policy can only be worked out by delegating them to a subordinate authority within the framework of that policy\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 75,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 84,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The owner of the vehicle though appeared before the Court through his counsel did not contest the claim thereafter.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is the power, the HC-NIC Page 33 of 46 Created On Sat Nov 07 01:12:31 IST 2015 C/SCA/14948/2015 JUDGMENT function and duty under the Act of the Registrar, on a request made by the respective committees of the Central Banks or Apex Co-operative Society concerned to conduct elections.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 83,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 109,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The applicant should pay the taxes and the interest under section 139(8) in the normal course.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 72,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, on the next day, the complainant levelled allegation that since marriage of Kunal had been fixed with another girl, the appellant and his family members had developed a grudge and had, therefore, hatched a conspiracy with co-accused Umesh, Suresh, Bhavarlal Sharma, Captain Sharma to murder Kunal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 241,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 255,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 273,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 289,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 305,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dhanpat Chamar, one of those respondents, is the only respondent in Government Appeal No. 9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 91,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This intention could be effectuated by interpreting the words \"or interest\" as suggested above.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "An interlocutory application was taken out in CS No.\n171 of 2001 seeking to arrest the decree and the execution proceedings launched in pursuance thereof.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, this dispute regarding the identity of the respondent is not material in such eviction proceedings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(Ranjit Thakur is quoted (1) 'Is the High Court the Guardian of Fundamental Constitutional Rights? \n\n(1993 P.L.. 59). in f.n.p.601). \n\n Brind (HL)(1991) - administrative law - proportionality - debatable in India in cases not involving fundamental freedoms: Tata Cellular (SC) (1994) and McDowell (SC) (1996):",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 212,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 296,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under these circumstances, as per Section 3 of the Act, driver of the tanker lorry was having valid and effective driving licence, despite of that, the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the owner of tanker lorry.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In R. P. Kapoor v. Pratap Singh Kairon, AIR 1966 All. 66, the Allahabad High Court considered the scope of preliminary enquiry under Section 476 of the old Code and held that an enquiry should be made in the case of an offence under Section 195(l)(b) or (c), Indian Penal Code and thereafter a complaint should be forwarded to the competent Magistrate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 56,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 144,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 257,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 276,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "13. Having held so this court exercising jurisdiction discretionary in nature and being a court of equity has to ensure that the justice is done to all concerned and a person who takes law into his own hands cannot be permitted to get away by taking shelter of statutory provisions, to that effect the submission made by Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel warrants consideration.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 326,
"end": 345,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is emphasised that in the present case, no evidence whatever was produced by the Department to show that the goods in question we smuggled goods.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was observed in that case; \n \"..both plaintiff 1 and the defendant at the time of making the agreement were not aware of the legal difficulty and believed that they were entering into a valid contract, and as between plaintiff 1 Amina Bi and the defendant I think that partnership was validly created by the agreement.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 233,
"end": 241,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After his tenure was A..lo've'_r, \"Che defected to the Congress-I party and,'co'nt\u00a7ir\u00a7ueci'V..toLbe the Chairman of the Mandal help of Congress- I were members of Janatadal party.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 71,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 178,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That being so, when the relevant rule does not prescribe holding of any such interview, the promotions effected on the basis of alleged assessment made at the time of the interview is in clear violation of the rules.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The assessment by Mr. Patterson, an expert though, should therefore be closely scrutinised.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 31,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under Section 325 Indian Penal Code, a person found guilty \"shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 17,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 35,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, none of the orders referred to above contain adverse finding.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "06.08.2012 - Matter stood transferred to another court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In her letter at Exhibit 34 dated 11th December, 1986 the wife has stated that she jumped from the motor-cycle when she heard of the threat of divorce.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 53,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "RCA No. 47/14 page 14 of 22 Malkhan Singh V/s Shyam Sunder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 58,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was urged that reference could not be made to any extraneous evidence and that the basis of classification must appear on the face of the notification itself and that this Court should not go into disputed questions of fact.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But it appears to be clear that in those cases the Privy Council was not defining a judgment exhaustively and did not intend to lay down that a judgment meant a decree and nothing else,",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "What is the basis for the actuary's multiplier, what are the factors it takes into account, is the next question.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Patna High Court CWJC No.8698 of 2017 dt.21-11-2017 27.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 37,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All these appeals have been preferred by the appellants against common judgment and order passed in WAMP No. 1879 of 2001 in W.A. No. 109 of 1997, WAMP No. 1880 of 2001 in W.A. No. 292 of 1998 and Contempt Case No. 1008 of 2001.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 121,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 145,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 168,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 192,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 227,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sole agencies are a normal and necessary incident of commerce and those who desire the benefits of a sole agency must deny themselves the opportunities of other agencies.\"[p.328]",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In view of the contentions urged before it, the Division Benc held that three questions arose for consideration.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the present case, the Officer on special duty, Mr. G. Suhramaniam (P. W. 1) has sworn that the Bank \"received information that the accused unauthorisedly acquired dollars in U. S. and the Bank issued a directive under Section 19(2)\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 68,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 182,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 234,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "and yet Happell J. held that the correspondence did not amount to preferring a claim to the G. I. P. Railway.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 15,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 108,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having deleted the \"deemed dividend\" from the income of the Hindu undivided family, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the Income-tax Officer by order dated April 22, 1961, to take action under Section 34 read with Section 31 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for assessing that deemed dividend income in the hands of the registered shareholder.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 182,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 215,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 236,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 271,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He told Balbir Singh, Station House Officer, that the remaining amount of Rs. 500/-, would be arranged, and paid to him, very soon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand PW-1 deposed that she took the child twice, on two successive days.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "She has further averred that the respondent No. 1 pleaded guilty in criminal case pertaining to FIR No. 132/10 under Section 279/338 of PS Sarita Vihar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 132,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 151,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Apex Court has further held that apart from section 178(1) which deals with generality even under section 178(2) (ze) CERC could enact a regulation on any topic which may not fall in the enumerated list provided such power falls within the scope of the Act of 2003.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 62,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 121,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 126,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We also grant liberty to the present appellant to move his bail application, if he so desires, before the Court of Session, Ghaziabad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "2. Jeevan Bheemmanagar P.S. Cr..No.179/05 - pending trial in CC No.22109/06 in the 10th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore. \n\n 3. Koramangala P.S.Cr.No.430/05 - under investigation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 75,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 140,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 166,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 167,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 176,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was argued that promissory notes, being a Central subject, the jurisdiction and power of the High Court in respect of promissory notes, that is to say, in respect of all litigation concerning promissory notes, would be a Central subject, and therefore, the Provincial Legislature could not encroach upon that jurisdiction.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The cause of action for filing the present suit arose on 21.10.1993 when the defendant No.1 informed that the account has been opened by him in the Oriental Bank of Commerce and that the cause of action further arose on several dates when the reminders were sent to defendant No.1 for handing over the bonus share certificates and the dividends to the Trust.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 67,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 173,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That the appeal could not be filed in due time for the following reasons-- 1.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the above context, learned counsel for State sought to rely on the legal presumption envisaged in Section 35 of the Act,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 111,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The court must also take into account the cost involved in staying the project and whether the public would stand to benefit by incurring such cost.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The earliest decision in point of time is the decision of the Kerala High Court in M. P. Alexander & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax decided on July.10, 1966, by a Division Bench consisting of M. S. Menon C J. and P. Govindan Nair J. (as he then was).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 134,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 159,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 206,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 232,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As a result, himself and inmates of the car were sustained grievous injuries and Chandrashekar was also sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Navnit\tLal C.\t Javeri\t V. K.\t K. Sen, Appellate Asstt.\nCommissioner, Bombay, 56 I.T.R. 198, applied.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Civil Appeals Nos. 2459 and 2460 of 1968 and 1161 and 1162 of 1971. \n\nAppeals by certificate/special leave from the judgment and order dated April 1, 1968 of the Calcutta High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 163 of 1964.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 39,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 147,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 329,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Consequently, the provisions of Transfer of Property Act cannot be telescoped into the provisions of the Registration Act so as to demand of the Registering Authority to register instrument from the title holders.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 56,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 121,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of this argument, paragraph 5 of the affidavit of Mr. Devi Lal Boliya, Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, has been referred to, which says that the petitioner did not file any objections for consideration of the Regional Transport Authority at the time the objections of other persons were considered in response to the second notification.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 142,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Amit Kumar (PW-2) deposed about the involvement of the Appellant in the murder of D-1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Article 362 does not prohibit the acquisition of properties declared as private properties by the covenant of merger and does not guarantee their perpetual existence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both of them have also argued at length on the scope of provisions of Chapter XIV-B.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 84,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "7. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore 8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 48,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under Section 13 of the regulation, appeals, when allowed by law, against judgments, decrees, orders and sentences passed by a Judge of the Chief Court in exercise of the original civil or criminal jurisdiction conferred upon him under Section 12, had to be heard either by a Bench consisting of two other Judges or by a Full Bench of the Chief Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 16,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 246,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Lord Reid, concurring, reserved opinion as to cases of alleged cruelty in which the defender had shown deliberate intention, though he did not doubt that there were many cases where cruelty could be established without its being necessary to be satisfied by evidence that the defender had such an intention.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondents Jasmine Sawhney and Judith Sawhney are RCA No. 43/2013 Page No. 28 of 24.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 46,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The next document relied upon by the MCD was a photocopy of an alleged representation from some unknown person to the Chairman of the Minority Commission.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If so, the quantity recovered from the appellant is far below the limit of small quantity specified in the notification issued by the Central Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 152,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This clearly proves that he had contested the elections with the support of the opposite front and he go9t elected with the support of LDF.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 138,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Her mother, two sisters, and a brother filed M.A.C. No. 28 of 1982 claiming an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 66,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Its further operation should be restricted to the terms as imposed by the concerned Ministry of Government of India from time to time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 115,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Three deeds of sale, each again in respect of one-fourth of the interest of the transferor, were executed by each co-owner on March 23, 1973, April 16, 1973, and July 30, 1974.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 140,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 156,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 175,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An application for bail was submitted on 2-3-1976 by accused No. 2 Liyakatali and accused No. 3 Abdullamiya Usmanmiya Pathan (M-4 on the record of Trial Court).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 49,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 124,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During cross-examination, E No. 87/11 (Old No.E No.101/09) Page 5 to 15 PW 1 stated that Dwarka Nath (RW 2) is neither their relative nor their tenant, but RW 2 stated that he was a tenant of the petitioners.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 100,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dealing with that case, Narayana Pai, J. noticed the case decided in AIR 1958 Bom. 190 and was of opinion that the opinion expressed by Bavdekar J. did not really conclude the matter before him, nor could it be taken as expressing a final opinion on it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 36,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 86,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 144,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The mere fact that A-9 Musakhan @ Babakhan retracted subsequently is not a valid ground to reject the confession.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That topic is outside its legislative field.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The prosecution has named 111 witnesses and set of witnesses indicates that some of them are key witnesses.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Learned Counsel further referred to the judgment of a division bench of this Court in Raj Prakash v. Mangat Ram Choudhary and Ors. AIR 1978 Del 1, to contend that a new invention may consist of a new combination of all integers so as to produce a new or important result or may consist of altogether new integers.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 145,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the above, we are of the view that the instant case does not present special features warranting review of the impugned judgment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW4 SI Subhash Chand deposed that he was present with a traffic team under Palam Flyover when a boy on a motorcycle had hit the HC Shyam Lal due to which HC Shyam Lal fell down and sustained injuries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 20,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 140,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 166,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But a \"Gherar'' accompanied by violence and diverse forms of crimes resulting in wrongful confinement or wrongful restraint of the encircled person or persons, is a criminal activity, not because it is encirclement but it is encirclement \"with more\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This 'decision was followed in this Court by Seshagiri Aiyar J. in.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 60,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Thika Tenancy Act like similar Rent Acts passed in different States is intended to prevent indiscriminate eviction of tenants and is intended to be a protective statute to safe-guard security of possession of tenants and therefore should be construed in the light of its being a social legislation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 21,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Saurashtra case was thereafter heard by the same Bench of seven Judges which decided Anwar Ali Sarkar's (supra) case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Mohan Soni Vs Ram Avtar Tomar & Ors, AIR2012SC782, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:-\n 10.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 53,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 1st appellant/1st defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and also examined one Mirza Ahmed Baig as D.W.2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 96,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The jewellery, which was handed over to police, consisted of eight yellow metal bangles, one pair of ear-rings and one finger ring.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 682), while dealing with the issue, the Apex Court held as under:-\n \"11. ...",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 74,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 120,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust 2008 - Series LVI,\n \n 8. Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust 2008 - Series LX and 9. Indian Commercial Loan Trust Series VIII 2008;\n 4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 42,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 138,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 192,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appellants vs 1.G. Ekambaram 2.Arun alias Jayapal 3.E.Kaviarasu",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 28,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 49,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 63,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As observed by the learned Judge in that case, if the amendment was disallowed, then that court continued to have the jurisdiction.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Murugan (A-3) attended public meeting of Rajiv Gandhi and Jayalalitha on 18.4.1991 along with Nalini (A-1) at Madras.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 53,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 82,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 100,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 116,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The trial Court con- sidered the plea that the respondent was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract on the footing that time was not of the essence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But in my opinion, ARCT No. 20/12 Page 6 of 17 the applicant/appellant/JD just to circumvent the rigours of the Limitation Act filed the CM(M) before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, as discussed herein above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 126,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 181,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as the lunacy proceedings in the Court of the District Judge, 24-Parganas are concerned, it must be held that the said proceedings and the adjudication order purported to have been made therein are void ab initio and is a nullity and as such the proceedings should be quashed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 80,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No criterion or method of varification and adjudication has been prescribed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Sd/- Sd/- (G.R. Sharma) (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (T) Member (J)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Legal position regarding framing of charge requires repetition as non-framing of charge under Section 376 E IPC is raised main reason for serious prejudice: -\n (A) The object of framing a charge is to enable an accused to have a clear idea of what he is being tried for and of the essential facts that he has to meet.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 105,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 111,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "21. MW- 168 Ponnuswamij Detained for 9 clays son of Gurunatha kicked and spat on Gounder.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 23,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He would also admit the subsequent payments dated 2.1.1996 and 8.1.1996.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 58,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "20/21 Industrial Constructions vs. BSES ISSUE NO.6 (RELIEF)\n\n41.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "More importantly., even Das Raj Jain (R.W. 10) partner of the Respondent firm does not himself claim this import and significance for Ext. R. 4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 36,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of Southern Railway of Peru (supra), the point in dispute related to the principle on which the profits should be computed with reference to certain payments which the appellant-company made, under the laws of the Republic of Peru, to its employees on their retirement from their service with it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 39,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 242,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The representatives of the Government are on the Board of Directors of the Corporation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He has further submitted that defendants were RCA:40/2010 Smt Namita Malik vs Nishant Kumar 7 of 16 served with the summons and plaintiff had filed the civil suit on dated 23.07.2009 and despite of availing sufficient time and opportunities, defendants had failed to file the written statement, so, their right to file the written statement was closed by the ld.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 91,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 182,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The advertisement dated 25th May, 2011 is for the post of Lab Technician under Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short the Rules of 1965).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 38,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 137,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Once the move initiated under Rule 6 was abandoned and no \"action\" was taken as majority opinion had not been obtained by 27.1.1997 nor even thereafter, the BCI or the Kerala Bar Council cannot legally fall back upon Rule 6 to contend that the resolution adopted on 8.2.1997 would relate back to the date on which the resolution under Rule 6 was circulated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 36,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 131,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 160,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 186,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 223,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 274,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 341,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He deposed that second accused told PW1 that first accused wanted to get CW1.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Rajpal Singh and Radhey Shyam, who were the original complainants along with Shiv Kumar, were not examined and the Enquiry Officer, regarding their absence, has stated in his report as under:-\n \"The two prosecution witnessess Rajpal Singh and Radhya Shyam have not attended to proceeding.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 29,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 238,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 255,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "V. V. Lele is the witness in respect of one set of Supervisors who work in the blending section of Wadilube plant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 107,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If, therefore, cognizance is in fact taken, on a police report vitiated by the breach of a mandatory provision relating to investigation, there can be no doubt that the result of the trial which follows it cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about a miscarriage of justice.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The concept of moral delinquency had been considered in M. Mani v. A. Sellamuthu, Ariyaloor Town Panchayat, Ariyaloor and Anr. and Sornam alias Easwaramurthy v. The District Munsif And Election Tribunal, Ambasamudram 1964 (2) MLJ 426. \n35.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 125,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 233,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Oi these, only the three Presidency High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras had power to issue certain writs within the limits of their ordinary original civil jurisdiction whereas Article 226 empowers all High Courts to which it applies to issue direction, orders and writs of certain specified kinds throughout the territories subject to their respective jurisdiction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 67,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 78,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 195,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Matter No. 2 of 1953 In the Original Side of this Court: Rex v. Housing Appeal Tribunal, (1920) 3 KB 334; and Radhakissen More v. E. Raia Ram Rai.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 20,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 104,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 145,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Krishnamurthy Rao (P. W. 1) was a medical officer to the Mysore Sugar Company, Mandya, and he knew the Junior Kulbagal who was working as a Cane Superintendent in the said factory.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 21,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 89,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question whether a person was or was not a citizen of India is obviously outside the scope of Article 19, but is dependent upon the relevant law which Parliament is enabled to make under Article 11 of the Constitution and entry 17 of the Union List.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 63,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 165,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 201,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 221,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 234,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 252,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further contended that even if the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal to Raha is enhanced that should be payable by Bhuta alone and not by the appellant Gupta, who has settled the claim with the appellant Raha.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 87,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 168,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 219,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was for the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of the eye-witnesses through expert evidence of the Doctor, and if no lathi injuries were found it was affirmatively for the prosecution to give reasons for the same.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Sudhir Kumar Gupta, petitioner No. 2 has also stated that he was produced before the ACJM, Allahabad on 7.8.1997 and the police had not registered a case at that time and he was kept in police lock up for a week and Km. Sarita was also kept in police lockup and the learned Magistrate did not take any action.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 18,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 100,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 112,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 226,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned Standing Counsel would submit that, since the vigilance report was not relied upon in the departmental enquiry, failure to furnish a copy thereof was of no consequence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "To sum up, the rationale given in Smt. Santosh (supra) is that the liability to pay compensation under the MACT is based on tort i.e. general principle of estimating damages, i.e., balancing of what is the loss to the claimants of the future pecuniary benefits that would accrue to a person if he would not have died, with the pecuniary advantage from whichever source it comes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 111,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendant No. 1 Motorola Inc. is a body corporate in the U.S.A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 67,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He recorded the statements of witnesses Kripal Singh, Sarnam Singh and others who had given the affidavits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 52,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 66,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He described the location of \"Tamarind Court\" and \"Tamarind Cafi\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "So far as Debi Chand (defendant No. 4) is concerned, he had preferred First Appeal No 298 of 1954 in this Court against the decision of the trial court, which appeal, as mentioned above, was connected with the instant First Appeal",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 20,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 97,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is open to the Chief Justice to reduce the areas in Oudh referred to in the list proviso to paragraph 14 of the order and further that the Bench, at Lucknow Bench will hear cases arising in specified Oudh areas as the currence of the Chief Justice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 59,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 159,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 207,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 4 of the said Act speaks about burden of proof.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As regards ground No.6 with regard to lease rent transactions amounting to Rs.19,855/-, the facts are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 for the assessment year 1997-98 in ground No.3 therein except the amount.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 145,
"end": 177,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 199,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Government further convened a meeting of the Board Members in the presence of the District Educational Officer, Wandoor and directed the District Educational Officer to conduct the election to the office bearers of the committee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 119,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia case 1 examples were given by Sarkar, and Hidayatullah, JJ.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 23,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 78,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh Regular Second Appeal No.3551 of 2014 (O&M) {5}",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 118,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "expiry of the time-limit for making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation as specified in Sub-section (2) of Section 153",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 128,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The\t State of Haryana through Haryana Urban\t Development Authority (HUDA) acquired some land under\t the\tland Acquisition Act for\tthe purpose of development\t and utilisation of that land for industrial purposes of Gurgaon under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 21,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 66,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 74,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 133,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 235,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 291,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The contention of the plaintiff is that none of these conditions are satisfied.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was observed in that case that practically all the High Courts are unanimous that an application by the defendant for adjournment for the purpose of filing a written statement itself amounts to taking step in the proceedings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The witnesses have given contradictory replies on the other aspects of the matter as well.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The trial Judge did not accept the case of the prosecution with regard to the recovery of the weapon M.O. 4 in pursuance of Ex. P. 15 statement, which was obtained after this appellant was taken into police custody, long after his surrender before the Court and hence that piece of evidence cannot be used against the accused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This appeal by the defendants has been preferred against the judgment and decree dt. Aug. 14, 1972 of the Civil Judge, Chitradurga in 0. S. No. 25 of 1964. \n 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 98,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 130,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 154,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are of the view that the College had no justification to publish the said note in the brochure because attempt appears to be to attract the students to seek admission in the Diploma Course, but part of the note was even factually correct.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Soli. J. Sorabjee Addl. Sol. Genl., Thakur Naubat Singh Adv. Genl. Haryana, S. N. Anand and R. N. Sachthey for the Respondents, in Crl. A. Nos. 365, 430, & 431/77, 508, 499/78 and 38, 141 and 142/78.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 106,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 198,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is manifest that there is sufficient corroboration of the evidence of the approver so far as the appellant is concerned and the argument of Mr. Mitter must be rejected on this aspect of the case. \n\n(1) A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 637.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 147,
"end": 153,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 225,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Only such special provisions in favour of women can be made under Article 15(3), which are reasonable and do not altogether obliterate or render illusory the constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 16(2).\" \n\n R.S. Narula, J. \n 20.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 79,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 209,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 226,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[1016 B, C]\n In\t the instant case, the provisions of Section 22(1)\ndid not, therefore, bar the prosecution of the\t proceedings by the respondents and the order dated September 30,\t1989 passed\tby the XII Additional Small Cause Judge, Bangalore allowing the eviction petition cannot be held to have\tbeen passed\tin contravention of the provisions of Section 22(1)\nof the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 72,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 189,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 253,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 373,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Besides, in proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, the matter has to be decided on preponderances of probability and not as in the criminal case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 52,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri A. Krishnaiah, the learned counsel for defendant No. 26, has relied on Waman Shriniwas Kini v. Ratilal Bhagwandas & Co. and Raghavachari v. Ramakrishna Reddy, 1965 2 Andh W R 61 in support of his submission that the entire sale transaction is void.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 124,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 182,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He stated that contention 16 formulated in the High Court judgment in Hansa Corporation's case ILR (1980) 1 Kar 165 pertains to this question and that point was considered at para 77 of the High Court's judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 87,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 115,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As observed by Justice Patteson in R.v. James Lloyd?\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 31,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 51,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 30 days along with the interest.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 54,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner has challenged award made by labour court, Anand in Reference NO. 146/95 and Reference NO.322/99 Exh. 24 decided on 28th July, 2009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 59,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 142,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Again assume that the forty-point roster is opening now in Grade `B'.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The contractors hereby agree and legally bind themselves to perform the work, as desired in the annexed schedule and at rates specified therein.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Authority for this contention is sought in Queen Empress v. Rangi, 10 Mad. 295, a case which on difference between two judges was decided in accordance with the opinion of a third judge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 78,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "OPD 6) Whether the suit as framed, is not maintainable?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It may so happen that the tax treaty with a foreign country may contain a provision giving concessional treatment to any income as compared to the position under the Indian law existing at that point of time.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Earl Cairns, Lord Chancellor speaking for the judicial committee observed dealing with the expression \"it shall be lawful\" that these words confer a faculty or power and they do not of themselves do more' than confer a faculty or power.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 94 as originally enacted for the rule making power of the Central Government was amended to read with effect from 16th July 1997, that the Central Government would also have the power to frame rules relating to the manner of furnishing returns under Section 71A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 84,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 136,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 165,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 270,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If a gap is disclosed, the remedy lies in an amending Act.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Relying upon the Act the plaintiff contended that that Act rendered the order of excommunication ineffective.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The reasons for which Shafique Khan found that the question had to be answered differently have been discussed earlier and it is evident that the two Supreme Court judgments that Shafique Khan drew sustenance from to take a different view did not address the specific question.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 163,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 192,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There was also unexplained error as to the date on which appellant B was admitted into the jail.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Having noted these judgments, the Division Bench speaking through D.H. Shukla. J. made the following observations:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 77,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The common intention to bring about a particular result may also well develop on the spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and circumstances existing thereto.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We find that the case is now before the committing Magistrate.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to them, the College had been established by the citizens of Gaya to commemorate the memory of the national poet, Mirza Ghalib, and for that purpose a meeting of the citizens of Gaya was held in August, 1968, which was presided over by Shree Shakeel Ahmad (respondent No. 7), who was a member of the Syndicate of the respondent University.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 75,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 136,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 192,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 265,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The amendment of Section 367(5), of the old Code does not affect the law regulating punishment under the IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 31,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 108,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court also noticed certain infirm- ities in the evidence of PW 1 Mohmad Shafi in paragraphs 32 to 34 of its judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 86,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Recently the Apex Court in Union of India v. Elphinstone Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., (AIR 2001 SC 724), observed as follows:\n \"9. A statute is construed so as to make it effective and operative.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 23,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 105,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The ratio of the majority judgment in R. C. Cooper's case was explained in clear and categorical terms by Shelat, J., speaking on behalf of seven judges of this Court in Shambhu Nath Sarkar v. State of West Bengal(1).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 112,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 216,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But the property allegedly gifted to Rukminibai was not mutated in the name of Rukminibai in the municipal records, but continued in the name of Damodar Rao even after 1961.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 89,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 156,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": ", N.M. Patnaik and Vinoo Bhagar, for respondents Nos. 5 to 7 (in C.As. Nos. 625 and 629 of 1967) and respondents Nos. \n\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 14,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 19,
"end": 31,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 95,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 168,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused then examined Sh. Shiv Shankar Soni, a customer of the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are not aware of any law or regulation prevailing in India which renders it imperative upon the suitor to appeal from every interlocutory order by which he may conceive himself aggrieved, under the penalty, if he docs not so do, of forfeiting for ever the benefit of the appellate Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 61,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on by the learned counsel in Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 7 SCC 640] and a decision of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Augustine vs. Omprakash Nanakram [2001 (2) KLT 638].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 144,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 212,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 267,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Likewise, Janardan Pandey, respondent No. 2, who had filed cross-objection, had also died during the pendency of this appeal and his heirs Anrawati Devi and another were substituted by order dated 2-9-1968. \n\n2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 25,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 152,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 205,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Identical question came to be considered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Yashpal Sahni (supra) and considering Section 205 of the Act in para 15 of the Bombay High Court has observed as under:\n \"15.Chapter XVII of the IT Act, 1961 provides for collection and recovery of tax by two modes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 130,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 177,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 218,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 238,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The tests are: whether Article 14 is violated and whether classes in whose favour the reservation is made are differentiable from the rest on the basis of an intelligible differentia and, whether there is a nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 33,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The delay in the registration of FIR has been fully explained by the prosecution.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Assessing Officer, in the event of challenge to the reasons, must be able to justify the same based on material available on record.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is possible (though we need not so decide in this case) that the recent amendment to section 537 in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act XXVI of 1955, where misjoinder of charges has been placed in the curable category, will set at rest the (1) [1947] L.R. 74 I.A. 65, 75.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 99,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 162,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 284,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Vide Mohd. Alam v. State of West Bengal and Khudiram Das v. State of West Bengal & Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 39,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 86,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The evidence would show that the prosecutrix was working hard to save money for her family.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this petition under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the Act'), petitioner-Ficom Organics Ltd. (hereinafter 'the petitioner') has prayed that the respondent-company-Laffans Petrochemicals Ltd. ('the respondent/the respondent-company') be wound up on the ground that the respondent has not paid the petitioner a sum of Rs. 16,27,433.15.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 70,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 126,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 224,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Exercising the power under section 398(2) of the Companies Act, the learned Judge directed NIIL to make good that loss which, according to him, could have been avoided by it \"by adopting a fairer process of communication\" with the Holding Company and \"a consequential dialogue\" with them, in the matter of the issue of rights shares at a premium.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 41,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 62,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 95,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On an anxious consideration of the materials available in the case in particular ex. p7 (fir), Ex. P28 (statement by amrik singh), evidence of pw-5 (widow of deceased balbir singh) and the medical evidence, we are satisfied that the court below was justified in holding that Baldev Singh (accused No.1) and Roor Singh (accused No. 3) caused injuries to Balbir Singh (deceased No. 1), which resulted in his death.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 128,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 179,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 287,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 317,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 365,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Gangeshwar Prasad, J. 2. Sagun Chandra and Smt. Raieshwar Devi, plaintiffs-respondents in First Appeal No. 301 of 1959, filed suit No. 3 of 1957 in the court of the Civil Judge Farrukhabad, for a declaration that a sale deed dated October 16.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 17,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 38,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 62,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 118,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 144,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 188,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 242,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ordinarily Magistrates write in the order sheet of the case, when adjourning it to the next date, that the accused should remain in custody as before, but Sri P. R. Gupta or rather his clerk did not say in the order passed on 6-7-1954 that the applicant should remain in custody upto 19-7-1954.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 170,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 234,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 293,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is a well settled proposition that in case the fraud is proved, the length of time ought not upon principles of eternal justice, be admitted to refuse relief, (vide-Bulli Coal Mining Co. v. Osborae, 1899 A. C. 331 (363).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 221,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "3. The Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, came into force on 23-4-1994, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The exercise of powers by High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to direct/transfer the investigation to CBI has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 54,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 83,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 131,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 180,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Ved Prakash, learned Counsel appearing in Writ Petition No.3457/2000 submitted that the interpretation of RPSC of Rule 15 is unconstitutional and is against Articles 14, 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution and that the said interpretation by RPSC is contrary to law Laid down by the Apex Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 72,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 125,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 189,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 209,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 250,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 297,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The enacting clause of Section 64 (3) provides that \"every appeal pending at the commencement of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969, shall be proceeded with and disposed of as if that Act had not been passed.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 137,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2010)12 SCC 254, the facts were that as on 7.7.2008, there was an altercation between the members of the Bharwad and the Koli Patel communities over the plying of rickshaws in the area surrounding Dhedhal village of Ahmedabad district, Gujarat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 61,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 158,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 258,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 280,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 289,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The confession statement of A.3 which excludes the complicity of A.1 cannot be relied upon to exclude A.1 or to absolve A.1 from discharging the onus on him to explain how the medicines came to his house.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The meaning of the term has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sunitha V Ramesh, 2010 (3) KLT 501, in the context of husband-wife relationship, while doing which, the meaning of the expression given in some other text books were also noted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 115,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts so far as relevant may briefly be stated as follows: \n Channabasamma - defendant-1 and Rudraiya - the plaintiff - were rival claimants to plaint A and B Schedule properties left behind by one Halaswami Each claimed to be the nearest agnatic heir of the deceased to the exclusion of the other, \n \n\n 3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 78,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 105,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 211,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They put revolvers on the temples of the petitioner and Surjit Singh and asked them to sign on blank papers or else they would kill them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 68,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After intensive search of the prosecutrix when all efforts went into vain, Kailash telephonically reported the matter at Police Station, Maina and same was registered as Sanha No.66 of 2014 at 15:10 hrs. for the offence under Section 363 of IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 142,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 189,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 237,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 244,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(iii) Rule 38-B is liable to be set aside since even Section 23-C of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, does not authorise such a rule making power resulting in the prevention and prohibition of transport of sand outside the State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 15,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 65,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 130,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The view of Rankin, C.J., as expressed in the observation quoted above, was that it would be difficult to hold that any litigant had a right to a hearing before two Judges.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 18,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is against this order dated 24.7.1986 that the present appeal has come up.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 40,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence this revisional application to this Court by the petitioner Chittaranjan Das.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 82,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused denied to have issued the cheques in question towards discharge of arbital award.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "I do not think it necessary to elaborately discuss those judgments since in my view the Division Bench Judgment in Maharashtra Vegetable Products Ltd., has on a consideration of the decision of the Supreme Court in D. Cawasji as also the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ogale Glass Works, has held that the petitioner cannot be denied refund solely on the ground of unjust enrichment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 150,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 211,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 225,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 303,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A Division Bench (S. T. Desai and K. T. Desai JJ.) of the Bombay High Court held in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I v. Gaekwar Foam and Rubber Co. Ltd., 35 I.T.R.662,(1) that though the above observations of Buckley J. were in the context of reconstruction of a company, they were equally illuminating for determining the scope of reconstruction of a business already in existence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 45,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 75,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 191,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 237,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As noted supra, for the first time in the review application, it was disclosed that the representation was made to the President of India and no representation was made to the State of Tamil Nadu or the Union of India who were arrayed in the writ petition as parties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 137,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 195,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 217,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Income-tax was first imposed in the Hyderabad State in 1946 by a special Act of the Legislature and the petitioner was assessed under the Hyderabad Income-tax Act by the Additional Income-tax Officer, Raichur, for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949- 50.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 45,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 162,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 208,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "28. R. W. 2, Shyamapada is the priest of the Respondent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 23,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Out of the said eight witnesses PW2 HC Vandana, on 8.12.2012 was posted as Sessions Case No. 6/14 Page no. 11 of 32 duty officer at police station Malviya Nagar and in that capacity recorded DD entry no. 16 and FIR no. 510/2012; and she during her examination proved the the said DD entry and FIR, copies of which were admitted in evidence as Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B respectively.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 46,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 97,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 160,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This judgment was challenged by the State of Punjab in the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Reported as State of Punjab vs. Gurjant Singh and others, 2002 (2) PLJ 438) wherein the following order was passed:-\n\n \" S.N.Variava, J.- Leave granted. \n\n 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 51,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 80,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 157,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 214,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That the Central Government is not a Court was assumed at the hearing.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 27,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Several considerations would enter the consideration of this question as regards the safety of the system employed by the O.N.G.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 122,
"end": 130,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Three applications being Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 8249/2009, 8361/2009 and 8363/2009 to quash and set aside the proceedings undertaken by Sessions Court during the pendency of the applications filed earlier were made.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 91,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As discussed above, what we find established from the prosecution evidence is that - (i) Abhinav, injured child witness aged about 5 years (PW-28) was found in a forest on road hundreds kilometres away from his house of Kanpur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 96,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 226,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It only requires the original licensees to make an application in writing to the competent authority for adding a new partner.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "4. The insurer, viz., the Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company has denied its liability completely.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 67,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before I advert to the said line of the defence taken by the accused it is imperative for me to go through the provisions of Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act which read as under:\n --Until the contrary is proved, the following pre\u00ad sumptions shall be made\u00ad\n (a) of consideration.--that every negotiable instru\u00ad Case No. : 5054/14 Surender Kumar Vs. Surat Singh Page 7/12 ment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 148,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 330,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 361,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is thus clear that by a combined reading of Sections 41, 42, 43 and 51 of the NDPS Act and Section 4 CrPC regarding arrest and search under Sections 41, 42 and 43, the provisions of CrPC namely Sections 100 and 165 would be applicable to such arrest and search.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 89,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 108,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 166,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 189,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 217,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the absence of a proper investigation in a case where an offence is disclosed, the offender may succeed in escaping from the consequences and the offender may go unpunished to the detriment of the cause of justice and the society at large.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We are of the opinion that the expressions 'serve' and 'issue' are interchangeable, as has been noticed in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1887 and also in a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Banarsi Devi Vs. The Income - Tax Officer, District IV, Calcutta and others AIR 1964 SC 1742.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 117,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 150,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 198,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 303,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even before the investigating officer could interrogate the accused, and in my view, interrogation was very much necessary, the court ordered release on regular bail.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "case is in point-where the error, irregularity or illegality touching jurisdiction or procedure committed by an inferior court or tribunal of first instance is so patent and loudly obtrusive that it leaves on its decision an indelible stamp of infirmity or vice which cannot be obliterated or cured on appeal or revision.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Warrington J. observed:\n \"No service can be better than personal service.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Although a doubt was raised regarding respondent No. 1 Prakash Babu (W.P.No. 10027/94) being a Watchman, whether he is a worker or workman, but having found the work en trusted to him concerning the systematic activity of the water supply and the machinery in that, the doubt was given up.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 85,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As also noted earlier in that case, the suit was instituted in the year 2006, that is to say, prior to coming into force the Amendment Act in the State of Gujarat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 138,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 162,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 17.9.2015 SL",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 18,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 47,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Page No. 67/82 SC No. 33/1/14 FIR No. 259/03 P.S Rajender Nagar removed by Chokidar Rajinder Singh and thereafter recovered by police.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 15,
"end": 29,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 63,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 98,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above witness (Lt. Col. Harbux Singh) was allowed to be examined, but was not permitted to be examined as an expert witness.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 40,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On November 15, 1958, the assessee and his major son, Suresh, started a partnership firm to carry on the same business in the same name and style.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 20,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This appeal arises out of a suit which was filed by the plaintiff-respondent Thakur Bharatsingh for recovery of Rs. 13,472.50 paise against the defendant-appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 95,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 5 of the Indian Arms Act, 1878 required that a person intending to manufacture, convert or sell arms and ammunition must take out a licence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 38,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of above facts, Arjun Patel (PW/7) claims that he saw a girl was going with the unknown person on 04.01.2014 at 2:00 p.m. towards village Badlapur and after half an hour this fact came to his knowledge that one girl of village is abducted from the school.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 38,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 119,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 157,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Regulation 32,1 and previous analogous provisions have been in force for a considerable time by now.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have hereinabove summarized the findings of facts recorded by the three forums.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Held that Shagir Ahmad's case had no application and\t the contentions put forward by the respondents were well founded and must be accepted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(15) The next decision to which my attention was drawn by Mr.I.M.Nanavati was a decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay consisting of Batchelor and Shah JJ. in Municipality of Belgaum v. Rudrappa, 18 Bom LR 340 : (AIR 1916 Bom 196 (1) ).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 73,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 136,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 160,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 169,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 253,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "COMPENSATION IN THIRD PETITON (Suit no. 653/2014)\n\n 30.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 48,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After ten minutes, the accused went there and asked the deceased as to where she was going.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He has stated that he knows both of them as they are both his relatives.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "She also deposed that when they returned from the hospital, the child told her \"mother\" (presumably she means the sister, i.e., PW-3 Rekha) that she was raped by the accused Jai Hind and immediately after, her \"mother\"(sic) told her about this incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 133,
"end": 138,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 182,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": ": (per the Honble Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao) This writ petition is filed by the three petitioners viz., K.Venkaiah, Rama Rao and Narasimha Rao, sons of Ramadasu against 8 respondents of whom respondents 5 to 8 relevant are K.B.Ramana, K.Nageswara Rao, B.C.V.Ramana and K.Siva.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 48,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 119,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 129,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 147,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 165,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 238,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 255,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 269,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 280,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Regarding the heavy damage which the Company had to sustain due to your negligence and misconduct we are at a liberty to realise the amount from you.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has also not been pointed to them that the word \"elected\" is used in the past tense when providing for the notification in the official Gazette of the results of the election.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Further, he admits that A-1 was seeking oral permission of the Zonal Office for giving credit facilities to A-2 to A-5.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "8.1 In para-2, learned Advocate for accused No.1 has referred to the case of the prosecution against accused No.2 as under:-\n\"2. .....",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That (a) or (b) or (c) have to be read conjunctively with (d) and (e).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in absence of a preparation of inventory of the seized Charas as required under section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act the whole trial has stood vitiated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 133,
"end": 147,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 163,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendant no.1 has not given any response to his requests and therefore, the Suit No.302/08 Page 7 /37 Murari Lal Sharma (now deceased) through L.R's v. Narender Pal Gupta and Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 124,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 183,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are, therefore, unable to accept the first contention of learned standing counsel for the Central Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 111,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case the claim for deduction of the interest on the balance of the purchase price due by the assessee-company to another entity whose business the assessee-company took over was negatived under Section 10(2)(iii) (Hon'ble Justice Subba Rao expressing no opinion on the point).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 202,
"end": 220,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 247,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 41 defines \"special law\" as \"a law applicable to a particular subject\"; and Section 42 defines \"local law\" as \"a law applicable only to a particular part of the territories comprised in India.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 199,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "5. If a partnership is dissolved every person who was a partner shall send a report of the dissolution to the licensing authority within ten days of such dissolution.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Delay and laches do not 2014.05.29 15:40",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 34,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Article 15(2) which is an amplification cf Article 16(1) cieariy lays down the grounds on which it may be said that a citizen has been denied the equality of opportunity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 56,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appeals had come up earlier before a Bench comprising one of us (B.P.Jeevan Reddy, J.) and S.P.Bharucha, J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 85,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri Sheopatsingh was accordingly declared elected by the Returning Officer on 18-3-1957.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant however, placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision as reported in State of Maharashtra v. Jayantilal AIR 1984 SC 612: (1984 Cri LJ 334) submitted that this presumption is not available to the prosecution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 102,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 196,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\nThere also, the decision in P. R. Nayak v. Union of India, (supra) was referred to and distinguished and ultimately it was concluded, as could be clearly seen, that initiation of disciplinary proceedings was essential in that case but here no such requirement is made out.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 58,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, the defendant filed T.S. No. 360/82 for specific performance of contract against said Ramcsh Prasad, in the Court of First Subordinate Judge, Patna with respect to the suit premises, who sold the same to the plaintiffs with a view to defeat the rightful claim of the defendant in the aforesaid title suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 47,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 111,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 159,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner has alleged that on 28-5-87 the petitioner noticed that Flat No. 12A was in possession of the respondent 6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 42,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 20 (1) of the aforesaid Act of 1959 was identical in terms with Section 20 (1) of the current Act, namely the Keraia Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 86,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 169,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Counsel also relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Biswabani Pvt. Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Dutta and Ors., , specially observations in paragraph 9 of that judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 68,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 134,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Fast Track Court)-01, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. \n\n************************************************************ Sessions Case Number : 05 of 2015. \n\nUnique Case ID Number : 02401R0020062015 FIR No. 852/2014, Police Station Khayala Under sections 376, 328, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. \n\nState versus Tarun Kumar -:: Page 12 of 12 ::-",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 186,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 230,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 271,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 300,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 325,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 353,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, on April 11, 1944 the plaintiff received another letter from the said Deputy Regional Controller of Priorities to the following effect:-- \n \"Your steamer Madan Mohan is required for work at Tistamukh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 29,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 178,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 212,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The registration was in the name of 4th respondent-Praveen Kumar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 64,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The argument, however, was that the objects for which the properties are held by the Sabha under an obligation are not all charitable and religious objects and in that connection learned counsel cited a large number of English cases to show what charity means in England.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 263,
"end": 270,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further the licence granted by the D.O.T when amended by letter dated 29.l.200l stipulated that certain conditions shall always be complied with and shall not be violated, including inter alia that there shall be a cap of 49% of foreign equity and the management control of the company shall remain with the Indian shareholders.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 79,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court referred to some decisions and then stated : \n \" An administrative or quasi-judicial order based on several grounds, all taken together, cannot be sustained if it be found that some of the grounds are non-existent or irrelevant, and there is nothing to show that the authority would have passed the order on the basis of the other relevant and existing grounds.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Parliament and the Legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner shall approach the State Bank of India, Tis Hazari Branch for opening the account.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 53,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above argument, by way of reply, by Shri Shashi Kumar places the point for consideration in a totally different light and can be appreciated without reference to any of the aforesaid decisions, including that of the apex court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 57,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 230,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All the accused persons after causing injuries to both the persons ran away from the spot.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that there is no presumption that there would be negligence on the part of two\u00ad wheeler driver if three persons are riding on a two\u00adwheeler and that negligence has to be established as a fact.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 28,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of Jagatnarayansingh Swarupsingh Chithere and others Versus Swarupsingh Education Society 24 Ori.Sms.2029.11 and another, reported in 1980 Mh.L.J. 372 this Court held that the extent of jurisdiction under Section 22 of the Act is not limited to the only factum of change but it extends its legality and validity as well.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 132,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 227,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The NSCs and KVPs, which were looted/stolen at various places in India, were notified by the Directorate of Postal Services, New Delhi through a negative list, which was circulated to all the post offices in India including the post office Gabhana.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 70,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 134,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 213,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 247,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That is why this item will also be governed by Appendix 10 as an O.G.L. item.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 58,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nIn W. P. 12261/84, the workmen in Tailoring Industry have also prayed for a direction to revise their wages on the ground that they have not been fixed on relevant basis.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 19,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Lord Dunedin expressed the view that there might be rescission of the original contract by a subsequent arrangement dealing with the same subject matter and containing executory clauses enabling the parties to sue upon the second arrangement alone even if the original contract did not exist.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ugamchand D.W. 14 also corroborates Inderchand on the above question and has stated that after the partition in 1934 alterations in Schedule A property were made by the parties in accordance with its terms and they are marked from 1-17-in the site plan Ex. A-27",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is pertinent to mention here that from the case diary, which is available on the record, the name of the owner of the said indica car was revealed as Angrej Singh of the village, but during investigation neither the said Angrej Singh was associated nor the said car was got recovered at all at the instance of the accused or otherwise.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 153,
"end": 165,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 236,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Date of Order 16-10-2017 W.P.Nos.54502-506/2015 & Connected matters Sri.P.Malappa & Others Vs. The Bengaluru Electricity Supply Co., (BESCOM) & Others 11",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 27,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 50,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 153,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 22/6/1991, PW 1 lodged the FIR (Exh. 9) at Boisar Police Station and C.R. No. I-68 of 1991 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 each read with Section 34 of IPC against the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 67,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 93,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 177,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 203,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 210,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "since the Full Bench and now this Court have taken the view that the interpretation placed on the provisions of law by the Division Bench in Bhakare's case (supra), was erroneous, it will have to be held that the appointments made by the University on March 30, 1985 pursuant to the law laid down in Bhakare's case (supra), were not according to law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 141,
"end": 148,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 266,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 307,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During cross examination conducted by respondent No.1 and 2 (Yogesh and Mukesh) PW3 denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely to help the petitioner to claim exaggerated compensation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 67,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n(vii) Whether the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act, 1998 excludes the power of the electricity Board to frame conditions for supply of electricity under Section 49 read with Section 79(J)?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 63,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 170,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 194,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the section was silent about the grounds on which the permission to file a suit for eviction could be granted to the landlord the Supreme Court found as a necessary corollary to the quasi-judicial power \"that the District Magistrate has to weigh the pros and cons of the matter and come to a certain conclusion he made the order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 133,
"end": 146,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court was relied on by the Supreme Court in Sharad v. State of Maharashtra .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 78,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 112,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The words of Article 226 of the Constitution are wide enough to cover an order of that description, Reference may be made to the observations of Bind Basni Prasad J. in -- 'Sm. Prabhabati Devi v. District Magistrate of Allahabad', AIR 1952 All 836 at p. 838 (A).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 24,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 44,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 165,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 261,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Besides ICRISAT has a role which extends beyond the territorial boundaries of India and its activities are designed to benefit people from all over the world.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 15,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 83,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As remarked by Kumaraswami, J., in Pichamma v. Sreeramulu (supra) 'There can be no review if the Judge does not preside when the application is made'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 26,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 57,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Who will decide when this local self Government in a democracy is to be switched off.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The revenue records like Sethwar, Khasra Pahani 1954-55 prepared under the Hyderabad Land Census Rules, 1954 and the record of rights prepared under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Record of Rights Regulation, 1358 Fasli, would show it as Government land for more than fifty years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 32,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 108,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 224,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "MLA 3. G. Aruna Kumari, MLA 4. Mari Ravindranath, MLA 5. Vijaya Nirmala, Film Artist Shadnagar Bhoomi Minister 80 Eng.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 71,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 101,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Court in Harkishandas v. Gulabdas , was dealing with Section 38 of the Civil Procedure Code and has observed as under (p. 516):",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 38,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 96,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Punjab National Bank, \n\nRadhey Puri, Delhi branch which is Ex. CW1/A in favour of the complainant but on presentation the said cheque was returned back dishonored with the remark \"DRAWER'S SIGNATURE DIFFER \" vide dishonour memo dated 02.06.2010.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 24,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 46,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 265,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W. 1 Dr. N.R. Bhatia was the Radiologist in the District Hospital Moradabad on 3-2-1972.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 22,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 77,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 89,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The counsel further submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) or the decision in Cloth Traders (P) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (1979) 118 ITR 243(), rendered in the context of the provisions of sections 80M, 80E and 80AA of the Act has no application to section 80HHC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 68,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 114,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 203,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 281,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 325,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 43A also was considered at length by the Supreme Court in Arvind Mills' case [1992 193 ITR 255].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 62,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 103,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appeal came to be heard and disposed of by the Transport Appellate Tribunal on 28-6-69.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 90,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to Munkman, these are divided into two categories.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After hearing the submissions of both sides and additional report,on committal from the Magistrate's Court, the Sessions Judge considered that there is a prima facie case that the accused has committed offence under Section 212 IPC for the purpose of framing charge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 216,
"end": 227,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 231,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further submitted that there is suppression of material fact by the petitioner, in that, the proceedings which have taken place from 7.1.2012 till the date the writ petition was filed has been withheld and obstruction was caused for further proceeding with the inquiry with effect from 27.4.2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 298,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The prosecution witnesses Bishubhai, Induben, Inaben, Monghiben, were all independent witnesses and had no reason to implicate any of these accused persons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 35,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 44,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 52,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 63,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The place where the dead body was found and the blood-stained earth was lifted are depicted in the same manner and are at a distance from the water course.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The issue arose in this case, before the learned single judge in the context of a challenge from the order dated 31st May, 2011 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in complaint case No. 934/2003 titled as Manjari Vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 127,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 173,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 204,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 247,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is correct that summons were not duly issued and served; entries of filing of documents and proceedings were not made in the relevant registers as per rules; the service report was not filed as required and there is no compliance of rules of service as provided in CPC, High Court Rules; there is no explanation for the events of 14.3.1995.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 268,
"end": 271,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 342,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the offence u/s.78(3) of the KP Act shall be categorized as a non-cognizable offence as per the II Schedule of Cr.PC. \n\n 44. POINT NO.2. \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 32,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 46,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 118,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 127,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He submitted that the first statement of Lalmohmad was recorded by P.I. Shri Baria on 9-3-2002, which contains only estimated loss to his property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 94,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even in (Ch. Tika Ramji and Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.) it was held that production, supply and distribution of sugarcane is the exclusive sphere of the State but with subjective control of the Union as per Entry 33 of List III i.e. Concurrent List of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 72,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 244,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 265,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 294,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Notification in respect of this area was issued in November, 1959, and another notification under section 4 of the Act in respect of 16,000 acres of land was issued in October, 1961.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 65,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 181,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He admitted that there was another way to reach his family house but that was the circuitous route and the shortest route to his family house was through Ottappilavu. \n\n22.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 154,
"end": 165,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the instant case if the equity jurisdiction is exercised in favour of the plaintiff it will result in great hardship to the defendants and it would also be highly inequitable to pass a decree for specific performance in case like this.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This Safal English School sold its tenancy rights along with goodwill to Slir Akhandanand Kelavani Uttejak Uandal, a registered public trust, which started a school in the said premises from 1st April 1968.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 25,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 113,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 205,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In State Trading Corporation v. State of Mysore [1963] 14 S.T.C. 188, the Supreme Court laid down that a sale occasions the movement of goods from one State to another within Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 19.56, when the movement \"is the result of a covenant or incident of the contract of sale\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 68,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 87,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 187,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 223,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has also relied on decision reported in 2011(3) P.L.J.R. 813 held that in the case of confiscation of property under Chapter III of the Special Court Act, 2009, the Evidence Act is applicable only when the delinquent public servant raise a dispute before the Authorized Officer about the valuation and the Patna High Court CR.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 63,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 131,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 162,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 180,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 325,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Any endeavour to relate it to the percentage of marks in the TET, would be doing violence to the tone, tenor and contents of the notifications, which is clearly impermissible.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the aforementioned W.P.(C).No.7404 of 2006 & Con.Cases :: 13 ::\n writ petitions, an additional contention has been taken up that the orders of re-fixation of pay and consequent revision of the pension are violative of the principles of natural justice, since prior notice had not been given to the petitioners therein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 45,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the 2nd August, 1968, the petitioner was allowed to withdraw ,his application for enrolment as an Advocate, and the enrolment fee of Rs. 250/- was also refunded to him, (vide Annexure '1'). \n 3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 23,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having excluded what is not industry from the expression 'industry', I now need look to the positive aspect of the expression 'industry'.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The subject matter of the above writ petitions are concerning adjudication of Trade Certificate applications by the competent authority under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and in that exercise, whether the said authority is bound by Circular No.3 of 2009 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 174,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 257,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 314,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that only that portion of 5 per cent of the selling agency commission received by the assessee was exempt which was incurred in the year of account in the performance of the duties as selling agent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Paramjit Singh, constable was driving the said vehicle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is, however, a clear wording in this declaration to indicate that the date of birth of Shivram as mentioned in the school records was correct.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 100,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In CHAITANYA KUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, ILR 1986 KAR 1723 the Supreme Court stated, at page 1737:\n \"...When arbitrariness and perversion are writ large and brought out clearly, the Court cannot shirk its duty and refuse its Writ.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 77,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n44.Since the present petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, against the judicial order passed by the civil court, therefore, the same is not maintainable, and is, accordingly, dismissed.\" \n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 58,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 87,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent/defendant has requested her to purchase his accidental Innova Car for a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/\u00ad with the condition that he will hand over the same to her after settling the claim with ICICI Lombard Motors Insurance Company Limited and obtaining the delivery of Innova Car after repairs.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 197,
"end": 243,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1531/2004 no explanation much less an acceptable explanation was given by the defendant for taking out the application under Sec.45 of the Indian Evidence Act after nearly more than 5 years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 57,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 179,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 206,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These two witnesses, i.e. Usha Devi and Jarnail Singh, both having been found to be followers of Dera Baba Kali Dass, that too was found to be a suspicious circumstance and it was opined by the learned trial Court that Jarnail Singh had testified in favour of the will benefitting Usha Devi, they both being 'disciples' of the same Dera/sect. \n\n28.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 35,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 53,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 232,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 290,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There was old enmity in relation to the land due to which the occurrence took place and her husband Nanda, son Lalu and one another boy were killed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 115,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Here the concept of \"benefit of doubt\" has been made to stand on its head.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "CWP No.24394 of 2014 Jasbir Kaur and others V/s State of Haryana and others",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 75,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similar direction was given to the Secretary, RTA, to justify his action in granting permits and also to the Counsel who appeared for Nagamani in the past.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 49,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 142,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent Appeal filed under Sec.19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the Fair and decreetal order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai in FCOP No.1992 of 2007 dated 30.4.2009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 67,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 165,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 189,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 205,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling-limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The assessee was originally assessed in the status of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment year 1953-54 on August 31, 1954, on a total income of Rs. 4,915 and for the year 1954-55 on a total loss of Rs. 4,087 on April 15, 1955.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 129,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 233,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court has made the above observations as way back as in 1996 in the judgment reported as State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy, JT 1996 (10) SC 550.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 169,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, the two powers are different in nature.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist cannot be accepted inasmuch as by insertion of Section 7-A in the Act, 2000, the legislative intent becomes clear by a bare reading of its proviso that the claim of juvenility shall be dermined in terms of the provisions contained in that Act and the rules made thereunder.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 126,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 143,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court, while construing the expression \"amount\" in earlier part of Section 244(1A) held that it would refer to not only the tax but also the interest on the expression \"amount\" is a neutral expression and it cannot be limited to the tax paid in pursuance of the order of assessment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 91,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Few basic facts, not in dispute are :- The marriage of the petitioner - Yamunabai - with the respondent No. 1 was performed on 16-6-1974 after undergoing necessary rites under the Hindu law, which was the personal law of the parties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 81,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 136,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He proved the photocopy of bed-head ticket, case summary and operation notes of the patient, as Ex.PJ. \n\n PW7, Dr. Sanjay Sethi has deposed that he was posted as Medical Officer, in x-ray department of Rajindera Hospital, Patiala on 27.5.1998.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 127,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 229,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 242,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All other contentions and submissions made by ONGC will not help the ONGC in view of specific provisions of Section 125 of the Act and the statutory requirement under the said Section.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 50,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 73,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 119,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "enacted the law and Sections 19 and 20 of the 1955 Act sought to validate all orders and notifications issued under the 19:51 Act and by a legal fiction those orders and notifications were deemed to have been issued under the corresponding provisions of the 1955 Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 38,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Judgment of the Court was delivered FAZAL ALl, J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 49,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Once the charges are held not proved, the C.O. has no option but to dismiss the charges.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the same day, the District Magistrate ordered investigation of the offenses and issued warrants for simultaneous searches at as many as 34 places.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thomas marks the beginning of a new thinking on Article 16, though the seed of this thought is to be found in the dissenting opinion of Subba Rao,J. in Devadasan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 58,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 145,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 161,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further alleged that in order to discharge his liability the accused has issued three cheque's to the CC No. 2264/12 Axis Bank Ltd. Vs Sunil Dutt Shukla 12/12 complainant bearing No. 415211, 415214 & 415215 dated 01.11.2011, 01.12.2011 and 01.01.2012 respectively all amounting to Rs. 29,628/\u00ad each, all drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd., Faridabad, Haryana Branch.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 158,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 229,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 241,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 256,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 333,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 344,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 346,
"end": 353,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision of lower appellate Court of rejecting the application under Order 41 Rule 27 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is also being questioned that the same is erroneous. \n\n8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 109,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 113,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 394 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 149,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 174,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Nor, said Mr. Vasantha Pai, was he qualified on the basis of his being an advocate of this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Cases of realisation of investments consisting Of purchase and resale, though profitable, are clearly outside the doma- in of adventures in the nature of trade.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In view of these infirmiteis, learned counsel for the appellant conceded that he could not rely on the prosecution evidence relating to the entry of the three accused Sukhbasi, Ram Sanehi and Ram Shanker.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 167,
"end": 175,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 187,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 203,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The prosecution has failed to prove any motive against the accused-appellant Ashiq.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 82,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dismissed Dismissed 47 Nimnabad 34 34 1 Dismissed Dismissed 48 Sahanpur 15 15 1 Dismissed Dismissed 49 Todikheri 3 3 3",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 31,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 71,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 112,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, following the view of this court in Dayabhai and Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the assessee's appeal and granted it registration.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 93,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His action would be covered by the principle of private defence embodied in ss. 96 to 105 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 89,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 93,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner held a stage carriage permit on Banswara to Kushalgarh route and subsequently this permit was extended from Banswara to Ghatol.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 55,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 131,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 141,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The TEC after careful examination of the entire matter had approved the technical bid of the appellant and in view of the fact that the bid made by the appellant was 25 per cent lower than that of the first respondent, the contract was awarded to it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 7,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "3. G.P. Sadashivaiah \n\n4. K.H. Veeranna Setty",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The transport charges should not be considered in isolation but should be added to the price fixed, as they undoubtedly form an important element in the amount paid to the buyer.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Pt. Sohan Lal and Pt. Kishori Lal shall pay Rs.4,000/- and Rs.1,000/- to Pt.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In response to a query by the court, Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate General, has given written answer contending that if RPSC, at the end of third result, were to apply the ratio of 1:3+bunching principle, then only 544 candidates would have been called for interview instead of 672 candidates (502+74+96).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 141,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "With these observations, the view taken by the CIT(A) in relation to the aforesaid common point raised in ITA No. 4551 and 4562/Del/1991 is upheld.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 136,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is admitted that orders were passed by the Bench of Hon'ble Amar Saran and Shri Narayan Shukla,JJ on 18.9.2014 connecting all three matters together and simultaneously converting Writ Petition 5094 of 2012 into a public interest litigation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 73,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 97,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 113,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 208,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the circumstances there can be no doubt that the drawing up of this sum from the Contingency Fund for payment to the appellant was clearly unconstitutional and the executive action in drawing the amount and paying the same to the appellant was on the face of it contrary to the public interest.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The higher officers had taken Muzzamil Hussain and the articles recovered from him to the Joint Interrogation Centre, Bhuj for interrogation and as instructions had been issued to the staff present there to disperse into two groups and to proceed for patrolling in search of the absconding persons, he had also participated in the search for the 3 to 4 absconding persons in the Nara Vadi area.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 122,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 388,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 24th March, 2014",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The company shall not be liable for non-performance of any contract either wholly or in part nor for any delay in performance resulting from or due to any cause beyond the company's control including fires, strikes etc...or requirements of Governments, force majeure or any other circumstances beyond the control of the company.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, a citizen has the right to carry on any occupation, trade or business and the only restriction on this unfettered right is the authority of the State to make a law imposing reasonable restrictions under cl. (6).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 19,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 39,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 251,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Of these, Sadasheo (P. W. 3) and Haridas (P. W. 5) are Mahars.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 40,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above functions of authorising detention and releasing the arrestee on bail are normally performed by the Judicial Magistrates in the discharge of their judicial functions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(ix) With reference to the testimony of Pinki PW-3, learned counsel urged that on being cross-examined, Pinki admitted that when Sangeeta PW-1 handed over Harshit to her, she i.e. Sangeeta, did not name the appellant as the person who had assaulted Harshit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 45,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 109,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 137,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 162,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 188,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 256,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was pointed out that the order of the Tribunal passed earlier has become final, and, therefore, the department cannot file any appeal on the same issue for the same year.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "SI Avdesh Kumar PW-18 and SI Ravinder Singh Yadav PW-19, deposed that the reports Ex.PW- 18/A and Ex.PW-19/A were prepared by them respectively.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 49,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is established law that in a claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act, the standard of proof to establish rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle is not at par with the criminal case where such rashness and negligence is required to be proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 70,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "decided on 12.09.2008 to argue that powers under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code are exercised in rarest of rare cases and petitioner must be left to follow alternative remedy to approach Magistrate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 21,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 60,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 87,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They in their turn sell either directly or to the agents of Mills situated either in Bihar or outside Bihar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 90,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 107,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Besides the Group's recommendations, the Union Government considered the suggestions and recommendations of various other bodies and institutions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "and, therefore, the no objection certificate will have to be issued.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The delay in filing the Special Appeal Nos.845 (D) of 2009; 595 (D) of 2002; 610 (D) of 2003 and 1170 (D) of 2007 has been sufficiently explained and is accordingly condoned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 58,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 75,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 92,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 113,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is claimed that the trade mark (TAJ MAHAL) has already become distinctive and associated with the Petitioner and has acquired secondary significance denoting the said goods and business of the Petitioner and is recognized with the Petitioner alone. \n\n3. NBRM on 30th June 1978 applied for registration of TAJ MAHAL (word per se) under No. 338004 in Class 30.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 257,
"end": 261,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 279,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "DOD: 18.02.2014 Singh and defendant No.1, being representative of the share of his wife Smt.Surjit Kaur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 15,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The State has a duty in that behalf and to shed its extravagant unbridled sovereign power and to forge in its policy to maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "14)DW 6 R.K. Anand, Officer of Oriental Bank of Commerce has brought on record the certified copy of the statement of account of the accused for the period 01.04.95 to 31.05.95 and the same has been exhibited as Ex. DW6/A to DW6/3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 56,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 164,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 176,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case relying upon the decision in Amonia Supplies Corporation it was argued that the plaintiffs could approach the Company Law Board under section 111A of the companies Act, which was the competent forum to go into such matter and jurisdiction of civil courts was impliedly barred.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 69,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 159,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 180,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, he submitted that it is incorrect that he refused to drop the passengers at their destination as the pre\u00adpaid slip was only for dropping them to Saket and not for the Paryavaran Complex, Neb Sarai.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 154,
"end": 159,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 205,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The prosecutrix (PW1) had shown the place of incident i.e the second floor of R-946, Raghubir Nagar to the police and she did not know whether or not any site plan was prepared by the police.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\nAccused/Narayan Diwakar (A-2) has besides arguing on charge,\n\nhas also objected to the jurisdiction of this court to try the present CBI Vs. Gokul Chand Aggarwal & Ors (Swarn CGHS) CBI No.77/08 Page No.3 of 68 case with reference to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as A Subair Vs. State of Kerala, 2009 CRI.LJ 3450, by filing an application, which has also been considered.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 25,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 182,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 205,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 308,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 365,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the AO and the formation of his belief that there has been escapement of income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the question as to whether reinstatement has to be ordered in Kayasta Pathshala's case cited supra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whether ignoring the oral and the documentary evidence, the First Appellate Court decided that the suit property is not an ancestral property and that the settlement deed, Ex.B4 executed was valid?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Fundamental Rights are intended to foster the ideal of a political democracy and to prevent the establishment of authoritarian rule but they are of no value unless they can be enforced by resort to Courts.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In fact, she resigned from the Syndicate vide letter dated 24.11.2005, which was accepted on 26.11.2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 103,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The point which the learned counsel for Insurance Company wanted to draw is, that non transport vehicle and licence to drive a non transport vehicle should have endorsement or entry authorizing him to drive the transport vehicle.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Now we can reproduce Section 167 Cr.P.C. as amended by Section 43-D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 as follows, so far as they relate to offences under the said Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 32,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 40,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 116,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court in Vidya Charan v. Khub Chand has said that the second part of Section 29(2) is not independent of the first part.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 47,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We do not think it is open to us to canvass the grounds which prompted the owner to discontinue the business.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus, even though the adversary of the defendant railway company was negligent in raising the height of the two trucks to eleven feet, three feet more than the height of the bridge, the defendant company's servant, the engine driver, could, by the exercise of ordinary care and diligence, have avoided the mischief which happened.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The record of the arbitrator received in this court discloses that the broker made an application dated 13th December, 1996 to the exchange for arbitration, also proposing his arbitrators and enclosing other requisite documents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 123,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The investigating officer (Balwinder Singh PW-4) was with him when the case property was produced by him in the Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 42,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the amended provision, it has been provided that all those persons who are recorded as elector for a Parliamentary constituency in India shall be entitled to be chosen as representative of any State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 139,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been further alleged by the plaintiffs in para no. 8 of the plaint that the defendant no. 1 is the only person, who has been opposing the partition of the plot in question and",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He requested copy of the Commission's report, however, no reply was received from the first respondent.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "sub-section in the scheme of section 14 cannot in any sense be said to be procedural and confers a substantive right on the landlord as is borne out by the above cited decisions of the Supreme Court 'interpreting the expression \"may\" in the context of provisions like those of section 14.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 39,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 198,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 287,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The objections raised by the aforementioned respondents were looked into and the Upa Lok Ayukta had passed W.P.(C).No.33916 of 2008 & con.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 95,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 131,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Misc. Civil Case No. 517 of 1979",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 32,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendant being the true and lawful owner, occupier and in the physical possession of the plot 154/610 and 155/310 situated in the village Pooth Khurd had executed the Sale Deed of plot 154/610 (2\u00ad2) in favour of Sh. Pawan Mittal, S/o Shiv Narayan, R/o D\u00ad21, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, Delhi and Sh. Pawan Mittal had instituted the mutation proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 154,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 233,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 251,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 281,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 288,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 309,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I may note here that the plaintiff had filed I.A.No.5910/2003 claiming that the defendant had damaged the suit property and thereafter the Local Commissioner was appointed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 61,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It may be mentioned in this connection that in the affidavit of Arun Kanti Roy affirmed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on the 13th January, 1981, it is stated in Paragraph 6 that the petitioner firm accepts loan and/or deposits from all and sundry for varying periods without any authority of law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 155,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both the appeals arise out of the same award, the former is by the owner of the vehicle denying liability and quantum and the latter is by the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If the assessee's contention should be accepted, then in the case of an employee who has been in service for 25 years, the assessee will make a provision for payment of salary for 12 days every year, in all a provision for 300 days.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "For these reasons, I think that these petitions ought to fail.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, it cannot be said that the taking of partners is forbidden by law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Long after a period of six years, you have chosen to issue a notice calling upon to pay the outstanding dues even though you have recalled the loan on 28-03- 1990 itself.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 151,
"end": 162,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, this was another trick of the defendants to frustrate the rightful claim of plaintiff-Nirmal Singh but the defendants failed in this regard.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 107,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW8 Constable Pradeep has deposed on 22.04.2013 he was posted at Police Station Maurya Enclave and on that day he was on patrolling duty along with SI Rajpal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 21,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 94,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 157,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further stated that his house is situated adjacent to residential colonies like Siddarath Nagar, Gori Nagar, Ghatipura, Sukhaliya, Bhorsala, Kabirkhedi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 110,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 121,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 132,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 142,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 154,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case the accusations against the accused were not specifically put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Supreme Court had set aside the conviction of the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 126,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 157,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 179,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution provide how territorial jurisdiction shall be exercised by any High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 34,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 54,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was argued by the petitioner before the A.D.M. that unless in Khasra nature of plot was recorded as Abadi after survey and declaration under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the land must not be treated to be Abadi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 71,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 155,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 178,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Consequently, the observations made in para 10 of Parivar Seva Sansthan (supra) and in the decision in Express Towers P. Ltd. (supra) have no application in the facts of the present case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 71,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 125,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "JUDGE __/02/2011 Hon'ble Shri Justice T.K. Kaushal",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 50,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That has been kept in view by Section 188 of the Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 41,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as witnesses are concerned, in para 41 of the judgment, the Apex Court has quoted Bentham who described witnesses as the eyes and ears of justice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 77,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 96,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She may apply to the Rent Controller for recovering the immediate possession of \"such premises\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Clause 4 further clarified that \"The interim payment aforesaid shall be subject to such further directions or accounts in the Award by the learned Arbitrator.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is a proposition, in which I concur:\n G.N. Prasad, J. \n 35.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 52,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shakuntla and Poonam both sisters of PW1 and students of Sushila School were victims of that eve teasing.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 14,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 71,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, if case of appellant Dalpratap Singh is considered then, his overt\u00adact as told by eye witnesses that he told the accused Ajeet Singh @ Babbe Singh to fire and thereafter, appellant Ajeet Singh @ Babbe Singh fired from the gun.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 47,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 157,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 217,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court on page 353 of the report observed as under :--",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In any case, the account books were under the power of the plaintiff, and it could be easily found out from those account books what were the dues against the Kishangarh State itself or against the consumers of Kishangarh State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 175,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 227,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was also urged on his behalf that there were two political groups in Gopalganj one led by Nagina Rai, the then member of Parliament, on one hand, who was a Bhumiar, and the other led by Kali Pandey, a Brahroin by caste, and the Collector had always been siding his caste man, Nagina Rai, and probably the group of Kali Pandey had got him killed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 81,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 134,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 200,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 289,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 328,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 21st of February, 1973, petitions were filed praying for direction to the Coal Superintendent, Dhanbad, Opposite party No. 33, to issue coupons or that the Court may itself make some alternative arrangement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 25,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 105,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Regarding the relief prayed for in W.P.No.20925 of 1994, Mr. K. Chandru, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, would contend that after enacting appropriate legislation, namely Tamil Nadu Act 81 of 86 taking over the Mill and after spending several lakhs of public money, it is not open to the Government to hand over and restore the mill to the erstwhile owner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 55,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 71,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 205,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection Section 173(2) may also be set out: \n \" 173.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 33,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W. 2 Dr. Dilip Kumar has stated in his evidence that on 11.04.2005 he was posted at Nazareth Hospital, Mokama as Consultant Surgeon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 22,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 68,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 111,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These contracts are not enforceable by or against the Revenue.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We are, therefore, of the view that it was not necessary for Hon'ble Nasirullah Beg, J., to make and subscribe before the Governor of the State or some person appointed in that behalf by him an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule \n\n 9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 83,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of the above submission Sri Shetty relied on the decisions in ; ; AIR 1927 Mad 130 (FB) and Channiah v. R.T.A., 1967-2 Mys LJ 637.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 45,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 98,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 140,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Afore elicited admissions of PW14 in respect of bringing RC No. ACI/2008/A0002/CBI/ACU\u00adI/NEW DELHI CC No. 31/12 57/78 CBI vs Dilip Kumar Thakur into motion",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 143,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent herein was interviewed on 18.9.2003 in response to his application to the Selection Committee for consideration/ appointment to the post of Presiding Officer of the National Highways Tribunal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 206,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The language of Section 73 does not permit a Court to give a direction to the accused to give specimen writings for anticipated necessity for comparison in a proceeding which may later be instituted in the Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 26,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused pleaded not guilty and the Prosecution was called upon to examine its witnesses including DCQM Hari Singh (PW.6), SI Kewal Singh (PW.7), Constable Mishra (PW.9) and Sub Inspector Jaswant Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 117,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 140,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 167,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 204,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This judgment does not help Mrs. Nanavati.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 41,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They were already appointed and designated as stated in the Notification itself.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The foremost task of a Court, as we conceive it, in the Interpretation of Statutes, is to find out the intention of the legislature.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Further investigation was conducted by Sub-Inspector Harcharan Singh (P. W. 21).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 68,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His statement is reproduced as under:-\n \" On 5.3.2008, seven buffaloes and seven calves were loaded in the truck of Pawan and nine buffaloes and nine calves were loaded in the truck No. HR-38C/2651 of Ashok Seth for carrying them to Puna.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 53,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 121,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 211,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 237,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While the word \"evidence\" may recall the oral and documentary evidence as may be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the use of the word \"material\" in section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, shows that the Income-tax Officer, not being a court, can rely upon material which may not be strictly evidence admissible under the evidence Act for the purpose of making an order of assessment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 127,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 177,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 205,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 352,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the above discussion of the rival contentions show the alleged error in the present case is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles and after applying the principles of contributory negligence, 75% fault was found on part of the driver of the UPSRTC and 25% fault was found to the driver of Indica car. \n\n5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 231,
"end": 237,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Division Bench of Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice B.N. Patnaik in O.P. No. 12496 of 1997 considered the scope of Rule 9(a)(iii) and its proviso.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 47,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 72,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 98,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 137,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since reference is made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax, , arising under the Wealth-tax Act, it may also be noted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 134,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 170,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to No the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 114,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that the castes, about which the petitioners have made a pointed reference in the petition, namely, Ahirs and Kurmis etc, were not excluded from the list prepared by the Kaka Kalelkar Commission.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 205,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before considering the evidence of Rosiah who has been examined as P. W. 3, it is necessary to mention a few preliminary facts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 41,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Per Abbott, C.J., in Webster v. Seekamp, 1821(4B) & Ald. 352 the term necessaries has been defined to mean such as are fit and proper for the vessel upon her voyage and such as a prudent owner himself, if present, would order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 60,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, the specially developed equipment is meant to collect & process the data towards a particular end.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The quality of ambient waters has to be maintained through the standards stipulated by the Board.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the meanwhile, ITBP staff secured Beant Singh and Satwant Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 28,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus even a consent by the heirs of the testator during his lifetime in such a case does not sub-",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "No document has been brought on record by the Complainant to prove that the Accused no. 1 i.e. Mrs. Vandana Das is in fact a Director/Authorized signatory of the Accused Company or that the cheque has been issued by her on behalf of the Company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 111,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It would be pertinent, however, to narrate sonic portion of the evidence, moreso by reason of the fact that this aspect of the matter has not been delved into by the learned single Judge on ihe ground of not being relevant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "12/03/2015 Shri G.S. Chouhan,learned counsel for the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 16,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Actual admissions by medical colleges in Intake fixed by the St. Govt. in 93-94 94-95 95-96 93-94 94-95 95-96 \n \n \n \n \n \n\n1. ADI-CHUNCHANAGIR1 1NST. OF MED. SC. \n\n2. AL-AMEEN MED. COLL. \n\n3. BANGALORE MED. COLL. \n\n4. DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR INST.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 151,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 193,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 219,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 243,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.20039/2014 20.12.2014 Mr. Pranay Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 12,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 50,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 61,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I had met one Sadik Mehtar aged about 18 years in Dubai, who was a house-help of said Tariq Praveen.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 55,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 99,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the foregoing reasons, I pass a decree for possession in respect of the suit property bearing No. B\u00ad6, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar IV, New Delhi 110024, shown in the site plan Ex. PW1/2, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 141,
"end": 150,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Statements under Section 269P(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner were duly filed by the transferees along with a copy of the instrument of transfer disclosing the following particulars; \n(a) The said property consisted of a partly two and partly three-storeyed buildings together with one-storeyed out-houses in a total area of 6 cottahs, 5 chittacks and 25 sft.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 32,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 54,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "England's first criminal abortion statute, Lord Ellenborough's Act was passed in 1803.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whether this position is accepted by the appellants or not, their statement in that respect gives no indication of their right to manage the business as a working partner as claimed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Both the appellants have also been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years; besides, pay a fine of `5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for a period of one year each for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 234,
"end": 245,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 249,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Second Appeal No.136 of 2016. \n\n24.04.2017:-\n Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 13,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 56,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 72,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as Civil Writ Petition No. 2495 of 1983 is concerned, the State of Haryana filed its counter affidavit in reply to the writ petition and so also did the Haryana Public Service Commission.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 46,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 81,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 193,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the learned Judges who decided Govind Rao v. Kanhaiya Lal and Rahat Ali v. Husain Fatima Bibi intended to take a contrary view, with due deference to them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 96,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, assessee has rightly placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kaluram Puranmal (supra) in which relevant observations which are in favour of the assessee are as under:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 129,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It contains the following names which are arranged in the order of merit:-\n Sl. Name No. \n\n --- ----\n 1. Miss Sangita Dhingra 2. Sh. Dimpy Kumar Malhotra 3. Ms. Anu Prem Shanker",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 125,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 154,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 179,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He testified that Manoharlal and Satish were arrested from their house in his presence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, it is evident that Order 29 Rule 2 of the Code has to be read in juxtaposition to Rule 6 of the Rules.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 99,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was submitted through the said paragraph 16 of the written statement to the eviction petition that the premises continued to remain under the legal possession of Smt. Chander Kanta (respondent No. 3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 170,
"end": 183,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The words of the section afe \" reason to believe \" and not \" reason to suspect \" and this phrase has been repeatedly interpreted by the Supreme Court under various statutes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 149,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I agree (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 26,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 47,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 68,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "ARUN SURENDRA PATIL AGE 35 YEARS, S/O SURENDRA S PATIL C/O KUNTOJI BUILDING NEAR SHANTABAI TEMPLE SAAHU NAGAR, KAWALI GATE BIJAPUR 123.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 19,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 54,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Coram:\n\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA 1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court once again informed the State Government vide letter dated 29.1.1982 that the Court, is not in favour of such reservations in judicial service.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 83,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "T. S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, S. B. Saharya, K. Ram Kumar and V. B. Saharya for the Appellants in C. As. 420 and 442- 445/73. \n\nV. A. Sayed Muhamed (In CA 420/73) and K. M. K. Nair for R. I in all appeals and R. 2 in C. As. 442, 443 and 445 of 1973. \n\nMiss Lilly Thomas RR. 3-10 and CA 445/73.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 25,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 144,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 177,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 266,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused used to pressurise Dataram (PW 8) father of the deceased for summoning the deceased at Porsa and threatened him with dire consequences in the event of non fulfillment of his demand.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 34,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 100,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Not that we are not aware of the importance and significance of higher education.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Thulia Kali V. State of Tamil Nadu ( 1972) 3 Supreme Court Cases 393, it was held that the FIR in a criminal case, is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence, for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence, adduced at the trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 71,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court of Rajasthan upheld the order of the Tribunal awarding Rs. 50,000 as compensation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 27,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A democratic Constitution is not to be interpreted merely from a lexicographer's\tangle but with a realisation that it is an embodiment of the living thoughts\t and aspiration of a free people.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The second part of the evidence connects appellant Mohinder Singh with the second rifle which was used in the course of the commission of the crime.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 65,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Desai submitted that the narrow meaning given to the term 'public policy' in Renusagar's case is in context of the fact that the question involved in the said matter was with regard to the execution of the award which had attained finality.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 97,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n(iii) Even if a society cannot be characterised as a \u0011State\u0012 within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, even so a writ would lie against it to enforce a statutory public duty cast upon the society.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 95,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 115,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The firm was dissolved and its business was discontinued with effect from February 1, 1948.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 90,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On intimating the Police, exhumation of the death body of his brother-Ajit took place.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 74,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This concealment can be treated as defects in the investigation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Petitioner no.2 and his wife requiring one bed room with attached bathroom and dressing room etc, two is natural, the two sons of the petitioner No. 2 namely Mr. Arjun Goel (24 years) and Mr. Kunal Goel (21 years) also need separate rooms with attached bathroom and same cannot be stated to be unreasonable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 162,
"end": 172,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 202,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also an admitted fact that he alongwith his wife had gone to Ferozepur and, had also informed on the telephone, Yudhishter Singh, father of Simrat Kaur alias Nimrat Kaur, regarding their visit to Ferozepur, and on their return for going to Bhagta Bhai Ka.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 76,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 134,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 175,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 211,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nThere is a proviso to Clause (b) and that proviso is that no Bill or amendment for the purposes of Clause (b) shall be introduced or moved in the Legislature of a State without the previous sanction of the President.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was suggested to P.W.18-Venkatesh H.S., that he concocted the complaint/Ex.P.1 after 1.30 P.M., by falsely implicating the accused and thereafter the FIR was sent to the Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 41,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n The State Government appointed Sri K. Jagannatha Rao on 15th February 1957, to act as District and Sessions Judge in the vacancy and be assumed charge of the office on 27th February, 1957.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 54,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 76,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 189,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Copy of Form-54 has been annexed with supplementary affidavit.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But then it is a matter of discretion and the Magistrate is not bound to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court and to examine him upon oath for taking decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 238,
"end": 249,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 259,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Utmost care has been taken by the Ld. MM while passing the order.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It appears that when on 03.03.95, Rakesh, died, these witnesses were introduced.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 32,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, merely because all witnesses are police officials would not be a ground to discard their sworn testimonies.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In D.C. Saxena (Dr) v. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216 this Court observed, inter alia, as under: (SCC pp. 244-45, para 35) Advocacy touches and asserts the primary value of freedom of expression.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 74,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The ratio of the subsequent Division Bench decision is to the effect that the question of teacher-pupil ratio would depend upon the number of Standards and Sections in the school.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Karhroo Singh, Khusi Ram and Beni Ram petitioners shall be set at liberty forthwith.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 15,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 37,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The three petitioners and respondents Nos. 7 to 14 are Chartered Accountants and carry on business in partnership under the name and style of Price Waterhouse Peat and Co., inter alia, at No. B/4, Gillander House, in the town of Calcutta, Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, N.R. Mookherjee and S. Kanungo and respondent No. 5, Prantosh Bakshi, are employees under the partnership Price Waterhouse Peat and Co. \n 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 171,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 237,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 280,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 295,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 333,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 400,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Spares of trawlers is a specific item appearing at SI. No. 40(4) of Appendix 6 of the said Import Policy.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Jaimangal Singh (D.W. 3) and Yadu Lal Sah (D.W. 6) do not by their evidence inspire confidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 41,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During the cross-examination of PW2, a suggestion was put to the witness that accused met the victim when she was going alone towards her house and after seeing her alone accused made inquiry from her; where was her dadi, however, the said suggestion was categorically denied.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "-mentioning of the application of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, therefore, in these circumstances cannot be interpreted to mean that the legislature wanted to rule out its application to the rights and liabilities created and incurred under the old Law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 70,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the husband the wife was suffering from Schizophrenia and she was treated in the mental hospital Yeravda sometime in the year 1954, but Schizophrenia was an incurable and dangerous form of unsoundness of mind being hereditary and recurring: and these facts were suppressed from the husband before he consented for the marriage.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 117,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This sum shall remain in the Court and will be treated as his first bid at the re-auction.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There is another aspect of the matter.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. CIT, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Chagla C.J. and Tendolkar J., has considered the question as to the effect of an amendment which came into force after the commencement of the financial year.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 43,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 86,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 112,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 126,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In 2006 (8) SCC 581 (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:\n \"21. The Act indisputably would prevail over the old Hindu Law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 19,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She left Trivandrum on the morning of 28th December and was sank near Tuticorin on the evening of 13-1-1946.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 19,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 79,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 107,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The provisions of this section, therefore, in my view, cannot be APEAL Nos.991/11, 992/11 331/11 & 854/11 read into the proviso to Section 372.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 105,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 142,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Vide order dated 18th September, 2014, this Court further directed the Courts below to give their suggestions with respect to the working of the guidelines in pursuance to which the Family Courts and the Courts dealing with the cases of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. have sent their response as well as their suggestions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 37,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 266,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 274,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection he invited our attention to certain observations of the Supreme Court in B. Banerjee v. Anita Pan, AIR 1975 SC 1146 in regard to the unhelpful attitude of the State Government in respect of a piece of social legislation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 134,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondents R.F.A. No. 3008 of 2008 [25] Darshan Singh and another .....",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 54,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is precisely on the ground that they are not presently working with the respondents on any of the posts mentioned in the amended rules.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n (c) The accused 1 to 6 were convicted for the offence punishable under Section-489(D) read with Section-149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 110,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 135,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1966; but the application under Section 151 was allowed, the order of dismissal was set aside and the Miscellaneous Case No. 51 of 1965 was restored to file by an order of the learned Subordinate Judge dated July 15, 1966.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 135,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 221,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Their Lordships further pointed out the example of a person who is dismissed wrongfully without following proper procedure and they held that this would again be an order which may be voidable and not void so that it could be declared as void at the instance of any other person.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "P. W. 6 Ranjit Das, son of the respondent and that of P. W. 7, the respondent himself was that when the bus coming from the north along the Diamond Harbour Road, suddenly turned towards west it met with the accident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the facts established in this case therefore, neither the theory of abandonment nor the ground for late filing of the suit can be regarded as sufficient to deny the plaintiff his right to have the contract of sale between him and defendant 1 specifically performed.\" \n ",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the result, C.M.A. 975 of 1996 is allowed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 33,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To corroborate the evidence, the claimants have has also examined one witness Ramjibhai Rabari, Ex.44.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 94,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the accommodation is required for a public authority or institution there are other ways of acquiring it and the Control of Rent and Eviction Act was not meant for this purpose.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 116,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She could not suppose that she was to send a messenger with it or come to London herself.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 80,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But that apart, it needs to be highlighted that in para 45 of its decision, while expressing the desirability to constitute a single judicial review forum for members of the Armed Forces, the Supreme Court hedged the words: \u2017which must truly be a judicial review forum'. \n\n 57.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 192,
"end": 205,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, P.W. 2 sent for the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shivanna Gouda, P.W. 13, and gave a complaint, Ex. P. 6, against the Accused, P.W. 13 registered a case against the Accused for offences under Section 161, I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(d) and (c) of the Act in Crime No. 4 of 1973 of Hospet Town Police Station.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 79,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 219,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 227,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 255,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 319,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha6, the Supreme Court once again reiterated that :\n \"The jurisdiction of the Probate Court is limited being confined only to consider the genuineness of the will.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 47,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 66,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Bill part of Exhibit Item No.73 1250.00 C.T.Scan Examination paid to Bombay Hospital.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 84,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff instituted this suit on 8th April 1952 as the nominee of the deceased policy-holder, \n \n\n4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 52,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On perusal of EX.DW6/A against Reeta Verma and Manish Agrawal Rajesh Verma, his brother in relation of Kamal and brother in law of Smt. ____x_____. \n\n26. DW7 deposed that on 24.8.2009 he was working as Duty Officer at P.S. Bhajan Pura and he had recorded FIR No. 333/09 at P.S. Bhajan Pura and he proved the computerized copy of FIR as EX.DW7/A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 74,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 108,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 183,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 234,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 289,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the field of economic development, India today is very near to developed nations.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 43,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Petitioner has also examined the Orthopedic Surgeon at Medico Legal Consultant in the Sparsh Hospital as P.W.2, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the Petitioner was reviewed on 27.08.2014 for assessment of disability and he had complains of unable to lift weights, difficulty in moving left shoulder.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 105,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 206,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If A and B jointly agree to strike X with lathis, then the striking with lathis only can be in furtherance of their common intention and if A shoots X and kills him his act being in opposition to the common intention, cannot be said to be in furtherance of it and B will not be responsible for it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The omissions which are relied-upon are hardly of any consequence and do not affect the substratum of her above version.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In C.C.No.8/1998 to 19/1998 offence under Section 419 IPC was also alleged against the third accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 53,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 57,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The history of the case as well as of the investigation show that there is every likelihood of the petitioners tampering with the prosecution witnesses.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW-7 however proceeded to state that he did not enquire with PW-2 Prashant anything about the incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 74,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also used to beat her and throw her out of the house.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Belying upon the authority of the Supreme Court decision in the case of -- 'Sm. Angur Bala v. Debabrata', AIR 1951 SC 293 (A), Mr. G.P. Das argued that the right of a mahanth was not that of a bare trustee but that the right of the mahant carried with it the element of beneficial or personal interest in the properties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 125,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 139,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the absence of all these there is no option but to hold that there was no valid remand to custody of the petitioner in ST No. 748-A/84 from 3-12-1990 the date of the production till his acquittal in the said trial on 12-2-1992. \n\n67.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 122,
"end": 137,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 152,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 229,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner-Somasekharappa deposed that he was present when the will was executed and that Chennamma was in a sound state of mind when the will was got written.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case, prior to 1st April, 1962 agricultural Income was not taxable and hence any expenditure incurred prior to 1st April, 1962 but written off after 1st April, 1962 cannot be said to be covered under Section 8(9) of the Act and hence the same has been rightly disallowed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 45,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 141,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 179,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 227,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also contended that the learned trial Court has gravely erred in law in relying upon the testimony of Narinder Kaur @ Bhajan Kaur (PW-2/complainant), who is the complainant and wife of the appellant and on the fateful day, fire had accidentally occurred and in fact the appellant had also received serious burn injuries out of the said accident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 132,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When bus bearing registration No. MP- 09-FA-2717, reached Jamli Toll Plaza on A.B. Road, other bus bearing registration No. R.J.-09-PA-1442 of Ashok Travels was standing there, where some dispute has taken place between the conductor of bus of 'Sai Kripa Travels', namely Pankaj Panchal and accused Dilip Sharma and Rajkumar Kushwaha of the bus belonging to Ashok Travels.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 156,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 262,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 286,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 311,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 333,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 358,
"end": 371,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before Adverting to the evidence on record, with regard to the identification of the accused persons and recovery, it is just and necessary to bear in mind how the Apex Court and this Court have dealt with evidence regarding the identification of the accused persons, who were totally unknown to the victims and how their evidence have to be appreciated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 164,
"end": 174,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, the action will be initiated again if it is found at any stage that the coloniser is not conforming of licence or agreement or the conditions enumerated in this order.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He was residing there for quite some time and was creating terror in the village by threatening the villagers of Lonara.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 119,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on the other hand, has submitted that Rattan Singh had suffered injuries in the occurrence and his presence at the spot at the time of occurrence cannot be held in doubt.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 35,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n 4, The important issue that calls for consideration in the writ petition is whether the FIR registered by the police authorities on the complaint given by the 4th respondent can be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 197,
"end": 208,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 237,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n In Suraj Bhan Meena (Supra) and Rajesh Kumar (Supra) also the Apex Court has followed the decision in M. Nagaraj (Supra) and has accepted that \u201ebackwardness\u201f is a prerequisite for providing the benefit under Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 75,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 115,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 226,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is therefore contended that there is nothing to connect the detenus with the crimes concerned and in these WP.(Crl.)Nos.265, cases as no charge-sheet has been filed, no report could have been forwarded by the Police Officer concerned to the Superintendent of Police to the detaining authority to issue the orders of detention.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 126,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words, the Amended impugned provision of the impugned Act has the effect of over-riding the Constitutional Bench decision of the Apex Court and another decision, which is totally impermissible in law as the same is opposed to Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 138,
"end": 148,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 256,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The ad interim order dated 8.7.1998 passed in Notice of Motion No. 2018 of 1998, stands modified to the extent aforesaid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 35,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 79,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The prosecution has examined following witnesses to prove its charge:- P.W. 1 Sintu Kumar, P.W. 2 Ranjeet Kumar, P.W. 3 Pintu Kumar, P.W. 4 Sudhir Singh, P.W. 5 Babloo Kumar, P.W. 6 Sudama Singh, P.W. 7 Bimal Deo Singh, P.W. 8 Rohit Singh, P.W. 9 Shanti Devi, P.W. 10 Jyotindra Nandan Azad, P.W. 11 Arun Kumar Singh, P.W. 12 Dr. Parshuram Prasad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 89,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 111,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 131,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 152,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 173,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 194,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 218,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 238,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 258,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 289,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 315,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 345,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel that the cut-off marks fixed was wholly arbitrary so as to offend the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 183,
"end": 193,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 222,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are of the view that the decisions of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and another v. Kundan Singh and another W.P.(C) Nos.5512/2006 and 15012/2007 (AIR 1964 SC 350) is a complete answer to the first two questions mentioned in the reference order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 171,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This presumption seems to us to bo reasonable in itself, and in accordance with the legal principles now embodied in Section 114 of the Evidence Act.\" \n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 128,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Will in question dated 6.5.04 Ex. PW-2/1 is valid and last testamentary document of the testator Smt. Saroj Nagpal who made the same in sound disposing mind.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 80,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 165,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the vehicle was taken out with the permission of the insured Mustaq Ahmed and the policy was current, therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the claimant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 79,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Revenue Appellate Tribunal will now proceed to do so with the greatest expedition.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Hanging of murderers has never been too good for them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Kakodkar has indeed urged that on the application of the above principles and as laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time, the agreement dated December 21, 1989, is nothing but an agreement of agency where the Goa State is the principal and the petitioner-company is an agent and, by no stretch of imagination, is any sale and purchase of lottery tickets involved.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 172,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 225,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "6.It is the case of the petitioners that on or after 1.7.1990 in the State of Tamil Nadu, no new permit can be granted to any private operators which may overlap on the notified route.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 61,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 88,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the Tribunal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A plain reading of the provisions reproduced above shows that the same vests the court with the power to direct rectification, the exercise of which power is discretionary with the court as is apparent from the word \"may\" used in the section.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel has further SC No.13/2011 State Vs. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 27 of 36 argued that no offence under section 307 IPC is made out as the bullet allegedly fired by the accused did not cause any injury to anybody.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 182,
"end": 193,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 197,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, statements of the accused appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 66,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 74,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It may be mentioned that the village Khalarka formed part of the Jagir of one Rawat Tej Singhji of Thikana Rawatsar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 45,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 115,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Identification of this accused by some prosecution witnesses and especially prosecution witness Minaxi Patel may have an important effect on the totality of the evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 108,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An application was moved under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. by the father of the petitioner Jagannath Yadav and wife of K.L. Yadav on 8.9.2014 and 15.9.2014 respectively against the complainant and other accused persons in respect to the incident dated 5.8.2015.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 54,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 102,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 125,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 137,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 151,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 256,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 1.3.2014 it was stated that the legal offer of settlement filed on behalf of the Insurance Company was not acceptable to the LRs of the deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This argument cannot be accepted, because it ignores the first condition for the applicability of Section 10 to the effect that the person contravening the order must be a company itself.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n A few writ petitions came up for consideration in Shriram Investments Ltd. (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 77,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She has given her specimen signature against her name.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(h) The Government of Punjab has constituted a Public Service Commission under Articles 315 and 316 of the Constitution of India which consists of Chairman with at least 7 members.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 28,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 99,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 128,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\nSection 1 states that the Lokayukta is not to hold any other office.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If there was no information available with the investigating agency prior to 4.15 AM on the intervening night, they had no occasion whatsoever to stay back in the office throughout night.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But this is not inflexible and there may be sections in the Act where the meaning may have to be departed from on account of the subject or context in which the word has been used and that will be giving effect to the opening sentence in the or context.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Her son and daughter viz., respondents herein who are presently staying in United States of America through their general power of attorney holder filed an application under the provisions of Section 302(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking permission to conduct the prosecution initiated by the deceased complainant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 99,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 206,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 237,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to PW2, on hearing the sound of explosion, he and others rushed DSR 3/2009 & CRL.A. 1134/2009 42 to the house of the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 106,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nv) The applications dated 9-1-1987 and 24-3-1987 filed by the 4th respondent shall stand remitted to the State Government with a direction to consider them in accordance with law under Section 20(1)(b) of the Act in the light of the findings recorded, observations made, and the interpretation placed on Section 20(1) of the Act in this order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 36,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 203,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 319,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He denied the fact that he was attached as a guide to Old Vishnu Guest House and he further denied that he accompanied Diana in her local visits in Varanasi and also denied any association with Diana. \n\n8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 124,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 156,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 199,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\nHowever, the learned counsel for the company has invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Praga Tools Corporation v. Imanual (C.A.) and others, [1969-II L.L.J. 749].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 107,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 185,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On reaching the spot, the raiding team took position at about 12.15 PM.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There is also no evidence on record as to what quantities of phenolphthalein powder or sodium carbonate were issued to or what residues thereof were returned back in the Malkhana by the TLO/PW10.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 170,
"end": 178,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is submitted that one other First Information Report No.104/2011 was registered at Mahila Thana, Jaipur City(South), on 06.08.2011, at the instance of Smt. Richa Sharma, alleging offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, and for offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 98,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 117,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 133,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 171,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 219,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 223,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 256,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 285,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The right to file objections and to secure hearing thereon is statutorily provided and is a valuable right of the private operators who would be eliminated, completely or partially, from operating on the routes covered by the scheme depending upon how and to what extent it is approved.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, provisions of clause (a) and (b) of explanation to Section 7 of the Act were held to be constitutionally valid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The principles set out in paragraphs- 154, 155, 156 and 162 are relevant for our present purpose, which require extraction and reads as under:\n\"154.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "No witnesses were \"'.e5ta'mined on behalf of the accused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Obviously, Joginder Singh's case (1979 Cri LJ 333) (SC) and Hareram Satpathy's case could not be noticed in Satyanarayan Yadav's case (1977 BBCJ (HC) 442), which was rendered earlier.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 49,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 128,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 153,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It only remains to mention that the decree under execution in execution case No. 898 of 1940 in which the application for reference to arbitration was rejected, is stated to have been satisfied and is no longer pending execution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 92,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 14/2/12, action taken report was placed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 56,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The State by PSI, Gandhinagar Police Station, Bellary laid a charge sheet against the appellants/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 53,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 187,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 194,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The doctrine of res judicata was in application even before the Code of Civil Procedure was codified and Section 11 enacted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 87,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 115,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel for the appellants, however, relies on AIR 1962 SC 338 but this case refers to an election petition and their Lordships were dealing with the question of general res judicata and their Lordships did not declare the law on any point contained in Section 11, Civil P. C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 74,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 275,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 288,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, it is for the court concerned to decide whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Section 29-A(3) or not.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 116,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n6.5. Defendants-46, 47, 55, 58 to 61, 73, 74, 78, 80, 82 to 88, 102 and 105, admit that there were 40000 shares owned by 23 sharers as on the date of the registered deed, viz., 11.2.1897, executed by Hafiz Mohammed Ghouse.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 179,
"end": 188,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 223,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh LPA No.933 of 2009 (O&M) 1992.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 66,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The preamble to the NDPS Act shows that the object of the Act is to consolidate and amend the law relating to the narcotic drugs and to make stringent provisions for the control and regulation of operations relating to the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances etc.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 28,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 90 deals with the Constitution and function of District Establishment Committee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 87,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n\n\n(xxiv) Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Gmbh Vs. Hindustan Liver Ltd., 2002 (25) PTC 417 (Bom.):\u00ad for invoking the bar of Order II Rule 2 CPC",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 108,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 157,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 162,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One solitary instance of asking the deceased to bring Rs.50,000/- from her parents on 1st May, 1997 even if true will not constitute dowry death punishable under Section 304-B of IPC or cruelty or harassment punishable under Section 498-A thereof, when it is not followed by any cruelty or harassment, as defined in Section 498-A of IPC. \n\n28.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 99,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 175,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 182,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 238,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 329,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 336,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "W.P.(C) No.17104/2010 relates to merger of Nattakom Grama Panchayat to Kottayam Municipality.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 21,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 67,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Firstly, it is debatable whether such conduct of Ram Baran and his party would amount to criminal trespass on an inference that their intention must have been to annoy Sarju.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 173,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The amendment in question was made after the hearing of the applications of Group A in September, 1952.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to him, the suit for their possession was governed by Article 49, Limitation Act which runs as follows :\n\"For other specific moveable property, orwrongfully taking or injuring or wrongfully detaining the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 74,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 90,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the affidavit sworn and affirmed in answer to the application for order/orders and/or direction/directions by Albke Samajdar on November 18, 1987, respondents claimed as follows.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 127,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 148,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What would be the position if ship with goods intended for an importer at Cochin, but with other merchandise too dischargeable at other Ports in India and intended for other importers in India, called on some such ports in India before it reaches the Cochin Port for discharging cargo in respect of which importation was contemplated at Cochin by the persons intending import ?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 80,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 150,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 192,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 228,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 257,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 343,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the expression \"derived from\" had a much narrower connotation than the expression \u201eattributable to\u201f as observed in the earlier decision of the Supreme Court noted hereinabove, i.e., Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co Ltd (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 202,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 268,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Nawab Salar Jung III, a nobleman of erstwhile Hyderabad State died on 2-3-1949 leaving behind him a vast estate but no issue.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 55,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 78,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused Mohsin denied that on 08.12.2012 at about 10:00am while Sessions Case No. 6/14 Page no. 6 of 32 playing cricket at Gandhi Maidan he had hit PW7 Smt. Prakashi Devi with a cricket ball and threatened her to hit her on her head with a brick piece.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 40,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 51,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 92,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 138,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 222,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, in my opinion the conviction of accused Nos.1 and 2 by the trial Court for the offence under Section 489(B) IPC appears to be erroneous and illegal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 114,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 118,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He does not know when Ext.P1 cheque was issued.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The recitals of Ex.P.3 & P.4 i.e., postal receipt and postal A.D. Card further discloses that the notice issued to the defendant in OS 7739/2007 has been served on him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 144,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No. act done or proceedings taken under this Act shall be questioned merely on the ground-- (a) of any vacancy or defect in the constitution of the Corporation or of any standing committee; or \n\n(b) of any defect or irregularity in such act or proceeding, not affecting the merits of the case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Inspector Harpreet Singh SHO (PW17) had got lodged case FIR No.283 of 1999 at Police Station Focal Point, Ludhiana for an offence under Section 336 IPC in which case Amrik Singh (appellant No.1) was acquitted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 24,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 114,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 147,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 151,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 177,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Clause (1) prescribes the conditions to be satisfied before a person is permitted to bid at the auction such as the solvency certificate etc. while Clause (2) lays down that a former solvency certificate will not be sufficient and for entry into the auction hall a ticket will have to be obtained on submission of the solvency certificate or agreement bund.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "She admitted that Smt. Veena Solanki had two daughters.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Patna High Court E.P. No.3 of 2009 dt.09-04-2014 135 Having cast his vote, came back, took lunch and received telephonic information on his mobile that Booth No. 72 situate at a distance of 3-4 K.M. from his Booth No. 73 has been captured by Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 34,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 278,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "And for that only I get into this job at Durgapore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 50,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the background of the above, the learned counsel for the plaintiff made the following submissions:-\n 4.1 the plaintiff has been using the trade mark \"APL APOLLO\" since February, 1999.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He also referred to the evidence of Dund Singh (D.W. 14) who deposed that he got 7 bighas of land in village Kusmaut.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 46,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 116,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 25.02.1998, the last remains of Simrat Kaur alias Nimrat Kaur, were collected.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 64,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The prosecution in order to prove its case had examined as well as 7 witnesses namely PW1 HC Mukesh Kumar, PW2 HC Suresh Chand, PW3 Ct. Vipin Gyagi, PW4 HC Kailash Chand, PW5 Sh. V.R. Anand, AD, FSL, Rohini, PW6 Ct. Ravinder Giri and PW7 HC Sunil Gaur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 105,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 126,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 147,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 169,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 189,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 206,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 229,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 251,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fraudulent withdrawals being made from the Sate Exchequer were detected by the Government of Bihar and FIRs were lodged all over the State against the conspirators.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 102,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondents did not even contend otherwise.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The letter dated 25-3-1985 (Exhibit A21) recorded non-receipt of the monthly reports as also non-receipt of notice of the Board Meetings 'for the last 18 months'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 26,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Article 244 (1) runs thus:-- \n \"244 (1). The provisions of the Fifth Schedule shall apply to the administration and control of the Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes in any State other than the States of Assam and Meghalaya).\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 211,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 225,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The members of the Samithi who had already voted for the establishment of the Primary Health Centre at Doravaristhram similarly approached the Government through a petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 117,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The concept of double jeopardy raised as a ground of challenge herein is enshrined under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India which is reproduced (supra). \n\n9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 102,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 131,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this context, it would be worthwhile to refer to certain provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act 1920 (Act No.33 of 1920).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 114,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 133,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Unfortunately, in that case the point in hand was not considered and adjudicated by the Orissa High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 105,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case, the assessee claimed a deduction under Section 80HHC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 66,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n37 Reference is necessary to the relevant portions of the said order of the Ld. Trial Court dated 18.07.02 to highlight this point:\u00ad",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 108,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears from the wordings of the said Sub-section that the Government has to confirm the detention order, and it is only when the Government so confirms that it can continue the detention of the person.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On behalf of the Revenue it was urged that though the processing charges were includible in business profits, they were simultaneously includible in the total turnover.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However, in India, every State action (the term 'State' comprises all organs of the State including the Legislature) is liable to be tested by applying the fundamental rights and if any State action is violative of any one of the fundamental rights, the action is liable to be declared unconstitutional by the High Court (or the Supreme Court).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 17,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 342,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was taken to Trimurti dispensary at Bavla.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 44,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To arrange to spend moneys on the eve of elections in different constituencies, although for general public good, is when all is said and done an evil practice, even if it may not be corrupt practice.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n 33.The only ground taken by the respondent for the purpose of filing a suit in the very same subject matter pertains to the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to take up the ejectment suit as according to him, the rack rent in respect of the building was beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the said Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He held that the Income Tax Officer was not justified in rejecting the assessee's contention that as from 18th April 1951, the assessee had put some of his self-acquired properties in the family hotchpot.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 121,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The feeling that Bharat is our mother-land and all of us are her children was roused by the inspiring song 'Varidematram' composed by Bankimchandra Chatterjee in Samskrit Bengali combine.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 23,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 158,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As Criminal Appeal No.472 of 1992 has been allowed by us, we do not see any reason, at this point of time, to enhance the sentence awarded to accused no.1 by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 33,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 220,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 227,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In K.T. Rolling Mills (P) Ltd.'s case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while reiterating the aforesaid view, held as under:-\n \"4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 30,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We confirm the loss to the estate at Rs.500/- \n67.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "SMC, on being placed on notice of the sub- standard goods, had immediately issued a notice to the complainant as well as Ghatge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 3,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, if I am correct in reading this as an implied term, Babulall can recover Rs. 2,500 a month for five months more on the expiry of the first 3-month option on July 31, 1963.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 71,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 181,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He visited the place of occurrence at 6.30 p. m. and recorded the statement of PWs 14, 18 and 60 and also the statement of appellant Yadav.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 133,
"end": 138,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus the lower courts failed to examine the real questions and had fallen into error by considering the mere label given to agreement, Exh. 22 as decisive.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "When once PW\u00ad6 could assimilate the said legal requirement as stipulated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as fail to understand as to how principle No. 1 in paragraph 25 of the decision reported in Balbir Singh (supra) could be applied.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 89,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 105,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 211,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "therefore, she was not entitled to any damages.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In that case, the Supreme Court was considering the IAS Recruitment Rules, 1954, IAS Cadre Rules, 1954 and Indian Administrative Service (Seniority of Special Recruits) Regulations, 1960.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 31,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 79,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 102,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 186,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the neighbouring States like Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu the child had to study either the regional language or the mother tongue in the primary school.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 38,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 54,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the information of 5th respondent and of the fact that her complaint has been forwarded to the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted enquiry relating to the death of Veerappan and his associates before whom the petitioner also deposed, the grievance expressed by the petitioner as to the fate of her alleged complaint dated 8-11-2004 is liable to be rejected.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 190,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 348,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It provides that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the court- APEAL Nos.991/11, 992/11 331/11 & 854/11 \n (i) acquitting the accused, or",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 147,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He shall remove the materials remaining unsold on 15th April to the sale depot before 30th April, on obtaining permission of the Divisional Forest Officer.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Shankar Dass, SHO (PW-15) reached Mohanpur Chowk and Lekh Raj, ASI (PW- Cr. Appeal No.458-DB/1998 & Cr. Appeal No.56-DB of 1999 [6]\n\n14)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 61,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 98,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 128,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban and Ors. : AIR 1999 SC 3822.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 129,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Siddique Basha, PW31, photographer was engaged to take photographs of the scene of occurrence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner before this Court relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in Delhi Administration And Others v. Sushil Kumar: (1996) 11 SCC 605 and R.Radhakrishnan v. Director General of Police And Others: AIR 2008 SC 578.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 74,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 144,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 222,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In M/s Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa and another A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 17 while examining the powers to be exercised by the State legislature under Entry 57 the Supreme Court held that Entry 57 regulated the power to impose taxes on motor vehicles whether mechanically propelled or not.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 74,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 157,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 175,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 194,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the petitioners, during such assembly of the insulated panels, the panel comprising of door and door frame with latch, hinges and lock would not be there and even the insulated panels which were assembled were loosely bolted and had no covering strips fixed which prevents loss of cold air.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "a future date, the document is said to effect an actual demise and it operates as a lease- There are no such terms in the document.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Ex. B-2 there is no mention as to the place where the will was executed, though the suggestion that steps were being taken to get the estate duly represented may be suggestive of the will having been executed at Madras.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 215,
"end": 221,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "With regard to the right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (c) the Supreme Court said that if an association was formed for the purpose of carrying on business, the right to form it would be governed by sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 19.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 60,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 78,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 243,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Case was committed to the Court of Session, Barnala, for trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under this and similar agreements, Garodias were given the right of permitted user of the trade mark registered in Clause 12 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade and Merchandise Rules, 1959, in respect of, inter alia, rubber tubes for cycle tyres, without any limit as to the period of time, but subject to the termination clause.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 147,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 188,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the course of inspection, it is alleged, it transpired that the goods imported under the Licence of M/s. F. Ahmed & Co. were mixed up with the goods imported under the licence of M/s Siewert & Dholakia (P) Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 122,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 213,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It w.as suggested that objections were invited to the shifting of the shop from Basa to Diliya and he merely transmitted his proposal as well as objections.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 84,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 94,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held as under :-\n\"9.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Dr.Durairaj removed the head, M.O.59, and left femur, M.O.60, from the dead body, and they were properly packed and preserved by P.W.47, the expert from Forensic Science Laboratory.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 180,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Along with the reply, Ex. R 1 dated September 23, 1969 relating to filling up of vacancies of Prosecuting Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors, issued by the Deputy Director, Security Railway Board, New Delhi and Ex. R-II, procedure for filling up the post of Assistant Security Officer (Prosecution) on the Railway dated January 17, 1976, were filed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 54,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 201,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 331,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The particulars of the serial number appearing in the 370 notes were as follows:\n 1. 8EQ-412890 ---------------- 51* 100= 5.100.00 2. 8EQ-107124 ---------------- 58* 100= 5.800.00 3.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The petition was dismissed by the High Court and the dealer filed an appeal in the Supreme Court on a certificate granted by the High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 96,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the suspension order it was mentioned that there were certain fresh complaints of misappropriation also but the same were not specified.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court further observed :\n \"Administrative decisions in exercise of powers even if conferred in subjective terms are to be made in good faith on relevant consideration.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel for the petitioner and the intervenor urged that the word 'employed' appearing in Article 319 does not necessarily imply that there should be a relationship of master and servant,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 113,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is a society called South Central Railway Employees Credit Society Limited, Secunderabad, originally established in 1923 and registered under A.P. Co-operative Societies Act No. 7 of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as Society).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 94,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 193,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It shall be competent for the Election Commission for the reasons which it considers sufficient to extend time for the completion of any election by making necessary amendments in the notification issued under Section 30 or Subsection 39(1).\" \n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 49,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 240,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel for the Appellants that in the absence of an overt act being attributed to them, Khushboo and Maya cannot be convicted for offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 140,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 149,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 199,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 203,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 230,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 234,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case in a suit for an injunction, the defendant claimed that he is a tenant and an issue was raised whether the defendant is a tenant or not.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Zafar Naiyar, learned Additional Advocate General of the State, confined his argument to the agreements between the Cane-growers' Cooperative Societies and the respective sugar producing factories already entered into under Form C of the Clauses 3(3) and 4(1) of the U.P. Sugarcane Supply and Purchase Order, 1954.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 263,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 317,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "3. Defendant No.2 Charno executed registered sale deed vasika No.1846 dated 14.6.1993 of land measuring 23 bighas 16 biswas for Rs.1,98,334/- in favour of defendant No.9 Jagjit Singh, defendant No.10 Malkit Singh, defendant No.11 Bahadur Singh, defendant No.12 Nirmal Singh and defendant No.13 Inderjit Kaur. \n\n 4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 24,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 182,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 212,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 243,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 273,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 307,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Catena of judgments that the standard of proof in discharge of the burden in terms of section 139 of the Act being preponderance of probabilities the inference therefore, can be drawn not only from the material brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 143,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Manohar Khan PW-12, and B.K. Gupta PW-13, turned hostile and denied having made statements Mark PW-12/A and Mark PW-13/A to the police,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 34,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The owner further stated without admitting the factum of incidence that the driver had valid and effective driving licnence, the bus had valid route permit and was duly insured with the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. and that there was no breach of any of the conditions of the Insurance policies.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 186,
"end": 214,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Oral evidence available on record:\nP.W.1-R. Varadan and P.W.2-B. Siva Ramakrishna were examined on behalf of the plaintiff.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 51,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 81,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the last, the learned Public Prosecutor has placed reliance in case decided on 5-7-1988 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. L. Mehta, reported in 1989 Cr LR 582 (Raj), Hardev Gujar v. State of Rajasthan, and argued that in view of above decision, no person can be acquitted on account of illegality in the matter of investigation unless miscarriage of justice is shown.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 90,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 125,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 195,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Chander Kant v Laxmi Chand Ex.No.75/2010/03 that there is no decree existing in respect of objector's flat which bears number F\u00ad30/F\u00ad1. \n5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 43,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the said matter Supreme Court held that:\n \"As is well-known, the issue of the prerogative writs, within which certiorari is included, had their origin in England in the King's prerogative power of superintendence over the due observance of law by his officials and Tribunals.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 32,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 164,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Court was pleased to direct the respondent to grant temporary permits till the disposal of the applications for grant of pucca stage carriage permit.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "What has to be seen is whether there is a reasonable ground for believing that he was likely to have been biased.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "[Ref. Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs. State of Punjab 2012 (117) R.D. 289].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 68,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Judgment On : 19th December, 2016 Soumen Sen,J.:-This is an application for setting aside of an award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 33,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 118,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 164,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After importing them, they would fix their own price for those goods and endorse the shipping documents in favour of the second plaintiff, who would be entitled to clear them at the harbour on payment of 80 per cent. of the price, the balance of 20 per cent.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "They have not bothered to see that by their own reckless and irresponsible conduct the defence contracts obtained from the Government of India and others can be cancelled and the firm will not be able to furnish bank guarantees for keeping the contracts alive, and the consequence of cancellation of such orders would be penalties, damages, etc. apart from the permanent damage to the goodwill of the firm.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 142,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per Section 11 1(c) (i) & (ii) he has to send one of the part for analysis to the Public Analyst and the remaining two parts to the Local Health Authority.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 33,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It will be amply clear that the questions considered by the Supreme Court in Barium Chemicals' case, (Supra) were entirely different from the question with which I am concerned in this application.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 93,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A candidate was required to secure at least 40% marks in each subject in the main written test to qualify.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Hence, in our opinion, the latter of the above mentioned two interpretations, I.e., the one which advances the object of the statute and serves its purpose should be preferred vide Kunal Singh v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 524 (para 9); B.D. Shetty v. CEAT Ltd., (2002) 1 SCC 193 (para 12); Transport Corporation of India v. E.S. I. Corporation, (2000) 1 SCC 332; etc. \n\n \n\n12.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 228,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 281,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 364,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Of course there is no question of Sections 6 and 7 operating to extend \"the period within which any suit must be instituted\", or of Section 8 to limit the extension to three years, unless the period of limitation computed from the ordinary starting point specified in the third column of the Schedule has expired).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 51,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 142,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the Judgment and Orders dated 15.11.71 and 9.5.72 of the Allahabad High Court in I.T.R. No. 67 of 1969 and 724 of 1971.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 43,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 54,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 123,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He stated before the trial court that on 16.12.2002, PW-1 Madhukar went to the police station at about 8.00 p.m.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 66,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to him, Crl.Appeal No.581-DB of 2004",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 46,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Liberty of a citizen is a most important right won by our forefathers after long, historical, arduous struggles.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Appeal by certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution of India from the judgment and order dated March 26, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Writ No. 662 of 1971 and Civil Appeals Nos. 1139, 1475 and 1476 of 1971.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 39,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 68,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 117,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 145,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 175,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 226,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As stated above there is no pleading to the effect that there was no mention of rooms and veramda and south east in the Mahadanama and more over this evidence is contrary to Ext.1 which is admitted by the defendants no.1 to 8.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In our opinion, it is preposterous to hold that the Board which is empowered to take action in connection with the unfair means adopted by the candidates in the examination conducted by it, can have no power to inquire into the said episode by constituting Experts Committee to aid and assist it in the said enquiry in respect of technical matters concerning the Computer operations.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We observe at the outset that both sides have, in their respective lines of arguments and perspectives, relied on the following common materials while addressing the second referred issue before us :- \n (a) Explanation IX to Notification No. 1 /93-C.E. (as amended) \n \n\n (b) Board's Circular No. 213/41/88-CX.6 dated 30-12-88; \n (c) Supreme Court's judgment in Paliwal Electricals (supra);",
"entities": [
{
"start": 319,
"end": 327,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 336,
"end": 349,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 383,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": ", we direct that in order to do complete justice they should also have the benefit of the judgment given by us.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That decision was rendered by the Supreme Court prior to Forty Fourth Amendment to the Constitution when Clause (5) introduced to Article 356 of the Constitution by the Thirty Eighth Amendment Act, 1975 was in force, which barred judicial review of Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution on any ground.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 99,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 115,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 141,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 161,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 202,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 279,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 299,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We shall now proceed to examine these reasons.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the present case there is no dispute to the fact that no order was passed by the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court or even the senior-most Judge, administratively Incharge of the Lucknow Bench, transferring Writ Petition No. 111/2011 for hearing from a Single Judge before which it was pending, to the Division Bench of that Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 199,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 240,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Today no one in India can ask for primary education as a right as only ten per cent of the population get primary education.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 21,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has contended that various charges do not stand revealed at all and moreover the joint trial, qua alleged 13 separate incidents of misappropriation, was not permissible in view of the mandatory provision contained in Criminal Procedure Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 220,
"end": 243,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW1 Dr. Rajiv Grover had medically examined the accused on 16.03.1989 and prepared his MLC Ex.PW1/A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 20,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that event, the writ may not be issued at all.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The maser's duty as to the appliances used by the servant has been stated by Lord Herschell to be; 'The contract between employer and employed involves on the part of the former the duty of taking reasonable care to provide proper appliances, and to maintain them in a proper condition.'",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 91,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Then on June 30, 1970 the Town Planning Officer issued a notice expressing his intention to acquire the land in question admeasuring 1,37,961 sq. metres.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 21,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is submitted with reference to the aforesaid evidence of P.W. 29 that it was not possible for P.W. 29 to have identified the miscreants passing from a distance of 50 ft. from the place in the Khalihan where he had concealed himself.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was in pursuance of this general all- India policy and, in particular, to fulfill the feltneeds of Calcutta that the Government of West Bengal was looking out for a suitable plot in a good location.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 110,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 145,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These writ petitions are filed challenging the said order.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Both the courts have concurrently held on evidence of parents of deceased, that her in-laws were regularly and continuously pestering her for bringing cash or an auto rickshaw and on their failure to satisfy their demand she was subjected to torture and maltreatment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There was a dispute over 'khal' (water course) for irrigating the lands.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh the Police Station City, Kaithal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 132,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But, they become thick friends from 1998, when they together attended a course in the Bishop's House at Thrissur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 112,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This would involve an appreciation of the power of judicial review and an understanding of the manner and the instrumentalities through which it is to be exercised.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Time must have been taken by both PW14 Sardara Singh, SI to reach Ludhiana from Sangrur and thereafter by Joga Singh, Constable in carrying the statement of Amar Singh from CMC Ludhiana to PS Sangrur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 52,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 74,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 87,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 167,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 185,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 199,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "10.PW\u00ad5 is Const. Upendra who has deposed that on 01.03.2011 on the direction of IO, MHC(M) handed over to him two sealed pulindahs for depositing in FSL Rohini vide RC no. 17/21/11 and after depositing said samples with the FSL, he handed over acknowledgment to MHC(M).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 25,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 160,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 228,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the genealogical tree of the interest land indeed appears in the second degree, but the immediate and effective source is rent, which has suffered the accident of (1) [1948] 16 I.T.R. 325. \n\nnon-payment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 179,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 190,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for respondents submit that those governed by the judgment in the case of Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) and were petitioners therein or in the case of Nirmal Kumar Jain (supra) have been extended benefit, if they were not in possession of driving licence while applying for the post of Conductor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 109,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 182,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In order to substantiate these contentions, much emphasis has been given with regard to the appreciation of evidence in the form of depositions of Mr. Mohnish Bhalla - (PW-4), Intelligence Officer, NCB, Ahmedabad at Exh.81 and Mr. Pavansinh Tomar - PW-5, Zonal Director, NCB at Exh.119.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 151,
"end": 165,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 201,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 212,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 246,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 274,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Maharaj Kumar Kamal Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax krs 10/13 wpL419.13.sxw (supra), a Bench of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court held that the ITO was justified in his belief that the assessee's income has escaped assessment on the basis of the decision of the Privy Council which was held to be 'information' within the meaning of Section 34(1)(b) of the 1922 Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 90,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 144,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 364,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n \"Their belated evidence indicates an attempt to implicate PW-7 Shankar Bidri as the person directly responsible for the perpetration 01 torture.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 78,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He went to C-256, Relief Camp, Peera Garhi belonging to PW2 Ashwani Kumar and found that incident had taken place near C- 82, Relief Camp, Peera Garhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 73,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner also retired from the business of the firm on 21.05.1998 and started his separate business under the name and style of B.P. Sales Corporation, Amarnath Market, Amritsar, Punjab.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 156,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 173,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 183,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 191,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW21 (Dr.Babu) who was the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine conducted the autopsy on the deadbody on 1-4-2000 at 9.30 a.m..",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 13,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 117,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Of course P.W. 43 made an attempt in cross-examination to dilute it, saying that those accused wanted him to perform only such rituals as would bring in prosperity to them, and not ceremonies which might harm others.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, though altogether 12 accused have faced the trial for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 323,342,357,427,465 and 201 I.P.C. and Sections 323, 342,357,427,465 and 201 I.P.C. and accused Nos.4 to 6 and 8 to 12 were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 49,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 194,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 201,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 243,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 250,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Deceased Udayakumar of Manakkad Village and his friend C.W.1 (Suresh Kumar) were detected by accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Sreekandeswaram Park in Vanchiyoor Village within the limits of the Fort Police Station on 27-9-2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 39,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 74,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 159,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 204,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 217,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi , 157 (2009) DLT 450 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that \" it is settled proposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent control Act, the court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 52,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 80,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 205,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant was married prior to the accident but does not have any issue as he has become impotent due to the accident.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Defendant No. 3 Smt. Shanti Devi is the widow of late Basant Ram.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 32,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 64,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, the State Government is only discharging a public duty when it takes action under Section 3 of the Minimum Wages Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 110,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 135,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Initially, when the Act was framed, it only had a role to facilitate compromise or settlement between the parties.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(ii) It may be a contract for work in which the use of the materials is ancillary or incidental to the execution of the work, and \n\n(iii) It may be a contract for supply of goods where some work is required to be done as incidental to the sale.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is furthermore not in dispute that she and her family members were operating six accounts with the company, the details whereof are as under :\n\n Sl. No. Name Account No.\n 1. Mr. A Sridhar A555 2. Mr. Dinesh D D316 3. Mrs. Dhanam B0002 4. Ms. Kalyani R. K0004 5. Jayamani S. J0001 6. M/s. R.S.R. Securities Limited R0014 16.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 241,
"end": 250,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 313,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 376,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 443,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 493,
"end": 504,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 557,
"end": 587,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "General Clauses Act applies to Central Acts and Regulations but that does not mean that Courts cannot take advantage of the settle principles of construction of Central Acts being applied to the Subordinate Legislation as well.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 19,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that in this judgment of the Full Bench their Lordships have discussed the scheme of the Fatal Accident Act which traces its origin to English Fatal Accident Act, 1846, which is known as Lord Campbell's Acts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 118,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 178,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 211,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Wherefore both parties respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnised on 30-8-74 and grant such other relief as this Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case, allowing this petition.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 191,
"end": 198,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dr. Y.N. Gupta, Professor of Orthopaedics in Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, who had examined the claimant and treated her, gave his evidence before the Tribunal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 75,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 86,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Transferee i.e. M/s Agarwal's Associates were not handed over the possession of the property and it was left to them to obtain the possession of the property after which the sale deed was to be executed in their favour by the appellant and other co-owners.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 44,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "_______________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J Date:23-12-2014",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 47,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 66,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent examined Anantram Sharma PW 3 and Kailash Chandra Taparia PW5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 39,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 72,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, before parting with this appeal, it is clarified that since the period for execution under CPC is 12 years (as admitted by both the parties) Gaon Sabha is at liberty to file for the execution of the order dated 30.4.1982 if it so desires, although, counsel for the respondent maintained that Gaon Sabha after filing the present appeal have waived their rights to do so.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 103,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 229,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In South Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India , the Act with which the Court was concerned was the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which furnishes no special definition of the word 'manufacture'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 49,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 137,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Admittedly, the vehicle's owner resides in a small hamlet, situated at few miles from village Dighol-Islampur where the earthen fortress is situated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 109,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) did not raise any noise when he was at Novelty Sweets is CRA No.586-DB of 2007 [17] without substance as Parteek Kumar alias Prince (PW2) himself has stated that he did not raise any noise because he did not know till that time that he was kidnapped.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 112,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 197,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 250,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was argued that their families are well settled in US.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 56,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It may be seen that in the Supreme Court, the controversy as regards the admission in Medical Colleges did not come to an end with its decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 163,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Just as special provision is made under several enactments for recovery of public monies as arrears of land revenue, the Act provides a special remedy in the matter of eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In that case, the share capital subscription was received through banking channels and complete records were maintained by Divine Leasing & Finance Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 152,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Lease deed was executed on 16.03.2007 for a period of 5 years commencing from 16.03.2007 to 15.03.2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 37,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 102,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first being that an innocent person must be convicted as a consequence the false evidence and the second being that such person should also have been executed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This decision was approved in Vestry of St. James and St. John, Clerkenwell v. Feary (1890) 24 QBD 703 (Z3)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 107,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the question which arose for consideration as to whether the legal representatives of the original tenant are entitled to protection under Section 11(17) of the Act, a Division Bench of this Court referred the same to the Full Bench for consideration.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 156,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is a question of general importance and in view of the observations made in Misc. Petn. No. 121 of 1964, D/-11-8-1964 (Madh Pra) we think that the matter needs a full consideration.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 108,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 122,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In such a situation, it cannot be said that accused was in exclusive possession of contraband.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The opening paragraph of this letter is as follows: \n \"We herein enclose the export licence granted to us by the Controller of War Supplies and Economic Welfare together with relative bills of lading to be re-booked to Bombay and Calcutta.\" \n 45.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 219,
"end": 225,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 238,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Thus in view of the above the order impugned dated 21.11.2014 passed by Principal Secretary (Home), U.P. Government at Lucknow, the respondent no.2, is hereby quashed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 64,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 118,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 129,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Two parallel meetings had been held, in one meeting under the Presidentship of Mehla Singh, the petitioner alongwith other employee had been re-",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Undoubtedly, from the very nature of the proceedings under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, the appropriate authority proceeds to act under that Chapter only after coming to a conclusion that it was a fit case for purchase of the property on account of 'undervaluation' of the property, implying thereby an effort on the part of the transferor to conceal the true value of the property to 'evade tax'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 71,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 93,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Invoking Rule 10 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, I estimate 20 percent of the sale made in India during the year under reference (Rs.80,75,00,842/-) by the assessee company as reasonable estimates of the profits made and 50 percent of such profits are attributable to the activities of the PE in India in the form of the alleged LO.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 16,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 46,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 95,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 300,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "R.K.Katyal DW-2, deposed that Sham Lal Chopra was his brother-in-law and he was very close to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 45,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Secretary of the Department, thereafter, entrusted the enquiry to the Director, Animal Husbandry, Dr. Ramraj Ram, who reported that the animals had been transported and had been distributed amongst the beneficiaries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 100,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Of course, PW-2 has denied that as per ALLIMCO Manual, the 1/3rd of disability of a particular limb be taken for consideration to the whole body.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "While so, Saritha filed an application under Section 12 of the Act against A. Ashok Vardhan Reddy and his parents, taken cognizance by the XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad in D.V.C. No.4 of 2009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 55,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 97,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 176,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 199,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is for the special needs of such a 'force' that instead of ordinary criminal court, the offenders are tried by SFC even when the offence is punishable by Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 157,
"end": 174,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In view of this admission of the reputation of the name Calvin Klein with regard to Apparels including jeans at least outside the country, the only question which remains to be resolved is whether it is necessary that the petitioner should carry on the business in India before being entitled to sue for passing off as contended by the Respondents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 265,
"end": 270,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has deposed that he and one Jungalia Fendaria were summoned as pancha's at the scene of incident on the day of the accident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Government and its authorities are directed to grant recognition under Article 30(1) of the Constitution only to such institutions, which satisfy the twin requirements, referred to above.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 108,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The matter was thereafter placed before a Division Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court for decision in the light of judgment of the Constitution Bench.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 149,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above facts were published in newspapers thereby tarnishing the name, image and reputation of the I.O.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 108,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She had thus been treated with cruelty by them since her marriage till her final departure to her parents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "B. The notebook Ex.P-14 of Alisha Kumari was not sealed at the time of the recovery and thus the possibility of the suspected writing at pages 9 to 12 thereof, opined to be in the handwriting of the accused, being dictated by the police to the accused when he was in custody cannot be ruled out.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both of them manufacture beer, which is sold in Germany and other countries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 55,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "IN D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.352/2005 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4251/1994 V.K. Gaur Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another Date of Order ::: 05.10.2010",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 47,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 133,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 162,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further it has also come in evidence that the said witness and the accused No.1 Rajeev Kapoor are business partners and the witness has also stood as surety for the accused No. 1 Rajeev Kapoor, which cast doubts about the veracity of the deposition of DW\u00ad2 and also shakes his credibility.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 93,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 192,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the facts in the present ground are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present ground and accordingly ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 117,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 171,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 223,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts in National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Union of India [1981] 130 ITR 928, decided by the Delhi High Court are more or less similar to the facts here.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 119,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 152,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, in the case on hand, I have extensively dealt with how the suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court at Chennai and on other issues.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 126,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They were, however, confronted with a Division Bench decision of this Court to which Sen, J. himself had been a party, viz., Cri. App. No. 808 of 1960, D/ 7-6-1960 (Cal), where the owner of a fair price shop bound by a similar agreement had been held to be an agent of Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 150,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 169,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court, in AIR 1964 SC 1336 (M.L. & B. Corporation v. B. N. Banerjee) has clearly held that a refusal to extend the benefit of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act does not raise any question of jurisdiction and, therefore, even if I were to.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 80,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 147,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 176,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They also maintained constant contact with the Ministry of Food Processing as also the Coast Guard with regard to the movement of the three trawlers.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 74,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Informant and the two comrades came near the car and saw his brother Ajit Sarkar, Asfaq Alam of Mahmadia Estate and driver Hirendra Sharma dead, Bodyguard Ramesh Oraon, P.W. 25 seriously injured.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 92,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 138,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 167,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Trite to note that at the times of State Conferences and other State events, which the Judicial officers would be invited to attend leaving their stations of work, the powers of granting or extending remands would be delegated to or conferred upon the Executive Magistrates and therefore, delegation of the powers of granting remands and extending remands is not opposed to settled and accepted practice and procedure.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A similar letter was written also by Rajesh Jassal to the Additional CIT, Investigation Unit-1, New Delhi giving details of the bank accounts operated by him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 105,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW. 4, Mr Khalil Ahmed stated that he was one of the inamdars.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 22,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W.6, Devendra Kumar, is scribe of Ext.1 and Exts.2/B and 2/C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 21,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In all probability a wrong time noted when DD No.19-A was recorded; or probably 10:00 PM was treated as midnight by the learned Area Magistrate.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "For that that learned CIT(A), Dhanbad, has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,23,425 under Section 68 of the IT Act on account of unexplained loans admitting the additional evidence in the form of confirmation in contravention of Rule 46A of the IT Rules without giving any opportunity to the AO to examine the genuineness of the aforesaid confirmation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 37,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 121,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 244,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 260,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, they are not applicable to Article 320(3)(b) which relates to the matter of appointment, transfer and promotion and in order to support his contention he has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 1987.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 55,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 210,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 271,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court held that when the complainant is a body corporate, it is the de jure complainant and it must necessarily associate a human being as de facto complainant to represent the de jure upa 32 fb-cri-wp2523-10 complainant in Court proceedings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He also pointed out that the description of the place of incident as was sought to be brought on record through PW-3- Jagdish Pagare suffers from major errors and made the witness vulnerable cri-appeal-471-05.sxw and therefore it would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of the said witness.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 133,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore merely because the power to decide about the Constitution of the Tribunal has been given to the State Government by Section 4(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, it cannot be said that the above Section 74(1) could not constitutionally be enacted by the Parliament.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 138,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 174,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 222,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 278,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was also not explained why the petitioner could not lawfully possess Indian currency in Calcutta and a search was necessary to find out whether Indian currency had been secreted in the Calcutta residence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 99,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 196,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Statement of accused u/s.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 19.08.2013.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 28,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 62,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 89,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I may be that during the intervening period Shri S.N. Gupta who has suffered from parylsis might have put such signatures and these signatures of course tally with his signatures on Anx. R/3 dated 1.8.86 filed by the respondents and, therefore, so far as this part of the argument of Mr. Kaushik is concerned it cannot be sustained. \n\n20.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 203,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 295,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Else the parameters invoking the exercise of power are almost similar.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The concept of nationalisation under Art. 19(6)(ii) of the Constitution of India is assailed by the petitioners in so far as it affects their profession or occupation to run the buses on the strength of the permits granted to them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 51,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 80,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Patel, however, strongly relied on the judgment of Divan, C. J. in Criminal Appeal No. 1215 of 1978 decided on November 23, 1979.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 60,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 103,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 132,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "second respondent Bhurey Lal filed an election petition under section 100 of the Representation of the People Act against the appellant Sangram Singh and two others for setting aside Sangram Singh's election.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 28,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 113,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 149,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 196,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As can be seen from the above portion of the Judgment, the Division Bench affirmed the view taken by Swami, J. in Gwalior Rayon's case .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 127,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has also set out in his judgment the development of the law relating to the provisions of Section 34 of the Income-tax Act which again need not be reiterated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 125,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "86.Reliance was also placed on the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat vs. Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat - (2005) 8 SCC 534.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 155,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, there may be a situation where a suit for possession is filed by the rightful owner after 12 years, his title having been extinguished, the possessory owner may be held to have acquired absolute title.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "These questions are certainly difficult and complicated questions, and in fact, having discussed the question of liability, Chakravartti, J. (as he then was) decided that the Hoard nan come to an erroneous decision on a point of law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 136,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Although this was not a case of a redemption plain and simple because a straight redemption was refused, the property was put to sale and the purchaser paid off the mortgage in full.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Judgment Of SARKAR and RAMASWAMI JJ. was delivered by SARKAR J. RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. delivered a dissenting Opinion.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 22,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 36,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 64,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 82,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, she went along with PW3, B. Raghu, a teacher and her colleague, and others to Krishnalanka Police Station, Vijayawada City, and lodged a report, Exhibit P2, at about 08:00 PM.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 44,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 133,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whereas the Tribunal awarded Rs.2000/- for funeral expenses, in Rajesh v. Rajbir and Vimal Kanwars' cases (supra), Rs.25,000 was awarded under this head.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 98,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In 1992 mutation was done by L&DO, which would have been issued only after receiving the death certificate of the defendant No. 1's father.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Under Rule 51, upon going through the record of evidence, the Commandant is empowered to inter alia dismiss the charges; or rehear the charge and award one of the summary punishments; or try the accused by a Summary Security Force Court; or apply to a competent officer or authority to convene a court for the trial of the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nA similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in respect of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act vide Miles India Ltd. (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 114,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 133,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 155,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned APP submits that at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to consider the prima facie case as reflected from the papers of the charge-sheet and not whether there is sufficient evidence to convict the applicants of the offence punishable under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 263,
"end": 274,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 299,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sri.Ramakumar argued for the appellant that the judgment under appeal in so far as it sought to distinguish (2004)1 SCC 663 (Howrah Municipal Corporation v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd.) and (2007) 11 SCC 40 (Municipal Corporation, Shimla v. Prem Lata Sood) is wholly erroneous and the issue on hand is squarely covered by the principle laid down therein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 182,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 249,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "LMJ on 4th December, 2014 raised some issues and chose not to raise other issues.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 3,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 7,
"end": 25,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of Union of India v. Indo-French Pharmaceutical Co. -1983 (12) E.L.T. 725 (Madras), the issue for consideration before the Madras High Court was whether the three Indian Pharmacopoeia products viz. (i) Sulpha Gunidire tablets (ii) Sulpha Dimidine tablets and (iii) Calcium Gluconets tablets manufactured by M/s.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 94,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 152,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such an order was issued in exercise of the power under Section 4 of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1947.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 65,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 103,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Apex Court held that the trial Court, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the accused were found in conscious possession of charas, as they had failed to explain, as to how they were travelling in a Car together, which was not a public vehicle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On November 15, 1976, the Reserve Bank issued a circular giving some guidelines with regard to service charges to be recovered by banks on their borrowal accounts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 20,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Counsel on behalf of - the petitioner referred to the case -- 'General Medical Council v. Spackman', 1943 AC 627 (D), in support of his argument that the Collector of Darbhanga ought to have heard all the evidence which the petitioner chose to furnish.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 116,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 176,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "both drawn on Punjab National Bank, Udyog Vihar, Phase\u00adI, Gurgaon, Haryana and which are subject matter of complaint bearing CC No. 2495/1 were returned back unpaid with the remarks \"Exceeds arrangement\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 34,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 47,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 56,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 65,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 74,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As a pragmatic economic policy decision, the Government decided to make available additional 0.33 FSI, by way of raising the FSI in the suburbs to 1.33 by bringing it on par with the provisional FSI in the Island city.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 101,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 128,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 198,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the aforesaid expression has to be interpreted to mean that the State Government has the authority to grant the licence in any other mode as well which may be prescribed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The section runs as follows:\n\"Section 79.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 40,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In such circumstances, in our view, the provisions contained under Section 23 of the Hindu Marriage Act would be attracted and the appellant would not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 77,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 103,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(ii) Fatima, daughter of K. M. Mohammed Basheer Rs. 1,20,000.00 \n (iii) Tariq, son of K. M. Mohammed Basheer Rs. 1,20,000.00",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 109,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was stated that due to the forceful impact of the accident the petitioner fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries and was removed to Trauma Center AIIMS Hospital by the rider of the offending vehicle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 147,
"end": 175,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per instructions contained in Head Office Order No. 570/66-67, dated 3-1-1967, Sri D. B. Belliappa, Junior Compositor of this Office is hereby informed that your appointment is purely temporary and terminable at any time without any previous notice and without reasons being assigned therefore are not required.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 80,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 101,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, the power given to the Government to license and to pre-censor under the respective legislations has to be read in the context of Article 19 [2] of the Constitution which sets the parameters of reasonable restrictions which can be placed on the right to freedom of speech and expression.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 153,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 173,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It shall be also relevant to point out that during course of arguments ld. PP for CBI also submitted that Shri Balmiki Prasad (father of Dr. A.K. Sinha) was declared unsound and inactive man by his sons and wife in a pending Suit No.104 of 1985 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Siwan, Bihar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 85,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 125,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 151,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 244,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 284,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is again not mentioned as WZ-15C, Kailash Park colony.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The fact however remains that all these tanneries are discharging the treated efficient within the factory precinct itself.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However, when the three-Judge Bench took up the matter, it was of the opinion that the judgment of a three-Judge Bench in Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad and ors. v. State of Gujarat, (supra), required reconsideration and, therefore, the cases were required to be considered still by a larger bench and on 19.11.1997, the three-Judge Bench made the following order : 1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 122,
"end": 182,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 316,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "With a view to avoiding any administrative difficulty, the Government of Gujarat passed a resolution on May 1, 1960 providing that all rules, regulations, circulars, etc. prevailing in the former State of Bombay will continue to operate in the new State of Gujarat until changed or modified by that Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 80,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 115,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 211,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 264,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Subsequently, Notifications dated 30th April, 2001 and 5th August, 2002 were issued under Section 8E of the Act of 1994 laying down the criteria for selection and appointment of Para Teachers.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 100,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As neither under Section 68(1) nor under Section 68(2)(g), after it was amended in 1956, the Government has the power to make a rule with respect to a permit fee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 30,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 57,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n v) PW-1 had left her jewellery in the first floor of the premises; they were in the almirah with Savita's jewellery.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 106,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have also explained the meaning and scope of the term \"cases arising out of districts\" in the case cited above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 36,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By judgment dated 17.9.2008, the petitioners therein were directed to appear before the Upa Lok Ayukta and file their written objections detailing their objections as regards the jurisdiction of the Upa Lok Ayukta to the effect that they are 'public servants' and therefore, not comprehended by the provisions of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 27,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 102,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 213,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Civil Revision Nos. 388/2002 and 202/2000 Both have arisen out of order passed in appeal under Order 43 Rule 1, CPC in which application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was decided.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 41,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 110,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 115,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 165,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 172,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The alleged occurrences were after the Amendment by Act 13/2013 to the IPC and the Schedule of Cr.P.C. which came into force with effect from 03.12.2013 incorporating Sections 370 and 370-A of I.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 63,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 74,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 102,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 152,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 189,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 199,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(3rd and 4th cited), upheld the correctness of view taken in NIKHIL MERCHANT, B.S.JOSHI (1st and 2nd cited) AND MANOJ SHARMA vs. STATE AND OTHERS ( ).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 76,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 145,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is necessary to have a look at some of the important judments, on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the parties.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The picture that emerged from the document disclosed by the parties in this proceeding would go to show that the plea of defective workmanship or use of inferior quality of material is a clear afterthought.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Reading the words \"reverse the finding and sentence \"in an ordinary way, it seems to me to be clear that the legislature means \"reverse the finding of guilty and reverse the sentence on the basis of that finding.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was necessary to confer upon the Commissioner the power to decide in his subjective satisfaction whether the person applying for a licence satisfied the conditions mentioned above.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is only the period of default, which is to be ascertained and the question is to be determined on the basis of the guidelines issued from time to time.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In that light it was asserted that the action of the Board in depriving the petitioner to get allotment/possession of a house in time was arbitrary and discriminatory and not in accordance with the policy, which the Board was enjoined to follow.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It will bear repetition to state that the earlier two judgments have been rendered by Benches of three Hon\u201fble Judges of the Supreme Court, whereas that of the L.I.C. vs. R. Suresh has been rendered by a Bench of two Judges, which seems to be the determining factor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 138,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 180,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mohiuddin, A. J. C. held that a person whose right to recover possession is extinguished, his right to recover damages also disappears.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n The Act came into force from 1945, and it is clear that Part IV was also in force throughout Marwar except Sambhar Shamlat area.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 101,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 124,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Notices be made returnable within two weeks.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He received grievous and serious injuries while the pillion rider Rajesh @ Sonu died at the spot.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 79,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(2) the Rajasthan Roadways Ltd., Ajmer in Civil Appeal No. 43 of 1959, and (3) Framji C. Framji and others in Civil Appeal No. 44 of 1959",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 31,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 38,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 69,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 137,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 17.8.2006, Achuthan Nair (fifth respondent) filed Ext.P12 Review Petition before the Government to review Ext.P11 order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 14,
"end": 27,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If such objection or show cause is filed by the respondents/petitioners herein opposing the grant of ad interim injunction, then the Court below is bound to decide and dispose of such application within 30 days from the date on which the injunction was granted.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The first is The King v. The Postmaster General (1).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid .",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "When P.W.5 Muthulakshmi came running for the rescue of her father and brother viz., P.W.1 and P.W.3, the sixth appellant/accused Latha had cut her with Knife over her head and left arm.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 23,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Relying on the above observations the Supreme Court in the case of Ajgar Ali Nazar Ali Singaporewala v. State of Bombay observed that the case of the appellant was not concluded and the matter was pending before the learned Presidency Magistrate at the date of commencement of the impugned Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 119,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is not a claim on the foot of an account.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This would, therefore, be a clear approval of Kalavathy's judgment and would have a binding effect under Art.1 41 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 113,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 133,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "is bound to furnish reasons for the exercise of a statutory decision-making power.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "2. Total escalation of Rs. 55,00,000/- paid for all (MIG, LIG, LR. MR) @ 70% Rs. 38,00,000/- 3.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The decision in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Achal Investment Ltd. (2004) 268 ITR 211 (Del) is also on the same lines.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 92,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At that time Ramesh Rathore was also studying in class V in God's Heaven School and Vinod and Vijendra were working with him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 79,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 89,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 102,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even if Dharam Singh has no locus standi, the Court has an ample reserve of inherent powers to satisfy itself suo motu that its process has been abused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The position under the Constitution continues to be the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 35,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Purchase made by M/s. Unitech Limited (South City) in village Salokhra in the surrounding areas are detailed below :(x)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 37,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 70,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In essence, the submission of Mr.Prabakaran is that no materials were produced to show that the extension by the Bar Council of India was granted before the expiry of original term of State Bar Council and the resolutions passed on 23.12.2010 are not valid resolutions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 133,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 201,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 242,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He denied the suggestion that his married daughter and Ms. Ritu Anand and her two children are not dependent upon him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Criminal Appeal Nos. 122/1998 and 133/1998 were filed by the 3rd Crl.A. Nos.75 OF 2003 & connected cases 2 accused in C.C.Nos.8/1998 and 9/1998.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 42,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 86,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 143,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Article 1175 at page 637 of Halsbury's Laws of England.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 15,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 57,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sri Venugopal cites the example of Tamil Nadu where, according to him, before every general election a few communities are added to the list of backward classes, only with a view to winning them over to the ruling party.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 45,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on an observation in Smt. Sitabai v. Smt. Vidhyawati, 1972 MPLJ 510 = (AIR 1972 Madh Pra 198), in support of his contention that the decree could not be set aside on an application under Rule 13 of Order 9, Civil P. C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 139,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 251,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 264,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But these considerations have no bearing on the crucial factors which invoke the application of the definition in the Act as already set out elaborately by us.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Reliance is also placed on the decision of Kedar v. State of West Bengal .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 72,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "were recovered from the possession of the petitioners, without any valid permit or licence under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as \"the NDPS Act) and the relevant Rules framed thereunder.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 151,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 196,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is merit in the contention of the Petitioners that the Northern Railway has adopted pick and choose policy in the matter of granting extension of leases.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 77,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In several cases before Bombay High Court there were several conflicting decisions on this question.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By the order dated 13.10.2006, passed in Cr.WJC No. 592 of 2006 (Md. Farooquzzama & Others vs. The State of Bihar), and the analogous Cr.WJC No.608 of 2006 (Sheoyogi Singh vs. The State of Bihar), the learned single Judge finalised the questionnaire for the use of the investigating agency to elicit informations from suspected persons during the course of investigation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 29,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 63,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 113,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 155,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 194,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After the complaint was filed, the Authorized Representative (herein after referred as AR) of the complainant Sh. Shyam Sunder led his pre summoning evidence by way of an affidavit and after hearing the counsel for the complainant and considering the entire material and documents on record, summons were issued against the accused by the court vide order dated 20.03.2012 for the offence U/s 138 NI Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 126,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 372,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 396,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 403,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As we are earth bound, it is no doubt difficult to give up the idea of body of a God, but this idea when analysed, becomes nothing but a burial ground.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is contended by Mr. Shanthi Bhushan, the learned Counsel for the appellants the 'certified copy' means any certified copy, whether obtained before the filing of the application for leave to sue in January, 1981 or subsequently.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the book Advance Drug Review, 5th Issue dated 6th March, 2007 published by Arora Medical Book Co. Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow, it appears that Serlift contains the chemical \"sertraline\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 66,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 112,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 121,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Every person who is holding 24 bighas of land either in Rajasthan Canal or Ganga Canal Areas can be allotted one more bigha of land as landless persons under Rule 5 (2) of the 1975 Rules, to make his holding upto 25 bighas only.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 71,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 86,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 168,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reading the two provisions together in juxtaposition, as they have got to be, it would be clear that at the beginning and the initial stage of the trial the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "is not disputed that M/s Mudranika is an independent establishment engaged in the business of supplying printed packaging material to various establishment, and it is not a captive unit of the assessee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 34,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This becomes important particularly in the light of the reliance placed by Mr. Sequeira, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of St. Xaviers; College v. State of Gujarat .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 172,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 228,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even according to the complainant and prosecution witness.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Article 51A of the Constitution has to be kept in mind.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 19,
"end": 31,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So the family tree and claim arising thereof is baseless.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That decision was examined by the Kerala High Court In Abdul Majeed v. Bhargavan, AIR 1963 Kerala 18 and it was found that the reasoning adopted by the Mysore High Court was defective.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 100,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 169,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "reasonable view that can be taken by a person of reasonable intelligence is that the added alcohol is a foreign ingredient.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The proforma agreement of the loan and exchange also form part Attachment 'C'. \n\n30.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Court summons was issued on 01.08.2013 and the next date was fixe d on 07.10.2013 on which date the charge sheet witnesses 1 to 8 were present and were discharged for want of time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 42,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said claim is liable to be dismissed in view of the settled position of law as declared by the Supreme Court in Adhiyaman College case (1995 (4) SCC 104), Thirumuruga Kirubananda Variyar's case (1996 (3) SCC 15), and Jaya Gokul's case (2000 (5) SCC 231) inasmuch as the very same issue of power to stipulate condition for affiliation, disaffiliation were the subject matter of those decisions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 112,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 157,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 215,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 257,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"The Probate in this case was granted by Mr. Justice J. N. Majumdar in the common form on the sole executor's petition affirming that the due execution of the will was proved by the declaration of Mr. S. N. Chunder, Attorney-at-Law, who was one of the attesting witnesses to the Will.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 67,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 214,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ho further contends that if the witness Maddy Subba Rao was cross-examined, his defence would have been established.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 55,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the matter is already subjudice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, hence, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain this suit filed by the plaintiff.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court has not endeavoured to assess their evidence since it thought that the conviction of the appellant could be sustained on the evidence of PW 1 Komal Chand.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 157,
"end": 168,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Every consent involves a submission but the converse does now follow and a mere act of submission does not involve consent",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Additional Director General of Prisons, Egmore, Chennai-8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 50,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 61,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent/accused No. 2, B. Manickya Reddy, is none other than the person in charge of the said Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. and was responsible to it for the conduct of its business.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 43,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 126,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondents 1 and 3 - State of Karnataka and Deputy Commissioner, Raichur, contend that, in view of the mandate contained in Article 243-U and 243-ZA of the Constitution of India and the provisions contained in the Act, action was initiated to conduct elections to the fourth respondent Town Municipal Council and 39 other Municipal Bodies in the State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 40,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 73,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 149,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 178,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The basis of their analysis can be discerned from the Minutes and opinion submitted by them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The impugned order does not disclose or indicate that there is adjudication with regard to the first issue, namely, admissibility of an unregistered document.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The authority according sanction for invocation of section 17(4) necessitating dispensation of enquiry under section 5A will have to be satisfied on the basis of materials available on record.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 64,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 119,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Office is also directed to call for R & P immediately so as to reach here on or before 31-7-2001, even if need be with a messenger.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 96,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held, in agreement with the trial Court, that the mongage money was tendered and notice of deposit thereof duly served on the defendant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After the illegal purchase of 268.872 hectares of land from the Birla Group, Sevy Mano Mathew started felling trees from a portion of the land resulting in the Forest Department registering cases against him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 75,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 177,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This has been specifically provided for with a view to ensure that the State also is not above the Rule of law and above the provisions contained in the Constitution.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the month of June 1953, Rs. 15,000 was paid by the plaintiff to the Bhaduris and thereafter in April 1954, Rs. 20,000 was paid by 3 drafts in favour of the Modis and in the month of July 1955 two drafts were sent to M. B. Chatterjee of Bhaduri Sen and Co. Ltd. whereof one draft was for Rs. 15,000 drawn in favour of the Modis.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 79,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 164,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 235,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 263,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 329,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The common Award of Respondent No. 2, the III Labour Court, Hyderabad (Sri Syed Abdullah) dated 18-8-1993 passed in M.P. Nos. 179, 173, 176, 175, 172 and 174 of 1992 in favour of respondent No. 1 and against the petitioner is the subject and object of assail in all the writ petitions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 69,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 105,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 165,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The matter was adjourned from time to time for procuring the services of the standing counsel and advocate, Sri S. R. Ashok, and the services of Sri S. C. Janini, Deputy Commissioner and Senior Departmental representative in the Tribunal Mr. Srinivasulu, Deputy Commissioner, and Mr. Mani, Deputy Commissioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 123,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 161,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 253,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 288,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 58594/14, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, arising from C.R No. I\u00ad151 of 2014 registered with the Umra Police Station, Surat, for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part\u00adII, read with Section 114 of the IPC are hereby ordered to be quashed qua the present applicant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 45,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 151,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 198,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 252,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 275,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 286,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the aforesaid provision, the NCTE was authorised to provide minimum qualification which issued Notification on 23.8.2010.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 44,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 131,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Mookherjee relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Chemical Products Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 36 Comp Cas 592 (SC).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 56,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 136,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent No. 1 (Rain Kishan Rohtagi) was the Manager of the company and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were the Directors of the Company, including the company also.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 37,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the decision in this case, the view taken in 1971 All LJ 1399 (supra) was supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commr. of Income-tax, Bombay v. Ogale Glass Works Ltd., AIR 1954 SC 429.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 74,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 208,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Court in Babu Singh Bains (supra) held that as Section 8-A provides for a fair procedure, the same is not arbitrary and, thus, not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, holding :\n\". . .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 30,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 63,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 159,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 188,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our opinion, the present case falls under this category.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He submitted that Rules 57K and 57N could not have operated independently of the notifications and, therefore, as soon as the notifications ceased to remain in existence, the said two rules ceased to operate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 35,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The writ Court when faced with this Hobson's choice would perhaps have to be content with declining to grant a discretionary relief which necessarily invloves an infraction of a statutory rule both in its letter and spirit.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "They have also failed to prove that the suit properties are available for partition.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is an admitted position that Respondents 1 and 4 to 11 did not seek their addition in the suit on the strength of the contract in respect of which the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale has been filed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In OMANA JOSE4, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court was also dealing with the question as to whether an appeal would lie to the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code against the acquittal of the accused in a case under Section 138 of the Act of 1881.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 181,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 258,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 277,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears that one Manu Subedar had entered into an agreement with the Government of India to take on lease certain lands at Marine Lines, Bombay, including composite plot No. 41/42 on Queen's Road Estate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 32,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 91,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 146,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 16th October, 2007 the appeal preferred against the judgment and/or order dated 21st November, 2005 which was dismissed by the Division Bench.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 21,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 102,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, the consideration would be known at the stage of sanctioning of the amalgamation scheme and it would be practically impossible for anyone to comply with the provisions of Section 269UC of filing the declaration in Form No. 37-I in advance, or for seeking\" the no objection certificate from the appropriate authority. \n Chapter XX-C contemplates payment of consideration by the transferee to the transferor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 177,
"end": 190,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Director of Technical Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh/Head of the Institution concerned will offer admission to the colleges in accordance with the merit list of each college prepared by the Professional Examination Board.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 65,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 233,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff's goods and business are demanded, known and recognized with reference to its trademark/label 'TAJ MAHAL'which has become 'well known trademark' within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 215,
"end": 232,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 265,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ex.P.29 is FSL report, wherein the Assistant Director vide his letter dated 19.3.2003 reported that on chemical examiantion, the sample contained in the packet marked B gave positive tests for the presence of chief constituents of coagulated juice of opium having 1.90 % ( one point nine zero percent) morphine.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 14,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W. 11 Dr. Ajit Biswas, P.W. 18 Dr. Sudhanau Das and P.W. 19 Dr. Asim Kumar Kundu are the doctors who have been examined in connection with the trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 23,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 49,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 82,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "by his order dated 25-8-1955 under Section 23 of the Act, rejected the claim of Raghunath on a finding that he was not in possession of the field since two years before the date of his application and that consequently ho will not be entitled to be declared as a Pucca Tenant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 28,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 89,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In trying to decide whether the accused had committed the offence or attempted to commit the offence of a breach of trust Sen. J. remembered that he was a party to a decision in Criminal Appeal No. 303 of 1960.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 122,
"end": 126,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 209,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now it is to be further determined whether after divorce on 2.1.1987, Hussan Bano-applicant No. 1 and Mohd. Amran applicant No. 2, are entitled to recover the maintenance amount granted to them under Section 125, Cr.P.C. \n\n11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 68,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 81,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 113,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 211,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 220,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Corporation has subsequently taken steps for taking measurement of the land, etc.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was stated by the informant that the candidate of B.P.P., namely, respondent Prabhunath Singh and his companions had fired with an intent to kill the informant and others, as a result of which the three, namely, himself, Darogi Rai and Srimati Devi (P.W. 6) were injured and the incident had been seen by his villagers who were coming after or going to cast their votes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 96,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 234,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 251,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr.Gopalakrishna Kurup further submtis that the question as to whether the Upa Lok Ayukta could issue a direction to set aside the selection, was also considered by this court in {2008(4) KLT 839}.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 89,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Civil Appeal No. 823/89 arises against it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 23,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(3) that M/s Sureshchand Isarchand got this vehicle replaced on Bavana-Dholpur route and the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur had allowed the said application for replacement by circular note dated 17-12-66.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 70,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 78,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 129,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 210,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Leaving the appellant and Pritosh at Mongram PW-2 went Gangoria.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 33,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 44,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 63,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court directed the IRDA to issue appropriate directions keeping in view the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and particularly in view of the fact that the Government of India does not provide for any social security by way of compulsory (health) insurance.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 35,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 191,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The notification also contained a note to the effect that a site plan of the above land could be seen in the office of the Collector, at Nainital.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 145,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore really the grievance against the judgment is only for the political parties and trade unions and we have no hesitation to hold that Government is trying to protect the interest of political parties and trade unions who do not directly want to approach this Court with any Petition.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Though the petitioner has disputed that he has not executed the guarantee deed dated 17.8.1988 for Rs.56.80 lakhs, however, a copy of the said guarantee deed placed on record discloses that the petitioner did execute the deed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 94,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the former case, there was a variation of interest, payable under a mortgage, by a subsequent agreement, and, it was held that the agreement embodied in the document, effected the change, and, therefore, it was the document itself which brought the altered terms into being, and, as such this subsequent agreement limited an interest in immoveable property and required registration.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The right of private defence has two aspscts, viz., (1) the complete defence-totally absolving him from guilt by virtue of exemption contained in Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code and (2) reducing the offence from that under Sections 302 to 304 IPC by the applicability of Exception (2) of Section 300, IPC. \n\n8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 156,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 181,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 246,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 250,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 303,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 308,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per the order sheet of Ld. Rent Controller dated 31.08.2013, the \"landlord\" has submitted that he was suffering from dysentery and left the court and though he was proceeded ex\u00adparte yet he was given another opportunity to cross examine the witness on 07.09.2013 and the \"landlord\" did not appear and ultimately the impugned order was passed on 30.09.2013.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 265,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 358,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The NRHM scheme launched by Union of India has been made operational through guidelines called operational guidelines which has been made upto date i.e. upto 13.5.2011 by the Department of Ayush, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 42,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 167,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 194,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 252,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Appellant then threatened PW-4 Shaikh and the other witnesses with dire consequences if they remain there or if they inform about the incident to anyone.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 41,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Although the definition of Section 9(1)(vi) of the IT Act is wider, however, in view of Section 90(2), the provisions of DTAA has to be followed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 57,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 101,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 125,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The proviso to clause (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution, relied on by the petitioners reads as follows:\n \"Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 40,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 60,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 172,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Same rule exists on High Court Original Side Rules being Rule 28 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 64,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 117,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The notification itself contains no express requirement that the goods imported must be used in India; nor does it require that any importer claiming its benefit must declare that the goods are intended to be used in India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 101,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 222,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said purported hundi loans in fact represented the concealed income of the petitioner.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In so describing the Fundamental Rights in those cases, this Court could not have intended to say that the Fundamental Rights alone are the basic elements or fundamental features of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 186,
"end": 198,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"In England, the Crown\", it was further pointed out, \"cannot be made liable for damages for the tortious acts of its servants either by petition of right or in any other manner, as laid down by Lord Lyndhnrst in the case of Viscount Canterbury v. The Attorney-General\" (1).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 11,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 208,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 267,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A learned Single Judge of the High Court directed, inter alia, absorption of contract labour on the ground that the type of work in which the contract labour was engaged was prohibited in view of the notification issued by the Central Government on February 9, 1980 under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 227,
"end": 245,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 265,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 285,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 301,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "R. Sundar Raju (Appellant in the connected appeal), Superintending Engineer, having three years experience, who was holding the current charge of the duties of the post of Chief Engineer at that time, in the meanwhile had filed an application questioning the deputation of the First Respondent herein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The sales tax component, ruled the Supreme Court, included in the sale price is not includible in making the aggregate for the purpose of the turnover.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ebrahimi v. Westbourne Galleries Ltd., [1972] 2 All ER 492 (HL) is a case of a quasi-partnership and referred to by the Supreme Court in Hind Overseas Pvt. Ltd.'s case .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 63,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 160,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This judgment of Division Bench was assailed by the State of Maharashtra in Civil Appeal and the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered its judgment in said matter on 07.04.1997.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 72,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 167,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further stated that the accused went aside and started signing the papers produced by Jagtar Singh, at his (Jagtar Singh's) instance.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 101,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 123,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The panel has broadly classified the allegations of mal-treatment at the hands of STF at Internal page No.18, Ink page 43 of the report as under:\n 1 s.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It categorically states that the RTA and the STA may without following the procedure laid down in Section 80, grant permits, to be effecting for a limited period which shall not in any case exceed four months to authorise use of a transport vehicle temporarily.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 36,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 48,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the strength of the aforesaid two authorities it is submitted that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have accepted the right of being heard by a legal expert even in those cases where there was prohibition by law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Later on only, the Central Board of Excise & Customs changed their views and held that Printed cartons are dutiable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 52,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Of course, due weight must be given to opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular subject.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this context, the Apex Court had inter alia held as under:\n \"It will thus appear that this Court has consistently taken the view that in Rent Control Legislations if the tenant wishes to take advantage of the beneficial provisions of the Act, he must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 31,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter the police prepared Tehrir on the basis of which an FIR bearing No.289/2008 dated 30.07.2008 under Section 279/304A/427 IPC was registered at PS Pilukhwa Dist. Ghaziabad, U.P. after receiving the post mortem report of the deceased from the competent authority.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 103,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 130,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 134,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 186,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In one case the petitioner had gone abroad without waiting for the grant of permission to proceed on leave by the superior officer and the same was treated to be continued absence from duty without prior permission of the concerned authority which made her liable to be discharged from the service in view of Regulation 113 and accordingly she was discharged from the service.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 309,
"end": 323,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We also derive interpretational support for our conclusion that Parliament may not legislate for territories beyond India from Article 51, a Directive Principle of State Policy, though not enforceable, nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 74,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 121,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 137,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is relevant to notice the following observations of the Reference Court:\n\"But even if we take that the land in dispute is superior to the land acquired in village Ber Sarai because of the factors pointed out above by the ld.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 175,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The second decision is in the case of CIT v. Miling Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 211-ITR-690 (Guj), wherein it was held that while granting special deduction Under Section 80M of the Act, the profits and gains of the business cannot be computed without reference to the provisions contained in sections 32 and 33.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 98,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 175,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 312,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the challaning officer issued a challan against the accused driver for violation of DMVR 11.9/177 of M.V. Act and also for the violation of permit condition U/s 66/192A since the same act also amounts to permit violation as per the guidelines/notifications issued by the State concerened authorities vide challan bearing No.746609 which is Ex.PW\u00ad1/A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 108,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 120,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 179,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is stated that though he was kept in the column No.2 of the police report that was filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., however, he had appeared in the",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 109,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 117,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words, the President of India cannot be compelled to grant approval to the proposals of the Registrar General of the Supreme Court, as contained in his letter dated July 22, 1987.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 38,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 139,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 187,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court itself has, however, treated the evidence of this witness Arunachalam as not being such as would be safe to be acted upon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 84,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The argument of Mr.Chagla, though appears to be attractive at the first blush, on a close scrutiny cannot stand.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 25,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was submitted that in any event the decision of the Oil Selection Board is final and binding on the parties and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India would not interfere therewith.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 164,
"end": 172,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 201,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When once it is held that the Amending Acts were within the legislative competence of the State, the question of even examining and applying the principles of colourable legislation, the true scope and ambit of which has been explained by the Supreme Court in Gajapati Narayan Deo's case do not arise and in any event has no application at all.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 243,
"end": 256,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 280,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S.C.Malik, Judge, MACT (Central), Delhi Page 20/24 10.09.2014 Suit No.645/10 (Smt.Girja Devi & ors. V/s Nanhey Lal & ors.)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 61,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 76,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 122,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The statement of the respondent No. 4 recorded at Exh. 59 further mentions that the jeep was taken towards Maruti Temple for purchasing pan and cigarettes and thereafter it started going back to the office.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus, if the police statement is held to be relevant and admissible even in proceedings before Tribunal, then, the police statement of Dipak Naran recorded by Keshod police as well as Vanthali police shall be taken in to consideration as a whole.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 146,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 172,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 199,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Another important link in the chain is the evidence of Gaya Gond, P.W. 4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 64,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As we have differed the following point of difference is referred to the Hon'ble President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 142,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 170,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In March, he was quite keen that the award should come without any further delay.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n [14] In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Devendra, 2009 14 SCC 80, a three-judge Bench of the Apex Court, analyzing the anatomy of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the 1920 Act, has held thus :\n \"10.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 62,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 101,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 147,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 163,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As even in recent past in the case of J.G. Engineers Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India And Another; (2011) 5 SCC 758, the Supreme Court has again adhered to the definition of public policy as defined in the case of O.N.G.C. (Supra). \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 114,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 221,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While dealing with two judgements of the Supreme Court reported in (1999) 2 SCC 213 and JT (1987) 2 SC 361, the Supreme Court has observed in the case of Surendra Nath Mohanty and another v/s State of Orissa,reported in (1999) 5 SCC 238 as under:\n \"5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 83,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 106,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 125,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 236,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "K. Sen, R. V.Patel Biswar up Gupte, R. N. Jhujhunwala and U. K. Khaitan, for the appellants (in C. A. 212-215).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 8,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 53,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 71,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 109,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Revenue is in appeal against this order.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to the defendant, the parties had agreed that there would be two separate and independent units in the suit property.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Under section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption. Act, before it was amended in 1964, no officer below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police could investigate into offences punishable under sections 161, 165 and 165A of the Indian Penal Code or under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act without the order of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 16,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 53,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 226,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 251,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 270,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 306,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was not issried to the shipper by the Master of the vessel, but is really in the nature of a manifest enabling the Master or Tindal of the vessel to receive payment of freight after delivery of these goods.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The sale deed dated 25.10.1994 Ex. A1/P3 relate to the purchase of a 4 marla house.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Where the baggage of a passenger contains any article which is dutiable or the import of which is prohibited and in respect of which a true declaration has been made under Section 77 the proper officer may, at the request of the passenger, detain such article for the purpose of being returned to him on his leaving India.\" \n 7.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 172,
"end": 182,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 321,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our view, these are matters where no hard and fast rule can be laid down.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Hussein Dastgir v. State of Maharashtra 1969 Ker LT (SN) 48 the apex Court has held that \"the discovery of the fact deposed to in such a case is not the discovery of the articles but the discovery of the fact that the articles were kept by the accused at a particular place\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 62,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 77,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Indian Income-tax Act contains provisions practically identical with Sections 34, 35 and 36 of the Bengal Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 25,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 95,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 113,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "With reference to Section 269T of the Act, a decision of Delhi High Court in Baidyanath Plastic Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. K.L. Anand ITO , noticing the distinction between 'loan' and 'deposit', held that a loan transaction is not covered within the definition of 'deposit' under Section 269T as it then was, (sic).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 30,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 143,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 298,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "See Section 92 of the Assam Act; Section 62 of the Bihar Act; Section 67 of Delhi Act; Section 161 of Gujarat Act; Section 111 of Madras Act; Section 157 of Maharashtra Act; Section 121 of Mysore Act; Section 123 of Orissa Act; Section 77 of Punjab Act; Section 81 of Rajasthan Act; Section 89 of Travancore-Cochin Act; and Section 56 of U. P. Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 31,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 60,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 72,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 85,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 113,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 126,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 140,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 153,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 172,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 185,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 199,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 212,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 226,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 238,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 252,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 264,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 281,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 293,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 318,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 334,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 347,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That figure corresponds with the figure mentioned in the charge-sheet.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "From the assessment orders passed in respect of these years, appeals to the AAC were taken.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 79,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For deciding this question, it is relevant to appreciate the testimony of the prosecutrix and other witnesses with the relevant record. \n 15.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is significant that while in the letter of the 1st June, time was specifically wanted till the opening of the courts, that is, the 16th June, now time is wanted indefinitely.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment dated WPC.No. 24031/08 7.11.2005 quashing Ext.P2 notification and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act, with liberty to the respondents to issue a fresh notification.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 76,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 86,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 151,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "CCA is not one of the specified Acts and does not come within the sweep of section 6 of the said Act under which jurisdiction has been conferred on the LRTT.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 84,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 156,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Petitioner R.C.Khatediya, who has been working as Tehsildar in Tehsil Hatod, District Indore is aggrieved by his transfer order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 78,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 95,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W. 17 Sujit Bhattacharjee was S.I. of Police attached to Dhubalia, P.S. and the instant case, namely, Dhubalia P.S.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 27,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 73,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 117,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW 18 Dr. Manu Gupta has deposed that on 06.12.2003 his aunt Ms. Mohini Gupta had a talk on her phone (PW\u00ad18) with Meenu State vs. Meenu Diwan & Anr.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 20,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 148,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "ULP Complaint No. 185 of 1988 was filed by the respondent No. 2, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 212 of 2002.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 29,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was observed that the boy Satischandra, suffered agony for the loss of his left hand and has to suffer loss of amenities as he cannot do anything with his left hand.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 41,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The averments made in the claim petition were denied.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.13056 of 2005 the Indian Bank had filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the year 2002 and the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation Act was issued on 15.02.2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 53,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 69,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 129,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 181,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 207,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 232,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was argued on behalf of the Appellants that having regard to the circumstances in which the recovery of Ex. PW-37/R is alleged to have been made, and the further fact that the letter was not put to Savita, suitably in examination under Section 313, it was not correct for the trial court to have relied on the document.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 201,
"end": 207,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 250,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nThis letter also only says that the local MLA and representatives of the WP(C)N0s.35572/07 & 7018/08 Panchayat is pressing for early completion of the project and that since the work is urgent one Government may issue orders for acquisition by invoking urgency clause.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 102,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "V.S.Velliyangiri lodged a police complaint dated 29.2.2000, alleging non payment of fixed deposit amount of Rs.25,000/= on its maturity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 58,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned Advocate for accused No.1 has then drawn attention of the Court on the aspect of discrepancy in description of sample.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Special Civil Application Nos. 11146 of 1994 and 11147 of 1994 are also filed by the petitioners who are also the Advocates practicing in Labour Court at Rajkot.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 62,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 160,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A cryptic anonymous oral message which did not in terms clearly specify cognizable offence, cannot be treated as First Information Report as held by the Supreme Court in Tapinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in 1970 (2) SCC 113.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 153,
"end": 166,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 233,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Then comes the question whether even assuming that the matters raised in the suit are arbitrable the discretion of the Court should be exercised against the stay of the suit.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The position, therefore, was that for the petitioner's service, the timings were regulated by the concerned authority under Section 48(c) by the preparation of a time table for that purpose.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 137,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": " \n Therefore, this Court finds no reason to adopt a different formula for the victim who is above '15' of age, whereas the relevant factors have been adopted by the Apex Court such as (i) age of the deceased (ii) income of the deceased and Petition No. : 309/13 and 310/13 Page No. 19 of 27 Anand Prakash Tamta & Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 175,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 290,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 291,
"end": 310,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Contents of the application were denied and it was prayed that the application be dismissed. \n ",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, however speculative the transaction might be, if there is delivery, it cannot be considered as a speculative transaction for the purposes of Section 24.\" \n9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 170,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioners have directed their attack not only against these two notifications Ex. 2 and Ex. 3 but also against the reservations made in the Prospectus in respect of certain categories.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Under the aforesaid deed, which has come into existence on 30.06.1985, three partners, viz. Sri.Sampathlal Jain, W/o.Ratanlal Jain (late), Smt.Neena Jain, W/o.Jayanthilal Jain and Smt.Lalitha Jain (revision petitioner) alone had retired from the partnership, viz., M/s.Jayanthilal & Company with effect from 1.7.1985.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 111,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 130,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 153,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 175,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 196,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 290,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 316,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(vide T.Fenn Walter v. Hon'ble Mr.Justice E.Padmanabhan, 2002(3) CTC 321)\n\t\n 19.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 34,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 55,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There was no attempt on his part to Judge whether the proved facts were consistent with the innocence of the accused persons.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But it would not be correct to assume that every minor infraction of public duty by every public officer would commend the Court to grant compensation in a petition under Articles 226 and 32 by applying the principle of public law proceeding.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 171,
"end": 190,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The brief facts of this case are that the accused persons have been charge sheeted for committing offence punishable under Section 407 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 134,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 165,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 186,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 217,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the injuries sustained has been questioned by learned counsel for the appellant on basis of Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Twenty-third Edition, 815 wherein towards end it has been stated:-",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 107,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereupon, the appellant filed Writ Petitions Nos. 3352 to 3357 of 1969 raising the same grounds as were urged in Writ Petitions Nos, 1557 to 1559 of 1969.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 71,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 154,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The second question, which is relevant for the present purposes, considered by the majority is, whether the said Corporations can be said to be \"other authorities\" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 186,
"end": 196,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 225,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is then contended by Shri Parekh that the appellant-Institution is running an educational institution and intends to establish a public school and that since other land was available, the Government would have acquired some other land leaving the acquired land for the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Subordinate Judge found that the launch was in a very poor condition prior to collision and he accepted the evidence of Mr. Patterson, who is a marine surveyor, that the pre-collision value of the launch was Rs. 5,000/-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 145,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further disclosed that Surender and Raj Kumar were the persons who had run away after alighting from the motor-cycle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The sale in India have been made to the distributors Supreme Hi-Fidelity (P) Limited, who continued to be in operation till a recent date under a separate agreement between them and Alpine Electronics, Japan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 17,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 84,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 207,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In so far as the valuation of the land is concerned, the concerned revenue authorities have bestowed their consideration on the basis of sale deeds executed and the prevalent area rates to say that both the lands are almost identically valued.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Kapoor drew our attention to the prayers of the petition in G.A. No.3390 of 2007, G.A. No.1311 of 2008 and the Execution Case No.126 of 2008 and submitted that in these three pending applications would show that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 had not changed his stand following the compromise decree in any manner whatsoever.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 84,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 106,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 144,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this regard, what the Apex Court held in N.K.V.Bros. (P.) Ltd. (supra) needs to be cited:-\n \"3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 35,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 65,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the year 1962 Hindalco, respondent No. 2, started production of aluminium.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 25,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All that was shown was that the shoes bearing that mark were advertised in some of the American periodicals which had some circulation in the United Kingdom.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 156,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri Gupta's plea of hardship and inconvenience to the landlord does at first arouse a feeling of sympathy but on a little reflection it vanishes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That, in my opinion, has no application.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The authority must not act as a mere tax gatherer by any means.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "No counter-affidavit has been filed by the State but nonetheless written arguments have been filed by the petitioners' counsel as well as by Sri Vishnu Pratap, standing counsel.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 145,
"end": 158,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Solicitor-General had submitted that increase in tariff was necessitated because of rise in prices.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The act of the respondent was not only immensely dangerous but cruel and callus also and this act constitutes an offence under Section 304 of IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 138,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 145,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Besides, if India is to be regarded as one economic unit there can be no objection to a consumer in one State getting goods cheaply from a neighbouring State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 17,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Bearing in mind the essential features of the offence of criminal conspiracy, enumerated above, we may advert to the facts of the instant case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus in the absence of any material on record to show that this commission was paid for securing acceptance of tender, we see no good reason to disallow this item.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "I do not think it fit to grant leave raised.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After the incorporation of the\t assessee the activities of the Swiss Co. in India were bifurcated : the pharmaceutical section was taken\tover by the assessee Ciba of India Ltd. and the other lines of business were continued by Ciba (India) Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 73,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 84,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 180,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 251,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the absence of necessary facts and figures it is not possible to accept the argument of the learned counsel that in the present case the incidence of taxation is so high as to amount to unreasonabe restrictions on the rights guaranteed by Article 19(1) clauses (f) and (g) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 242,
"end": 275,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 295,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner, Messrs. Kanpur Oil Mills, Harrisganj, Kanpur, is a firm carrying on the business of manufacturing oils and dealing in them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 40,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 52,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 60,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The counsel argued that since the applicants have surrendered that the cost be removed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "So far as accused No. 8 is concerned, we have heard the learned Counsel for the accused on the point of sentence, and no special circumstances have been made out so as to award him the sentence of less than one year for the offence held to be proved against him under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 268,
"end": 286,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 302,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the circumstances, we find that he has engaged himself both in abetting smuggling of goods, as has been found in the order of detention, and he has also been dealing in the contraband Smuggled goods on behalf of Dawood Ibrahim in India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 215,
"end": 229,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 238,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said argument was repelled in the said decision of C.B.I., New Delhi Vs. Dinesh Kumar Singh, Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation No.216 of 2014, decided on 15.7.2014 in the following manner :-",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 140,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 162,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was then succeeded as President by Mr. Barucha & a new member, Mr. E. M. Joshi, was appointed to take Mr. Barucha's plane.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 81,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By virtue of the same, it was made mandatory, after 1.10.2015 for every transport vehicle, notified by the Central Government under Section 41(4) of the MV Act, to be equipped or fitted with a speed governor by the manufacturer of the vehicle, having a pre-set speed limit of 80 kmph, conforming to the Standard AIS 018/ 2001.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 61,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 145,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 159,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Adhip Ohandra Mukherjee, p.w. 6 who was the Director of operation of the State Transport and, S.K. Dutta, the Chief Accountant of the Belgharia Office, then went to the Mission Row Office for making enquiries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 23,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 104,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 143,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent no.1-Sweety Kothari had filed an application seeking following information:\n\n \u2015 (a) Copies of the advertisements calling for applications for selection of ITAT members in Calendar Years 2002 and 2003.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 30,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We observe that the questions of law as framed are not happily worded in the context of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal which we have extracted elsewhere in this judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 134,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W.1-Basavaraju has stated that in the year 2010 he was residing at house No.18, Muthappa Block, Ganganagar, Bengaluru and the said house belongs to his brother P.W.2-B.Puttappa.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 16,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 119,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 178,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "You should, therefore, demit your office of Puisne Judge of the Calcutta High Court on the 26th December, 1961, after Court hours.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 83,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 110,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At the relevant time, the said plates were eligible to concessional rate of duty under notification No.58/87 dated 1st March, 1987 (as amended from time to time).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 130,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, on the next day, the child victim told all this to his elder brother namely Bhola, who took him to PS.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A person who has not been found fit to exercise the powers o! the Court of Civil Judge Class I, does not deserve to be considered for still higher powers of the Court of the Additional District Judge, follows as a necessary corollary.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 94,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 199,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Chief Justice of the High Court of Travancore in a case where a karanavathi of a tarwad along with the other members of the tarwad were sued on a chitty security bond executed by the Karnavathi on prizing a chitty and receiving the prize amount.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The ratio decidendi in Champsey Bhara and Company v. Jivraj Baloo, AIR 1923 PC 66 was approved by the Supreme Court in. Union of India v. Bungo Steel Furniture Pvt. Ltd., and again in N. Chellappan v. Kerala S. E. Board, .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 81,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 169,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 219,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The complainant thereafter has given a legal notice of demand dated 14.08.2008 to the accused which was sent by the complainant to the accused through registered post and UPC on 14.08.2008 itself and the same was served upon the accused thereby calling upon the accused to make the payment of the cheque's amount.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 78,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 188,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Hansraj and Sons v. State of J & K Rule of strict construction of a taxing statute was recommended.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 37,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At the time when the possession of the premises was obtained by the appellant it was ARCT No. 23/2013 Page 20/21 03.05.2010 and a period of 12 years had thus elapsed there from making the petitioner 82 years old by then.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 123,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this decision, the case of (1867) 2 QB 523 (supra) was not considered at all.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 45,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She also stated after settling the case instituted by Rajesh Kumar in Rohini Courts she has also requested Case No. : 2849/12 Madan Lal Versus Kavita Pawa Page No. 3/10 Rajesh Kumar to hand over her security cheques but the same were not returned to her by Rajesh Kumar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 83,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 181,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 269,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was pointed out that the meaning of the expression, 'reason to believe' had been explained in a number of court rulings in the past and was well settled and its omission from Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 178,
"end": 189,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sri Arvind Kumar has relied upon the following decisions in this regard:--\n1.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sri Nanjappan & Others, 2004(2) TAC 12 (SC). \n\n2.National Insurance Company Vs. Challa Bharathamma, 2005(1) TAC 4 (SC). \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 156,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 231,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Civil Writ Petition No. 870/2011 Dr Prateek Dargar Vs State of Rajasthan & ors",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 78,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It needs to be appreciated therefore that the wording of the charge, the facts and circumstances which the charge itself contains, could not possibly be determinative of the validity of the sanction for prosecution itself.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But it may be mentioned that the observations are not made iu the context of real income for the question of real income did not arise for their Lordships' consideration as it does in the case before us.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has been stated that at the relevant time the post of Prosecuting Inspector, Grade-II was not covered by the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (for short 'the Rules').",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Misc. Judicial Case No. 221 of 1960 the material facts are somewhat different.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 38,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having said that, the Supreme Court justified its earlier court assisted settlement with reference to its powers under Art. 142 of the Constitution of India, for doing complete justice between the parties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 35,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 127,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 156,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The following observations bears this out:--- \n \"He is not in such circumstances seeking to avoid his responsibilities to the plaintiff if the latter should ultimately obtain a judgment; on the contrary, he is seeking in good faith to make payments which he considers he should make in the ordinary course of business.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Pareekh maintained that the authorities empowered to decide the ceiling matters under the old Ceiling Law are the Revenue Courts and the ceiling matter is a judicial matter.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is stated that in order to clear the said liability of the complainant, the accused issued a cheque bearing number 837451 dt. 11.05.2011 for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/\u00ad drawn on Punjab National Bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi Ex. CW1/2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 139,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 201,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 216,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 223,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Broadly, Section 465 deals with the offence of forgery by the making of a false document and Section 471 with the offence of using forged document dishonestly or fraudulently.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 20,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 104,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ex.D.16 is the certified copy of the order sheet in OS 11190/2006, Ex.D.17 is the certified copy of the plaint in the said suit.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As per PW 19, member of the aforesaid RC No. AC3/2010/A0003/CBI/ACU\u00adIII/ND CC No. 24/12 45/85 CBI vs J.S Sehrawat etc. inspection team, they had done the inspection of the aforesaid property on 16/09/2010, 17/09/2010 and 27/09/2010 and had taken measurements thereof.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 118,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 204,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 216,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 231,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nFIR No. 462/2014, Police Station Khayala Under sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 42,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 65,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 90,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": " \n 54.As regards alternate remedy, it is also a settled proposition of law that it is only a rule of policy convenience and discretion and not one of bar of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, vide the judgment of the Constitution Bench in U.P.STATE v. MOHMMAD NOOH (A.I.R. 1958 S.C., 86) \n\n 55.Whether as on date the Conciliation proceeding is pending:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 176,
"end": 187,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 216,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 261,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 313,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further as the rate of rent has already been held to be proved to be Rs. 1,000/\u00ad per month, hence the relief of possession or ejectment as claimed by the plaintiff cannot be granted by a civil court in view of section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 210,
"end": 220,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 246,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By this special kind of summons, the defendant is asked to obtain leave from the court within ten days from the service thereof to appear and defend the suit and a copy of the negotiable instrument is also annexed to the summons.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That exemption was a fettered exemption subject to the condition that they should have been chartered by tourists in such other State.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He was shown certificate at Exh.29 about the physical condition of Suresh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 73,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No resolution about such settlement has been placed on record;\n ",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But, our object herein is only to record or note the development in the law; all the more so, since the Supreme Court of India has referred to Anisminic's case, (1969 (1) All ER 208) with approval in a number of cases, adverted to by us herein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 126,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 182,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further recently the Hon'ble High of Delhi in MAC App. No.200/2012 in case titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vd. Smt. Rinki @ Rinku & Ors decided on 23/07/2012 has held as under:-\n \"The Claims Tribunal was conscious of the fact that negligence is a sine qua non to a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(the Act).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 42,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 66,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 145,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 167,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 301,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 337,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the offence under Section 364-A IPC, it was observed, was not made out.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 46,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That means that the municipality had no power to levy anything in excess of 10 pies per Boja.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. J.H. Gotla (supra) has also very categorically stated that the beneficial interpretation in favour of assessee should be adopted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 50,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The evidence brought on record is cogent and credible.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 22.12.2012, the appellant facing the aforementioned trial as accused made a statement under section 294 Cr.P.C read with section 313/281 Cr.P.C admitting the genuineness of certain documents relied upon by the prosecution which include the FIR, the mechanical inspection report of the scooter and the mechanical inspection report of the bus which were thereupon entered in evidence as documents Ex.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 106,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 113,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 139,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 146,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further argued that the Development officer when functioning for an achievement beyond the standard norms so as to become eligible for incentive bonus, was not acting as an employee but should be treated as an agent of the LIC,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 230,
"end": 233,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In State of T.N. v. S. Thangavel, (1997) 2 SCC 349, the Supreme Court observed that the judgment denotes the reasons which the Court gives for its decision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 50,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 69,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been held that in the event of the death of one of the appellants in one appeal and failure to bring his legal representatives on record would result in abatement of other appeals also as the decree was passed on common issue against the appellants in all appeals.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "CS No. 117/10/02 Page No. 2 of 15 was also acted upon by both the parties as per the site plan and accordingly both the parties came in their exclusive portion of share.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 33,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "G.O.Ms.No.559 dated 18.7.1977 has not been declared to be valid by the decisions in R.P.No.799 of 1977 and K.S. MURALIDHAR, but it was only interpreted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 29,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 102,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 122,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, as noted above, the petitioner even filed his set of photographs including the menu card of \"Benu Chinese Food\" as well as visiting card of such food joint with phone numbers on it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 129,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Lord Morris and Lord Bower) were all unanimous on this particular point.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW3 examined, cross\u00adexamined by the accused persons and was discharged. \n\n6. PW4 Dr. Baljeet Singh has proved and exhibited MLC No.2125 Ex.PW4/A and MLC No.2126 Ex.PW4/B.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 98,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Sessions Judge has believed the statement of Dr. Hargovind in preference to the statement of Dr. P. Dayal (P.W. 7).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 117,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mukhlal was happy with the objectors; Punai Sao was the Karta of the joint family and after his death his son Harihar (appellant) looked after the family affairs as Karta of the joint family.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 117,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in AIR 1989 SC 1988 (SODAN SINGH Vs. NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE), the High Court held that the provisions of Section 8 of the Kerala Act is a restriction on the right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 126,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 180,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 198,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 272,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sher Singh, Sub Inspector, was examined as DW4, who stated that on 05.05.89, he and the accused were going to attend the meeting of Joint Registrar, at Abohar, and when they reached near IFFCO Centre, Abohar, at about 9.30 AM, Jagtar Singh, Secretary, met the accused, and asked him to sign some papers, which Jagtar Singh, had shown to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 75,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 158,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 207,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 239,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 322,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 (2) T.A.C. 677 (SC), in which, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under:-\n\"In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 152,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 186,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 225,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 289,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 350,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is, therefore, no reason to estimate the expenditure for two barges during the year as the contract work, as also the payment received are a continuing process.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "His mother and sister were fallen down and there were bleeding from the injuries.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That had led the plaintiff to institute Special Civil Suit No.86/2007, challenging the legality of said sale deed and dismissal of said suit has given rise to the present appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 69,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 8 of the Act contemplates a judicial authority before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement, on the terms specified therein, to refer the dispute to arbitration.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He deposed that he prepared site plan of the spot where the kidnapped boy Ravi was concealed after covering the same with wooden stick which is Ex. PW 14/A and thereafter brought the accused Vinod and Udhal along with recovered boy Ravi to Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 196,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 206,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 236,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 245,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case against him came to be registered on the basis of first information lodged on 1.10.2015 at 8.45 p.m. by a lady (name not mentioned) aged 19 years, daughter of Venkatesh, resident of No.226, 2nd floor, 9th Cross, beside Maramma temple, Bhattarahalli, Virgonagar Post, Bengaluru.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 96,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 177,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 257,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 274,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 285,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated February 03, 1995 by granting relief to the writ petitioners as prayed for except in respect of 688 sq.yd. land, which land, by an express agreement was surrendered by Hari Singh, and in lieu thereof he was granted perpetual lease-hold rights of Plot No.17, Community Centre, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi. \n\n19.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 76,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 237,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 346,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 357,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As such no petition under S. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is maintainable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 36,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 67,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now in this regard it is to be noted that Dalapatbhai Jivrajbhai P. W. 2 father of Nitinkumar was examined on 29th September 1980 and that he in terms has stated that at present Nitin was in Harkishan Hospital at Bombay and taking treatment for accidental injury.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 67,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 129,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 183,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 219,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case of Kuldip Singh (appellant No.2) may be considered in the first instance.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They overlap at every point and many matters will fall under two or more of them, or under all four.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is not the case of the",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "CATEGORY NO.(1) -\n\uf076 Contentions raised by the petitioners Virendra Kumar, Ashok Kumar Jain, Smt. Usha and Smt. Asha are that - (a) So-called agreements to sell were unilateral in nature and did not transfer right to anyone.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 72,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 90,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 101,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 115,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The following two charges were mentioned in the chargesheet:-\n \"1. That while you were working as 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, Sessions trial No.28/82 and 37/87 were pending before you in which Deepak Trymbakrao Deshmukh was an accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 170,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 230,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "]\n Deoki Nandan Prasad v.State of Bihar &\t Ors.,[1971]\nSupp. S.C.R. 634 and State of\t Punjab & Anr.v Iqbal Singh,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 80,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 122,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even the subsequent Full Bench of this Court in K. Rama Rao's case (supra) has not taken a different view from that of the earlier two Full Benches.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All that the accused have been able to show is that P.W. 8 Gurdev Singh was on visiting terms with the deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 71,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Evidence qua last seen was also doubtful.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On these allegations the petitioner has prayed to rectify the register of the members in so far as the allotment of 450 equity shares in favour of opposite parties Nos. 4 to 6 as it was made without a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 155(1)(a)(i) of the Companies Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 240,
"end": 260,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 281,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Smt. Mukesh (PW-4) and Sunil Kumar (PW-2) deposed that they were in the house of D-1 at the time D-1 was killed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 11,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 34,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was alternatively contended by Mr. Venkatesam that it was stated in the notice that an appeal was filed against the order complained of and that a suit will be filed for the reliefs mentioned therein only in the event of the appeal going against him and this indicates that the plaintiff himself did not treat the original order as given him cause of action.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Trial Court in paragraph no.23 has found that Renuka was alive when she was taken to Dr. Wanere i.e. P.W.9 and she expired when Satish was bringing her home.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 52,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 95,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 134,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, by an indenture of lease dated 25th January, 1946 between the Governor of Bihar as Lessor and the Congregation of the Apostolic Caramel South Kanara, Mangalore, British India, through Mother M. Theodosia, Principal, Patna Women's College, as Lessee, a perpetual lease was given of a piece of land for the use of education purposes, namely, for the establishment of a Women's College and a Girl School at Patna.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 58,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 88,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 157,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 168,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 183,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 212,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 246,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 418,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[555 B-C Per Venkataramish J. \n\n 1(i) The material available is sufficient to hold that the impugned notices suffer from arbitrariness and non- application of mind.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 26,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This appeal by special leave is directed against con- viction of Ramesh Kumar, the accused-appellant, on charges under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 77,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 141,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 145,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is for this reason that the German constitutional court opined in 1981 (57 BVerfGE 295) and in 1987 (73 BVerfGE II 8) that television and radio is an instrument of freedom serving the more fundamental freedom of speech in the in- terest of both broadcasters and the public.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 90,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 120,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court made no order as to the costs of these petitions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Section 34 deals with the power of the Academic Council of the University to make Regulations for the purposes mentioned in that section.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, they took Shyla to Kuthirakadavu at Kadavoor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 44,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 56,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "4. Hence, the main question in controversy in appeal No. 27 of 1955 is whether the High Court was right in taking the view that Art. 311 was subject to the provisions of Art. 320(3)(c) of the Constitution, which were mandatory, and as such, non-compliance with those provisions in the instant case was fatal to the proceedings ending with the order passed by the Government on September 12, 1953.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 67,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 136,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 184,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 204,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 395,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As held by the Supreme Court in Liyakat Mian v. State of Bihar, reported in 1973 (4) SCC 39, absence of names of accused persons in the F.I.R., is not necessarily fatal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 28,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 91,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pw.42 was yet another neighbour who deposed that he used to see the two accused and other family members of Syamala going to the temple on many occasions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Having regard to the pendency of the winding up proceedings, it is difficult to see that the value of the plaintiff's undertaking in damages, in case their claim turns out to be unjustified.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If on a textual reading of article 13, the conclusion which we have reached is the only, reasonable one, we need not pause to consider whether that conclusion could be arrived at except on the basis of the distinction drawn by Venkatarama Aiyar, J, in Sundararamaie's case(supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 244,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 265,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If in an Act the preamble is general or brief statement of the main purpose, it may well be of little value.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "17.10.96 passed by S.K. Keshote, J issuing contempt notice suo motu against respondent No. 2 for not accepting the service of the notice of this court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 19,
"end": 31,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The leamed Government Advocate on the othe:_j hand seeks to sustain the action of the respondents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This submission goes counter to the express terms of clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 6D.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 91,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Out of this amount, the auditors allowed a sum of Rs. 58,621/4/3 while the Court allowed Rs. 52,521/5/6.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "I respectfully agree with the conclusion of my learned brother Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 82,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that view of the matter according to Mr. Das's contention the cognizance of the case having been taken by the learned Magistrate under Section 190 (1) (b), Cr. P.C. it should be held that this is a \"proceeding instituted upon a Police report\" within the meaning of Section 207-A (a) and Section 207-A (1), Cr. P. C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 157,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 167,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 307,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 318,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, in our considered opinion, parole for the aforesaid purpose could be obtained under Rule 1 of the Rules of 1955 on the satisfaction of the concerned State Government and subject to the order to be passed by the Central Government as provided in the Rules of 1955.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 217,
"end": 235,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been reported by the Detective Inspector, Crime Branch C. I. D. Trivandrum, in his letter read above that Sri Motty Philipose, Final Year M. B. B. S. (Junior) Medical College, Trivandrum has been arrested in Crime No. 298/CR/ 81 under Sections 120 (by 466, 468, 471 and 34 I. P. C. on 29-12-l982 at 3.00 a.m.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 81,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 132,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 193,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 235,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 279,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 288,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 292,
"end": 302,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Immediately after the shooting, Anjani and Miss Mammie went into the bed-room of the deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On September 21 1966, this Court rendered its decision in Ranga Mahammad's(1) case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 20,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 76,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As regards the delay in retracting, the first fact to be taken note of is that the appellant Afzal was evidently not aware of the contents of the confessional statement on the day on which he was produced before the ACMM because the learned Magistrate did not make it available to him for perusal nor the gist of which was made known to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 98,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 220,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are not impressed by the stand taken by the petitioner.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(9) The Central Board of Workers Education will organise periodic camps near the sites of stone quarries and stone crushers in Faridabad district for the purpose of educating the workmen in the rights and benefits conferred upon them by social welfare and labour laws and the progress made shall be reported to this Court by the Central Board of Workers Education at least once in three months.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 42,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 136,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 363,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We shall now examine the provisions of Section 167(1) and (2) of the Code vis-a-vis Section 35(2) of FERA and Section 104(2) of the Customs Act having regard to the purpose for which these provisions are enacted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 61,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 97,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 105,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 124,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 143,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts of the said case are that the loader who had gone to a garden land with the tractor and trailer had attempted to climb the coconut tree to pluck coconuts and in that process, he fell down from the tree and sustained injuries and has become permanently disabled due to parapegia.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "U/s 6 POCSO Act r/w Section 376(2)(i)/506 IPC: \"Acquitted\" Page 14 of 17 SC No.185/2013: FIR No.361/2013: PS Aman Vihar: State V/s Sohan Lal @ Sonu DOD: 09.04.2015",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 5,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 6,
"end": 15,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 87,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 119,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 147,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 163,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39 it was observed as under (SCC @ p.41):\nCrl.Rev.P.Nos.340/08, 371/08, 380/08, 456/08",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 49,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 133,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the said judgment their Lordships reiterated the doctrine of equal pay for equal work and directed that persons employed on a daily wage basis by the Central Public Works Department should be paid same wages as other employees doing identical work.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 153,
"end": 184,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Bates v. Lord Halsham, Megarry, J., pointed out that the rules of natural justice do not run in the sphere of legislation, primary or delegated, and in Tulsipur Sugar Co. v. Notified Area Committee, our brothers Desai and Venkataramiah, JJ. approved what was said by Megarry, J., and applied it to the field of conditional legislation too.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 24,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 26,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 202,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 222,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 240,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 279,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Neither of them have been examined by the prosecution to prove said recovery, therefore, it is obvious that prosecution has failed to establish the recovery of blood-stained shirt at the instance of appellant Randhir Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 211,
"end": 224,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The reservations provided were to the following effect:\n 1. Backward Class\t\t\t 27%\n 2. Hill Region\t\t\t 3%",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We do not think this contention is at all sustainable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Here, Suseela, the first respondent's vendor, was examined as P.W.2 on the side of Rajapandian, who had purchased the property from her.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 13,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned trial judge, therefore, had the benefit of comparing the photograph with accused No. 5 whose photograph it purported to be.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There is a provision for appointing Public Prosecutors under Section 28 of POTA for acting as the Public Prosecutor in every Special Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 71,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 79,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J.-This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dismissing a revision petition filed by the appellant against his conviction under section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act No. XXIV of 1946.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 60,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 130,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 223,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 289,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Usman Kurikkal filed W.P.(C) No.16525 of 2008 challenging Ext.P19 proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 45,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Kundur Rudrappa v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal and others, AIR 1975 SC 1805, a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with the power of the appellate authority under the Motor Vehicles Act (1939).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 88,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 217,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After due investigation, showing Harish as absconding, charge- sheet was filed against all the three accused before CJM, Tikamgarh who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 130,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "allow this appeal and reverse the decision of the Bombay High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 67,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The matter was referred to the arbitration of Mr. Justice Macpherson and Mr. Justice Khwaja Mohammad Noor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 68,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, with effect from 1,9.1988, the Ordinary pay scale of the Officers of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service was brought at par with the super-time scale of the Officers of Rajasthan Judicial Service and in between 13.8.1987 to 1.9.1988, the ordinary scale of the Officers of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service remained lower than the selection scale of the Officers of the Rajasthan Judicial Service.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 31,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 112,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 203,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 228,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 240,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 317,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 407,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the statement under Section 313 Cr PC, the Appellants have failed to give any explanation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 34,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 40,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The partnership fully carried out the above scheme.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "By Section 5 the Central Government came to be empowered to take possession of the area vested in it under Section 3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 35,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 116,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act lays down that \"notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part no judicial, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 49,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While rejecting the Writ Petition (affirming the dismissal order of the High Court), the Supreme Court inter alia, held at page 586:\n\"The Act and the Rules with which we are concerned, are not designed to set norms of moral or professional conduct for the community at large or even a section thereof.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 102,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even though the appellant is entitled to interest prior to 31.03.1986, learned counsel for the appellant fairly restricted his claim towards interest from 31.03.1986 to 27.03.1998 on which date a sum of Rs.40,84,906/- was refunded.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 165,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 179,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They may be heard by way of fair play and in compliance with the principles of natural justice, and to enable them to place on record such necessary facts for essential consideration by the Central Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 190,
"end": 208,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On appropriate analysis of the law of precedent and other principles of law stated by us (supra) and particularly in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shrikant's case it is evident that there is a clear markable distinction between the provisions of section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Act and section 6(3-A) of the Gujarat Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 159,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 171,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 274,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 297,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 316,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 335,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner was stated to be around 34 years old and it was so stated in the claim petition though in the evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A the petitioner had stated her age to be 32 years.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The witness Devnarayan Singh (P.W.13) has also stated that he reached the spot after hearing sound of firing but has accepted that the complainant Santosh Singh had informed him that Ajeet Singh @ Babbe Singh had fired from the gun, causing fatal injury to deceased Virendra Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 28,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 160,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 208,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 280,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Mallam Panchayat therefore was greeted under Section 72 (3) of the Act to forward the representation, if any, against the proposal of the Government to locate the Health Centre at Doravarisathram.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 63,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 199,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of these arguments, reliance has been placed on a later Full Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Matti Rai and ors. v. State of Punjab (1) which affirmed the propositions of law laid down in the judgment under appeal Shyamlal v. State ,of Gujarat (2) was also cited.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 123,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 168,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 280,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court after elaborate discussion of the words \u0013public policy\u0014 and \u0013opposed to public policy\u0014 upheld the view of the Rajasthan High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 148,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the 23rd May, 1955, a fourth notice was issued by Shri D. G. Banerji, Rummaging Inspector (Intelligence) to the firm under Section 171-A of the Sea Customs Act and by it the firm and each and all of its partners individually were asked to produce forthwith all the documents relative to the importation, purchase or sale of the goods lying in the godown at 16 Mangoe Lane.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 21,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 71,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 139,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 162,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Phillips v. London and South Western Rly. Co., (1879) 49 LJQB 233 at p. 237, Lord Justice Brott, in laying down the principle of determining compensation where a person was severely injured by a railway accident, observed;--",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 68,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 98,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The context and the set up in which the word 'cruelty' has been used in the section",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Production of the receipt by Hoon in the course of such an investigation was therefore not production in a proceeding before the Chief Presidency Magistrate so as to attract the ban under s. 195 (1) (c).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 156,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 202,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"Institution\" has been defined as \"an institution which offers courses for training in teacher's education\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "[379 H: 380 A--C]\n Ramchand Jagadish Chand v. Union of India & Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 69,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Bharat Bhushan Vij Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247, in para 4 and 5 it was held that \" the concept of ownership in a landlord tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 62,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 197,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, the decision in V/O Tractoro-export, Moscow, (Supra) made it necessary for the Parliament to amend s. 3 of the 1961 Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 52,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 112,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 128,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plaintiffs thereupon filed an appeal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir which held that the plaintiffs had not proved their personal plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal to this Court and the same having been refused, they obtained special leave of this Court and hence the appeal before us.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 81,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(2) Chlorphenesin is a potent antifungal, antibacterial and trichomonicidal substance of low toxicity.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes V. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria, 2012 (3) Scale 550, the Supreme Court held that false claims and defences are serious problems with real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever escalating prices of the real estate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 84,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "JUDGMENT:\nJ U D G M E N T W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.9678 OF 2003 S.B. SINHA, J :",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 62,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 73,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In my opinion, probably respondent would be happier, if (Pulastya Pramachala) Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Page 9 of 11 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 52/14 & 72/14 such source of income is provided to him either by this Court or the State or the applicant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 76,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 153,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 187,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was asserted that the petitioner had made full preparation of the election, that he would have won, if the election would have taken place on 24-11-93.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 145,
"end": 153,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The definition of unauthorised occupation contained in Section 2(g) of the Public Premises Act would, therefore, cover a case where a person has en- tered into occupation of the public premises legally as a tenant under a lease but whose tenancy has expired or has been determined in accordance with law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 94,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is with this condition that we are primarily concerned in this case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel reiterated that relaxation in the notification dated 29.7.2011 was with regard to marks in the qualifying examination as referred to therein and was not relatable to the concession granted for TET.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 82,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even if we disregard the evidence of this witness and as a necessary corollary his consent, that would not materially affect the validity of the adoption as there is Still the consent of P. W. 2, p. W. 3, Sivayya and others.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 205,
"end": 212,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 14th April 1961 the plaintiff made an application under Order 40 Rule 1, read with Section 151. C.P.C. for the appointment of a receiver of the Income of the suit property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 97,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 105,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also emphasized on the words 'save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law' and submits that these words make it clear that the only authority vested with power is Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 182,
"end": 195,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has admitted that defendant no.2 had not shown even a photocopy of the title documents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "So far as the fixation of procurement price of the rice and rate of the compounding agreement and other terms and conditions of the Order are concerned, it rests on the telephonic conversation between Shri Acharya and Shri Srivastava, the Food Commissioner, on 3-12-1980, which is supported by a letter of confirmation dated 16-3-1981.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 206,
"end": 213,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 233,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 270,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 334,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence Mr. Baidyanath Prasad quite properly conceded that he would not challenge the legality of the selection either of Vinod Yadav (respondent No. 5) or Rekha Mitra (respondent No. 6).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 131,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 165,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per the receipt, on which the reliance is placed by the plaintiff, Rs. 25 Lacs were paid by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1- Govindbhai Bhagvanbhai Sakhia, however, said receipt is seriously disputed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 158,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even so it cannot be disputed that the appellant Kale being the grand son of Lachman and therefore a reversioner at the time when the talks for compromise` took place was undoubtedly a prospective heir and also a member of the family.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 53,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is nothing to show why the BDA did WP 41352/2001 not inform the owners regarding their decision not to pursue the matter regarding de-notification of the land by the Government and why it allowed the land owners and the occupants to continue to occupy, enjoy and develop the land.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 36,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 54,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears that on the date when the Union of India made the application to the collector for use of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, appeals were pending against the different assessments.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 51,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 141,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The major items of purchase are made through requisition sent to the Bombay office.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 75,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having heard learned Counsel for both the parties I am satisfied that the order of the Labour Court is legally correct so far as respondent No. 1, Hardin Mahraj, is concerned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 147,
"end": 160,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W.7 is one Sukesan, who, according to the plaintiff and his crew members, had occasion to save the members of the crew of the ill-fated vessel.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 20,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first judgment is in the case of R.Vishwanatha Pillai v/s State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2004) 20 SCC 105.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 115,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convict has submitted that the convict has neither tried to delay the matter and he was always ready to compound the present complainant with the complainant but the complainant was adamant to harass the convict.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That would be sufficient to show his standing in trade and industry, and yet he is accused in the Article of being involved in a \"Scandal bigger than Mundhra\" and of being a tax-evader, financial juggler, and import-export-racketeer and a swindler.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The presumption under Section 114 (e) could only be nullified by clear and cogent evidence to the contrary (State of Haryana Vs. Anil Kumar, 2004 (1) \n\n Punj. LR 69 , \n Zeenat Vs. Prince of Wales & c, A 1971 P 43, Sheo Darshan Vs.\n \n\nAssessar, 5 OLJ 179)\".\n\n\n35. In Rattan Lal Aggarwal Vs. State of Assam, 1993 Crl LJ. 2757 (Guh.)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 357,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 472,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Moreover, the crucial difference between section 296(2) of the Code and section 145(2) of the Act is that the former deals with the evidence of a formal nature whereas under the latter provision, all evidences including substantive evidence may be given on affidavit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 55,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 86,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To being the case of the accused herein within Exception 8 to Section 499, I. P. C. it should be established that the accusations ware made to the person who is in authority over the person against whom the complaint was made and in good faith.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 83,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(3) General Secretary, Eastern Zone Insurance Employees Association v. Zonal Manager Eastern Zone, Life Insurance Corporation .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 125,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is pointed out that the challenge to the jurisdiction of the CIT to revise the assessment orders was already adjudicated upon by this Court in W.P. (C) No.4722/2007 dated 11.12.2009 and thereafter the assessee itself had submitted before the Supreme Court that all issues were remitted back to the Assessing Officer by the CIT and, therefore, the SLP may be dismissed as withdrawn.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 167,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 184,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 258,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner even disobeyed this order with the result that the Speaker was compelled to direct that the petitioner be removed from the House and in removing the petitioner if the employment of force was necessary to employ such force.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He had though stated the place of recovery of the torch (Ex.P12) but had not stated that the place of recovery of the slippers Ex.P9 and P10.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Col. Singhi [1971] 1 SCR 791, Binapani [1967] 2 SCR\t625,\nRam Gopal [1970] 1 SCR 472; Subhash Chander Singh [1970] 3 SCR 963 field inapplicable.\nGhanshyam Das Gupta",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 30,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 58,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 87,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 128,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 169,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Income-tax Officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,16,215 out of Rs. 2,21,515 from \"business promotion expenses\" on the ground that they are purelv expenses on entertainment and hence they are not allowable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The agreement which these two persons had entered into was attested by Sami as well as by one P. K. Mar, who was a co- accused before the Presidency Magistrate but was acquitted by him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 159,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The matter was then referred to the Headquarters B.S.A., which directed Station Headquarters, Baroda to hold a Staff Court of Enquiry to investigate into the case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 100,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This appeal and the other first appeals are directed against the decrees of the original Courts and the Letters Patent appeal against the decree of late Chaturvedi J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 153,
"end": 163,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The tanker was filled with water on the way.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "JUDGMENT:\n CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 922 of 1973.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 70,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent, Sucheta, comes from Nagpur but she spent her formative years mostly in Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 23,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 42,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The CBI examined Shri Surinder Kumar S.I., Incharge Police Post Fatehpuri, PS Lahori Gate on 7.4.94, who stated before the CBI that after receiving a wireless message from the North District Control Room for immediate search of Shri Dhananjay Sharma and Shri Sushil Kumar, he made efforts to locate them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 7,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 73,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 89,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 99,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 126,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 249,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 271,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Ruby Leather Exports etc., vs. K.Venu reported in 1994 (1) L.W. (Cri.) 34, T.S. Arunachalam,J. had an occasion to consider a similar issue.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 61,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 94,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His statement, Exhibit PK was recorded on which Bir Bhan endorsed his recommendation, Exhibit PK/1 for registration of the case and had sent the same to Police Station, Sadar Thanesar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 183,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He claimed to identify Appellants Anand Mohan and Lovely Anand who on that date were represented by their counsel.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 45,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 62,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question raised in that case was entirely different from the one which is involved in the present proceedings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Darshan Singh (PW 6) also deposed that when Sardari Lal (PW 9) was about to catch hold of the appellant he along with other staff came out side room, and at that time the appellant was saying that he had not accepted the bribe or gratification.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 55,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "6. On 15-2-1957 Suit No. 789 of 1957 has been filed by Shrimati Piari and Pana for the cancellation of the deed of gift dated 17-3-1956 regarding the ICoria property possibly on the ground that that had been obtained by undue influence and pressure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 15,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 16,
"end": 36,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 135,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 463 of the Code is as under:\n \"463.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Moreover, the evidence reveals that in presence of panch P.W.3, Bharatkumar Mohanbhai, the accused discovered the muddamal weapon, tommy, vide discovery panchnama Ex.11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 85,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Another fact about these warrants is that there are five endorsements on the back under the signatures of Sri U. Section Narain, Addl. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who issued the notice under Section 112 Cr. P. C., to the following effect :\n 7.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 127,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 201,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 211,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Agent for respondent No. 4: P.A. Mehta.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 38,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We will now deal with a common ground raised by Sedco Forex International Inc. in their appeal No. 4551/Del/91 for asst. yr. 1988-89 and raised by the other appellant, M/s. Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. in their Appeal No. 4562/Del/91 for asst. yr. 1988-89.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 78,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 110,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 212,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 244,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Union of India contended that it was a basic postulate of the Constitution that the fundamental rights guaranteed by it were available only within the territory of India, for it could never have been the intention of the constitution-makers to confer rights which the authority of the State could not enforce.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 18,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 78,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 173,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The later judgments of the Apex Court have considerably diluted this requirement of explaining each days delay by a party.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 37,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sundaram Home Finance Limited, rep by its Manager-Recovery, Madhavan, 46, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-14 vs. 1. The Tahsildar, Hosur 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 148,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 216,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 228,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Of 11 appellant was to be registered permanently at Gautam Budh Nagar and this temporary certificate of registration was issued on 15.11.2010 and it was valid upto 14.12.2010, but, even at the time of issuance thereof, the appellant had not agitated the said point as to if he was desirous to get his vehicle registered at Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 69,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 141,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 174,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 328,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Hem Chandra Dey and Protap Narayan Bose were impleaded on the allegation that they were purporting to act as executors and trustees.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 43,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This appeal in respect to him is allowed. \n\n (37) Cr.A.No.2253/2007 Cr.A.No.2330/2007 (ii) Criminal Appeal No.2330/2007 filed by appellant Upendra Khare is dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 67,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 85,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 119,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 152,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "causing hurt to Balkar Singh and Kamaljit Singh deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The effect of the exposure of the victims to Methyl Isocyanate (MIC) which was stored in considerably large quantities in tanks in the chemical plant of the UCIL which escaped on the night of the 2nd of December 1984 both in terms of acute and chronic episodes has been much discussed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 157,
"end": 161,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 216,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The only developmental project spoken of is the World Trade Centre along with the Public Exhibition Centre which is already been dealt with in this order as above and apart therefrom no other developmental project has been spoken of during the course of submission in the matter.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The special appeals and the civil revision came up for hearing before a Full Bench consisting of Jagdish Sanal, S.D. Khare and Gangeshwar Prasad JJ.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 110,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 122,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 144,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even though no evidence is on record to show that they are close relatives of each other there is nexus between the above named persons in as much as every one had given the following address at Anakapalle :\nC/o S. Sundara Rao, Gandhinagar, Anakapalle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 195,
"end": 205,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 226,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 239,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 251,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By relying on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. JINDAL EXPORTS LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (2009) 221 CTR 8, learned counsel contended that all the points raised now before this Court have already been raised before the Delhi High Court and the Delhi High Court has also considered the matter in detail and allowed in favour of the assessee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 92,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 115,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 285,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 310,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The allegation regarding any beating given to Gurmit Singh by PW6 and to PW6 by Gurmit Singh and his brother was denied by PW6 and no material was brought forth in support of that plea either and yet the trial court for undisclosed reasons assumed that the story regarding the beating was correct.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 92,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Arun Kumar has also filed another certificate issued by M/S Upasna, paper No. C-156, in which they have stated that they had simply issued an estimate, paper No. C-l14, and no item was sold by them to Smt. Indira.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 66,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 212,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The test laid down in this case and specially the observations of Lord Atkinson was followed in -- 'British and Benningtons Ltd. v. N. W. Cachar Tea Co. Ltd.', 1923 AC 48 (B).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 79,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 174,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The honourable apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC) have also held that it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of the Supreme Court divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete law declared by the Courts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 25,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 110,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 242,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Raju Joseph contended that the power of the Board under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act is different from that under Section 3(1A) of the K.G.S.T. Act, 1963.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 71,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 97,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 140,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 166,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Khursheed and Dildar moved bail application No. 1865 of 1991 in this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 14,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After manufacturing the said tyres and tubes, about 10 to 12% of the total manufactured products used to be sold in the State of Haryana either locally or in the course of inter-State trade & commerce or in the course of export outside the country and also sold locally against Declara- tion Form No. ST-15.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 136,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "U/s 6 POCSO Act r/w Section 376(2)(i)/506 IPC: \"Acquitted\" Page 3 of 17 SC No.185/2013: FIR No.361/2013: PS Aman Vihar: State V/s Sohan Lal @ Sonu DOD: 09.04.2015 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 5,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 6,
"end": 15,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 41,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 45,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 86,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 118,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 139,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But he used to visit often his native place i.e. Pukhrayan, where KK was residing.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 58,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In subsequent year in asst. yr. 1992-93 the AO applied Section 94 of the Act and dividend income Rs. 19,50,000 from units of UTI has been taxed substantively in the hands of M/s Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. based at Calcutta and protectively in the hands of the assessee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 224,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 242,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But these payments did not reach either Mr. A. C. R. Menon or Chellur Corporation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 81,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I am afraid I have to differ from my learned brethren regarding the applicability of Section 8 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (the Act, for short) to a case like the present where.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 129,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In my view, it is not open for a party who has consciously avoided a proceeding and did not participate in the arbitration proceeding to allege at the stage of enforcement that the award is vitiated by fraud by non- disclosure of a document.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Why the complainant did not disclose the fact that he had on the assurance of accused no.3, written on the back side of photocopy of Agreement to Sell that he has received GPA, SPA, Will and Agreement to Sell?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Evidence brought on record: PW1 is the summoned witness(Assistant Ahlmad) who has proved the Petitions under section 14(1)e and 14(1)D and the applications under Order 1 rule 10 dated 17.10.1997 and reply of same dated 06.12.1997.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 72,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 134,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 177,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 194,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 229,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has not executed the sale deed out of her own free consent and the defendant No.1 Seetaram has obtained the sale deed by playing fraud.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 132,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused No.1 is the mother and accused No.3 is the brother of accused No.2.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But admitted about the proceedings in Execution No.203/1994.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 59,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He saw his son, Kishore Kumar and the third person sit in a gypsy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 29,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the law casts a duty on the Judge",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is also specifically mentioned that FSL form was filled up and the parcels as well as the FSL form were sealed with the seal of SD.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 42,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 96,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The\t long interval in receipt of the representation\t and the comments of the Collector of Customs, Cochin, indicate the casual and indifferent attitude, displayed by the\t au- thorities concerned dealing with the\trepresentation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 106,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I would say that in this particular case, as there is no evidence of delivery, I would not be justified in holding that the forward contract was a sale within the meaning of entry 48 of the State Legislative List.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Identical point had arisen for consideration even before the Hon'ble Jammu High Court in the matter Lajya Devi v Kamla Devi : decided on 21.05.1992.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 123,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 147,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the order of diversion of land issued in favour of the respondent No.4 was coming in the way of the petitioners, they filed an appeal against the said order before the Additional Collector and this shows that malafidely the petitioners are trying to restrict the claim of the respondent No.4.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(c) Naik to Head Constable. \n\nSection Leader's Course. \n\n(d) Head Constable to Sub-1 nsp. \n\nPlatoon Comdrs. Course. \n\n(e) Sub-lnsp. \n\nto Insp. \n\nKimopr ; Leader's Course \n \n(f) Inspector to AC CC Tac Course vide Org. Dte. L/No. F. 17/7/68 dt. 1.5.69.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 8,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW\u00ad1 / plaintiff Smt. Madhu Rani i.e. respondent herein has deposed that she is the owner of the property bearing No.A\u00ad72, Yojna Vihar, Delhi, having purchased from Mr. M.K. Premi vide Agreement to Sell, GPA, Will and Receipt for full and final payment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 32,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 141,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 179,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Upon this, a panchanama was prepared in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Sri Manne Venkaiah S/o. Laxmaiah and Sri Chintala Bhumaiah S/o. Bogaiah, both residents of Chintakunta.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 97,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 111,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 137,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 150,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 181,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having gone through the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and his testimony as DW1, I do not see any force in the contention of counsel for the appellant that cheque Ex. C1/A was misplaced.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 77,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 88,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since respondent No. 1-IIM is recognised as approved institution under the provisions of the G.U. Act it is duty bound to comply with the statutory requirements before taking any action against its staff members.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 26,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 101,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So the benefit of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pepsico case cannot in any circumstance be extended to persons facing prosecution under the Kerala Abkari Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 70,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 172,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereupon, on the same day, that is, on the 15th June, 1977 the STC wrote to the State Bank of India invoking the guarantee after setting out the performance guarantee as mentioned hereinbefore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 59,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 100,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'ble Apex Court in decided on 26.02.1974 has Shriram Labhaya Vs. MCD , categorically held that testimony of the Food Inspector alone, if believed, is sufficient to convict the accused and there is no requirement of independent corroboration by public persons unless the testimony suffers from fatal inconsistencies.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 29,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 122,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 137,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If however, any refund has been found to be not refundable to the assessee and consequently the interest granted is withdrawn, the same would not partake the character of income.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "P.W. 11 has not stated in his affidavit Ex. P. 4, nor in his complaint Ex. P. 3, that the accused ever threatened or tried to involve him (P.W. 11) in Crime No. 72 of 1972 and secure illegal gratification from him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 151,
"end": 171,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Kumaramangalam's next contention was with reference to the provisions of Sections 45 and 46 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 95,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Counsel for the accused has failed to point out any provision under the Income Tax Act, 1961 rendering the loan transaction in question as void and unenforceable though, no doubt, violation thereof may invite some penalties on both the parties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 92,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "R&P be returned back to the concerned trial Court (AKIL KURESHI, J.) (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 63,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 82,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per the supplementary agreement, the learned Departmental Representative argued that enhancement of value is a big question that what was the basis for enhancement.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Accused Kishore fired in the air and the assailants ran towards vehicle No. 5408.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised very sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The claimant has examined Krishnan (A.W. 25).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 34,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The sole witness in rebuttal was appellant No. 1 Bhagwandas, the truck driver.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The complainant/respondent R.S. Nayak moved the Governor of Maharashtra by his application dated September 1, 1981 requesting him to grant sanction to prosecute the accused- petitioner as required by Section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as '1947 Act') for various offences alleged to have been committed by him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 37,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 71,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 114,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 209,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 247,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Dr.Rajesh Kumar Srivastava can not be counted as ineligible only on CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17787 OF 2012 :{ 8 }:\nthe ground that he was not present on the date of inspection, as he had gone to attend to his ailing father, who had subsequently expired also.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 156,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is contended by Shri Balakrishnan that the right to receive the mesne profits accrued to the appellant on April 22, 1958, when this Court decreed the suit of the appellant and held that he was entitled to receive the mesne profits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 123,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(3) This section applies also to the police in the towns of Calcutta and Bombay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 68,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 79,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case, the court held that \"Section 29 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is attracted only when there is final order passed by the Magistrate and an order passed on an application for interim relief is very much revisable in view of conjoint reading of Section 12 of the Act and Rule 6 (5) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 105,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 296,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 322,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 384,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the very fact that the Common Cadre itself was abolished on 3 December, 1997 would stand in the way of these employees claiming benefits under the Common Cadre.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 87,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The extraordinary remedies under the Constitution are not intended to enable the claimant to recover monies, the recovery of which by suit is barred by limitation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 49,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The order annexure P-3 though was not challenged by filing a statutory revision under Rule 15 (ii) of the Service Rules, but Surjit Singh and others had approached Joint Secretary (Cooperation) (Appeal) Punjab, challenging the propriety of the order passed by Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies invoking his suo motu powers under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, for short 'the Act'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 137,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 209,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 344,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 390,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But, the reports of the Probation Officers were admittedly not sent to the District Collectors for their consideration along with the report of the local Sub Inspectors of Police.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This amount is deducted in working out the profit derived on account of running of the Nursing Home.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The division bench further held that while those appointed on the basis of the impugned selection shall be allowed to continue until publication of the fresh result, anyone of them who failed to make the grade on the basis of the fresh examination shall be given a chance to appear in another examination to be conducted by the Staff Selection Commission.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The assessee received the consideration in terms of technology transfer agreement between the assessee and Bayer AG, Germany dt. 14th Oct., 1996.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 115,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 124,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In C. W. 224/ 1966, on this point, the Labour Court found: \n \"...........No satisfactory or cogent evidence has been produced by the workmen to prove that the said company has a regular or recognised branch at Jullundur, and that the concerned workmen worked or received any important directions or instructions from the Circle Manager in the performance of their respective duties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 219,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 1987 preferred by State of Bihar against the judgment of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court is also dismissed for the reasons hereinbefore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 31,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 59,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our judgment, the conclusion of the Tribunal cannot be supported.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Being a certified copy of record of the department, ration card is admissible under section 74 of the Evidence Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 114,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On hearing their alarm and the sound of pistol fire, Ram Singh, Imam Khan and Ranchor (P.W. \n\n4) came to the scene of occurrence and saw the four assailants running away from the Nohra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 73,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 85,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All that in my judgment Article 348(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) requires is that when two such versions are brought on the Statute Book the English translation will be deemed to be the authoritative text if there is a conflict between the two versions which normally there should not be.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 55,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Privy Council as well as the High Courts in India have always taken this view.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 53,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Way back in the year 2000, the Apex Court had occasioned to discuss the identical issue in Rita Devi Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2000 ACJ 810 (SC).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 151,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "List of witnesses examined for plaintiffs in all the suits:",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Appeals from the judgments and orders dated August 7, 1956, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos. 151 and 152 of 1955.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 58,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 87,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 131,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The three minor children of the petitioner were admitted to the benefits of that partnership with a total of 8 annas share between them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "She got recovered a black colour bag which contained a lap-top of H.P Pavilion including DL, Debit Cards, CDs, Stereo mouth piece etc.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued on 23.8.2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 28,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 83,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Charge for offences under Sections (1) 409 of IPC and (2) 13(1)(c) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 punishable under section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed on 01/05/2014 in terms of Order dated 01/05/2014 against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 49,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 66,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 108,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 139,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 181,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 206,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 241,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter issued prescribed notices under s. 34 of the Income Tax Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 48,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 70,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Kumaraswami Sastri J. in --'In reSectionsKuppuswami Aiyar', AIR 1916 Mad 408CH), held that the High Court can interfere at any stage if it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice and that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards the class of cases in which the High Court will interfere.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 18,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 79,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whether as regards the question posed for consideration viz., regarding the maintainability of the former appeal by the insurer challenging the quantum of compensation even after contesting the claim petition without obtaining permission under Section 170 of the M.V.Act, can be answered in the light of the decisions either on point No.(i) or point No.(ii) in Shila Datta's case, is now to be considered.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 244,
"end": 255,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 271,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 372,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner, namely, T.T.K. Prestige Limited, is engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of pressure cookers, pressure pans, cook wear, non-stick cook wear etc.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 47,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 12.8.2009, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 200(xxx) of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for short, `the 1973 Act'), the State of Haryana notified draft Bye-laws for the purpose and invited objections.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 103,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 153,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But in the instant case, except for one petitioner in M. P. No. 277 of 89 no other petitioner challenging the deviation has filed any revision before the State Government and after the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act this objection is being raised.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 73,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 212,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 240,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ashish Sehgal mainly deposed regarding identifying the dead body of Vijay Kumar Kundra in General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh on 1.8.1995.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 86,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 129,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 141,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The only point for determination of this Court is as to whether injury No.1 on the person of PW Mihan Singh falls within the purview of Section 307 or 326 of the Indian Penal Code. \n\n Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:- \"307. Attempt to murder -",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 107,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 154,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 179,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 195,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 220,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As stated in the affidavit in reply filed by R. Doraiswami, survey made by the Ad Hoc Committee is a \"blind survey\" without knowing who the stakeholder is and the stockholder has, therefore, a fortiori no opportunity of putting forward his point of view before the Ad Hoc Committee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That brings us to the actual order passed by the second respondent on March 8th, 1961, the second respondent has stated that he does not grant the permission as the user of a loudspeaker would cause an obstruction to the traffic.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first case which came up for consideration after the above decision of the Privy Council was the case of Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, West Bengal v. Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb (1) before the Calcutta High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 205,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 236,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Calcutta High Court in Prasanta Kumar v. The State, AIR 1952 Calcutta 91 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Narwar Singh & Ors. v. State, [1952] MB 193 at 195 recognised the right of the Magistrate to hold Court in jail for reasons of security for accused, for witnesses or for the Magistrate himself or for other valid reasons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 23,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 76,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 160,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK 17.12.2014 Lawyers are abstaining from appearing in the Court today on account of call given by Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 12,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 33,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 160,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, where the plaintiff has clear title supported by documents, if a trespasser without any claim to title or an interloper ... \n\n ...17.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Ethiopian Airlines Vs. Ganesh Narain Saboo (2011) 8 SCC 539, while examining the provisions of Code, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the 'Court' in CPC exclusively refers to Civil Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 62,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 129,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 158,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ramu Appellant Vs. The State of U.P. ....Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J. Heard the parties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 51,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 66,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "DW5, an Art Auctioneer has valued them at about Rs. 1.25 lacs each.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(f) The decision must not only be tested by application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness, but must be free from arbitrariness, not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The selection has to be by the Appointing Authority.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Pollution Act which was ultimately enacted was the result of such massive efforts of brain and braun.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In CIT v. Swamp Cold Storage and General Mills [1982] 136 ITR 435 (All), it was contended before a Bench of the Allahabad High Court that no penalty could be levied in respect of estimated income.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 71,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 132,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fee was to be levied only in respect of the tobacco imported into the State The State of Travancore- Cochin collected licence fee from the appellants for the period from August 17, 1950 to December 31, 1957.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 111,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 189,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 210,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This judgment would dispose of civil appeals No. 1748 to 1150 of 1968 filed by special leave against -L735SupCI/72 the judgment of the Calcutta High Court whereby the question referred to that Court under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was answered in favour of the revenue and against the appellant company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 69,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 114,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 154,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 218,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 253,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The validity of Section 8(4) has not been tested by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, on the touchstone of (i) the Constitutional guarantees available to children and women residing in the property and (ii) the statutory protection available to tenants in terms of other enactments.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 28,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The WTO held that there was no valid registered document transferring the property before 14-12-1975, the date on which the assessee married Miss Hema Mohan and so she did not become the owner of the property before her marriage under any circumstances.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 7,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 100,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 156,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The assailants who were outside were shouting for sending Hareshbhai out and had threatened that, otherwise, they would set their house on fire.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 68,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question then is :. Is an accused person furnishing evidence when he. is giving his specimen (1) [1954] S.C.R 1077. \n\nhandwriting or impressions of his fingers, or palm or foot ?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But he has deposed that he had a bank account in Punjab National Bank, Majeet Mandi, Amritsar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 69,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 83,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 93,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As regards the State of delivery also, it could not tax these fictional inside sales because of the limitations contained in Article 286(2) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 139,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 159,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said application was allowed by the District Judge by Order No. 215 dated June 5, 1963.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 71,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 90,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Originally, Travancore and Cochin were two separate sovereign States having plenary powers of taxation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 33,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was opined that three wounds which could have been from a single shot.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Nonetheless, it is not for me to examine whether some other interpretation on the language of S. 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act is permissible because no such language occurs in S. 41 of the present Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 100,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 131,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 187,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Income-tax Officer, Cannonade v. M. K. MohammedKunhi, AIR 1969 SC430 question arose whether an Appellate Authority has a power to stay the operation of the order appealed against, in the absence of a specific provision and Supreme Court said that such a power was implicit in the conferment of the appellate power.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 71,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 239,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "DW-2 Harmukhlal therefore is a witness of hearsay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos. 5 & 6.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On appeal the Bombay High Court held that the term 'unlimited personal injury' mentioned in the policy on payment of extra premium was in fact for covering risk in excess of statutory liability in regard to third party risks and not the personal injury or death of the insured-owner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 31,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such a construction plainly and surely amounts to giving a retroactive operation to Art. 133, for so construed the article will certainly destroy the right which was vested prior to the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 92,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 198,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further asserted that the sewer line, according to the terms of the lease, could not be diverted by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi at the cost of the petitioners without the consent of the Chief Commissioner/Lt. Governor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 141,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By further order dated November 1, 1991 this Court passed the following order .lm15 \" By consent of parties Justice V.S. Deshpande, retired Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court is appointed as arbitrator to settle the dispute as to who would be the legal heirs to the estate of the late Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 39,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 130,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 178,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 315,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At about 6.30 PM accused Chotu came on foot from the side of Main Gate of ISBT \n - 6- and stood near the raiding team.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 30,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Apex Court has observed thus :\n \" Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To such a \"lis\"\t the State Bar Council, in its executive capacity,\nmust be\t deemed to be a party.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 39,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They have entered into the Dhani of Magna Ram and Moti Ram and gave beating to these persons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 45,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW. 13. Burfiram, Chowkidar at Ichhi Marketing Co-op.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 16,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 52,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These facts are established from the applications filed by him before the Patna court which are now part of the record of this writ petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On his refusal or neglect clause (4) of section 20 will spring into action.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was also contended that the income-tax authorities had not referred to all the matters which the petitioner had desired them to refer, but the Supreme Court pointed out that, for such omission, the Act itself contained ample remedies which might be pursued.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 159,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia has also relied on the case of Gupta Rice Mills v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 825 (All), which is a decision of the Allahabad High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 99,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 148,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The general principle is that the plain meaning should be accepted unless such plain meaning leads to absurdity.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The revenue in the above circumstances field SLP against the order dated June 17, 1979 and leave was granted.\t Civil Appeal No. 2978 of 1989 C.I.T.\t\t\t\t\t...Appellant v.\n M/s.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 86,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 146,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "CITATION:\n 1973 AIR 22\t\t 1973 SCR (2) 389 1973 SCC (3) 207 ACT:\nIncome Tax Act, 1961-Section 271(1)(c)-Scope of-Satisfaction regarding matters in cls. (a) to (c) precedes the issue of notice-Notice need not be issued in the course of assessment proceedings-No\tnotice contemplated before arriving at\t the satisfaction-Provision for reference to Inspecting Assistant Commissioner does not mean proceedings cannot be initiated by Income Tax Officer.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 90,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 114,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court in deciding the case in favour of the respondent proceeded on the ground that as Act XII of 1948 was not in existence at the date when the claim was filed by the respondent, he could not possibly be convicted of an offence under a law which was not in force at the time of the commission of the offence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 111,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Music also generates some sort of sound and the use of fire works and microphones also generate sound but there is a gulf of difference between the two types of sounds.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As regards the question whether there could be any property in a trade mark, the learned Judge further observed (on the same page) as follows:\n \"Again, turning to S. 54 of the Specific Relief Act, which deals with cases when a perpetual injunction may be granted the Explanation to that section lays down that for the purpose of that section a trade mark is property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 163,
"end": 168,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 195,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of State v. Kutubuddin Isafali (1980) 21 (2) Guj LR 167 : 1981 Cri LJ 908, M.K. Shah, J. also examined the very same question and after noticing provisions of Section 13(3) and (5), observed in para 13 of the report as under:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 85,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 96,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 192,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Considering the normal mode of determination of income now adopted by this Court in identical cases, it would be just and reasonable to re-determine the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,250/-.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The AO has forged the signature of Sri Bommi Parthasaradhi (LW.4), District Backward Classes Welfare Officer (Retired), Visakhapatnam and created forged bill for Rs.13,915/- and encashed it on 9.6.1993 vide voucher No.116B under head of account 270 Diet.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 58,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 133,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 201,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This will be clear from the evidence of his own brother, Dayanand, PW 2 and PW 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 65,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "R. K. Mangal has stated that the suit was filed under the signatures of Smt. Chander Kanta Bharti, then constituted Attorney of the Bank, Ex. PW-1/1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 97,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 M.Cr.C. No. 7642/2015 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 66,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fourth witness on behalf of the respondent was one Mr.Ganesh Kalmady, (another brother of the Respondent) and power of attorney holder of Premnath Kalmadi who was stated to have attended/involved in the working of M/s.Amigo Industries right from supervising the construction of the factory premises of the firm and who had stated that he has noticed pilferage of finished goods by Mr.Rajendra S.Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 72,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 158,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 238,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 388,
"end": 404,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The court held that \"To give a lesser punishment to the appellants would be to render the justice system of this country suspect.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of Haryana [(2006) 12 SCC 459 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214] State Vs. Madan Lal & Ors. FIR No. 364/07 Dtd: 11.02.2014 Pg. 8 of 12 ).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 227,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 254,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 285,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Defendant nos. 3 & 4 have accordingly prayed for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. \n 4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 98,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He gave as his reasons that as the partnership business of plying buses was carried on the strength of permits obtained and standing in the name of Dayabhai, the partnership constituted by the two brothers involved transfer of vehicles and permits in contravention of the provisions of Sections 31 and 59 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and, therefore, the partnership was not valid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 148,
"end": 156,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 308,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 340,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the legal representatives of a person, who was driving a motor vehicle, after borrowing it from the real owner meets with an accident without involving any other vehicle, would be entitled to compensation under Section 163 A of the M.V. Act or under any other provision(s) of law",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 326,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 342,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Parliament has clearly expressed its intention as to the circumstances in which a defendant's property may be attached before judgment and in so doing, has stated that it may be done where the Court is satisfied that the defendant with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of a decree that may be passed against him is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the approach of the assessing authority in considering the claim of the assessee under Sections 30 to 36 is altogether different from the one applicable to a claim under Section 37(1). \n 7.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 115,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 194,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Defendant has also filed a copy of the certificate of registration of the trademark No, 287631 registered on 24.4.1973 in the same names but with the following disclaimer:\n \"REGISTRATION OF THIS TRADEMARK SHALL GIVE NO RIGHT TO THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE DEVICE \"SUN\" AND THE WORD \"SURAJ\". \n11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 118,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute the employer may (b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman :",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the other hand plaintiff has placed on record, a copy of case FIR No. 85/11 U/s. 406/420/434 IPC lodged against defendants on complaint by plaintiff that defendants induced the plaintiff and one Sh. Sunil Pawar to pay Rs.10 Lacs each to procure the tender for supply of cement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 95,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 99,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 213,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S.C. No. 45/10 (Unique ID No. 02403R0968372008) FIR No.: 698/08 PS: Malviya Nagar US: 328/379/411/34 IPC Eva Jennifer D/o Walter Antony R/o S-9, Gokul Apartments, Mem Nagar, Ahmadabad, Gujarat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 81,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 104,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 117,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 135,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 183,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 192,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is remarkable that the defendant has not even made an assertion in the written statement or in his evidence to the effect that time was of the essence of the contract and yet the Courts below have so concluded.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The business of the partnership consisted in purchasing tobacco chura from I. L, T.D. Company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 93,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This, according to Shri Mattewal, is per se arbitrary and in the teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 32,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 92,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 121,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was serving as a conductor in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and was residing at village Chandrala.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 73,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 111,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plea of the appellant that the decision to withdraw the appeals by the Revenue was independent of the respondent's request that he be helped to move the Commission needs for its acceptance a degree of naivete which we do not possess, as we will later show.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Police Authorities should also perform their duties in this connection for the purpose of controlling the sound pollution in the State with active collaboration and cooperation with the Pollution Control Board.\" \n\n2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 190,
"end": 213,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Binani Bros. an executory contract to purchase pig lead was held to be a governmental function.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 15,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This was precisely the reason why Hegde, J., speaking on behalf of the Court observed in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde (supra) that it was possible to view the abolition of cash grants under the Madhya Pradesh law impugned in that case \"as a statutory transfer of rights of the grantees to the State\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 39,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 136,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the record, it is evident that the University authorities including the Vice-Chancellor, did not at all go into the merits of the allegations made in the complaints/representations submitted by the parent's association for re-verification to find out whether there was any grain of truth in them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As discussed above, the payment of Rs. 240/- was not to be made to the officers by way of allowance which has been erroneously assumed to be so by the Division Bench for finding its conclusion.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.06.2013 (SHAIL JAIN )",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 41,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 53,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was found that the appellant Baijnath is brother of the witness Laxmi Prasad but, nothing could be brought in the evidence of Kotwar Sukrata Bai as to why she turned hostile.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 79,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 147,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Bihar and the Madhya Pradesh Acts which affect inter- State trade in cattle and beef offend Art. 301 and are void as the assent of the President was riot taken before enacting them. \n\nFrank Anthony and K. L. Mehta, for the petitioners in Petition No. 103 of 1956.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 104,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 201,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 217,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 266,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He proved Ext.P23 post mortem certificate dated 14.6.2001.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 57,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The last case to which reference must be made is the decision of the Privy Council in Harmes v. Hinkson (1)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 107,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "2. It was averred in the plaints that the railway receipts, invoices for the goods and the hundies were lodged with bankers to be discounted and for collection of the price from the buyers to whom the railway receipts were delivered only against payment, and as such the sales did not occur within the province of Madras.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 314,
"end": 320,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 364 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years RI.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 76,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 80,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The writ petition No.3355/2004 was preferred by three persons namely Hanuman Singh Bhati, Rajesh Yadav and Ajay Singh, but during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners Hanuman Singh Bhati and Rajesh Yadav both withdrew their writ petitions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 30,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 102,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 117,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 200,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 217,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(xi) P.W.3 enquired A2 under Section 67 of NDPS Act and A2 gave voluntary statement in his own handwriting Ex.P46 and he has signed in all the pages and P.W.3 has also signed in all the pages.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 39,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 51,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Advocate General has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, AIR 1963 SC 913 (at pp. 921-922) wherein their Lordships observed :\n \"The second also, is, in our opinion, unsound.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 134,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the meaning of the word \"goods\" under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh General Sales-tax Act, 1957.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 157,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the contrary view reliance was placed by the Revenue on the decision of the High Court of Maharashtra at Bombay in Mckenzies Ltd. v. State of Bombay ([1962] 13 S.T.C. 602).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 175,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, one Gopalayya, B.Sc., was brought from the Sericulture Department and was deputed to work as a Regional Manager at Nellore from 2006 to 2009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 133,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Moreover, in Ram Dhan's case AIR 1973 Raj 71 this Court took into consideration the fact that there was difference between the type, of lands and the intensity of irrigation in the Bhakra Project Area and the Rajasthan Canal Area and it was held that for that reason there may be a variation in the scale of allotment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 23,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 44,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 187,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 218,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Prior to its amendment by the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1981, with effect from 1-7-1982, Section 269A(d) defined 'fair market value' merely with reference to an immovable property transferred by sale.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 62,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 89,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 106,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plaintiffs have approached the court with a case of agreement fixing a date for performance.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The complainant Hanif went to the Police Station, Station Bazariya, Bhopal and lodged the FIR Ex.P/7 within 20 minutes of the incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 21,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 74,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Samuhik Krishi Sahkari Samiti Ltd.. Mandalgarh (hereinafter called Party No. 1) alleged that the said Khasra has been allotted to it and it was in possession of the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 37,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 50,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At about 11 p.m. she woke up and saw appellant Machhi Singh armed with rifle, and his two brothers, appellant Chhina Singh and appellant Kashmir Singh, armed with Kirpans, standing near the feet of Satnam Singh who was sleeping on the cot.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 59,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 122,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 150,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 210,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It will be undoing the amendment and restoring the pre-amendment position, submitted the learned counsel.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We will mention the facts of Civil Appeal Nos. 27-33 of 1983 as a representative batch of cases.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 60,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(iii) Where a transfer is effected by way of sale with the condition that title will pass on payment of consideration, and such intention is clear from the recital in the deed, then such instrument or sale can be cancelled by a deed of cancellation with the consent of both the parties on the ground of non-payment of consideration.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "One month thereafter, the accused and his family vacated the adjacent portion.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However, the evidence on the point that he had to go to Delhi and Aligarh had not been challenged.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 61,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 73,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, according to Clause 2(iii), the third Selection Grade was to be granted on completion of 27 years of service, subject to the conditions specified therein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is therefore clear that the expression 'premises' includes a 'building' also which term, of course, is separately defined.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "4. Under Schedule I of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, as also in Schedule I of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') as originally enacted, \"Calcutta\" has been defined.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 19,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 55,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 78,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 114,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 186,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An election enquiry as has often been pointed out, is in the nature of a quasi criminal trial and the election petitioner is virtually in the position of a prosecutor.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In paras 5 and 6 of her affidavit Ex.PW1/A Neera Shukla had reiterated the mode and manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 55,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the conviction of accused Nos.1 to 3 and 7 for the offences under Sections 120B,323, 342,357 and 427 I.P.C., the trial court imposed the earlier mentioned sentence against the above accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 110,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under such circumstances, the acceptable testimony of witnesses Ramkumar and Sushila Bai may be acted upon and it is -:- 10 -:-\n Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 proved beyond doubt that appellant Kaptan Singh fired from a gun causing death of deceased Babulal, whereas appellant Samarjeet Singh fired from a gun, causing injury on the left elbow of complainant Ramkumar. \n\n12.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 72,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 88,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 160,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 208,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 259,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 294,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 369,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The order, therefore, prima facie appears to be unexceptionable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On obtaining special leave the original assessee represented by her legal heir has preferred Civil Appeals Nos. 1831-1833 of 1972 to this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 129,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She and complainant got the work of survey in connection with project in the year 2003.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus in most cases, the workman (the claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register, etc.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, in our view, DEPB/Duty Drawback are incentives which flow from the Schemes framed by Central Government or from Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962, hence, incentives profits are not profits derived from the eligible business under Section 80-IB.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 114,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 133,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 158,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 256,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1977, requiring aggregate marks of 40% in the written and practical test, thus taking of different view in the 1999 examinations is without any reasonable basis.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If, therefore, the weather were left out of account, the unfamiliarity of the crew who were put in charge of the vessel to pilot it, is a possible explanation for this delay.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "All that can be done about a probate once issued is to revoke it and a probate can be revoked only on the grounds mentioned in Section 263 of the Succession Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 138,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 160,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A preliminary examination is essentially a screening test for short-listing candidates to a reasonable and practical extent so that in the main examination, the confusion and disorder likely to be created because of large number of candidates appearing is avoided.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "All three brothers of late Sardar Atma Singh mutually agreed that property in question would be re\u00adbuilt and each one of them would have one floor each to be determined by draw of lots, the said oral partition agreement dated 22.12.2000 was stated to have reduced into writing.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 44,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 236,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that following or considering the judgment as cited at the Bar, the delay in a criminal case tends to cause serious prejudice to an accused, in conducting his defence, inasmuch as his witnesses may die or they may become otherwise unavailable or even they might forget the facts or documents may be lost or destroyed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The next petition is W.P. No. 1124/88--Computer Graphics (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., which challenges the concession given in favour of manufacturers in U.P. and Goa.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 37,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 65,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 90,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 171,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 179,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dealing with the relevancy of the report of the panel and the proceedings of the NHRC for preparation o the panel by the UPSC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 85,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 125,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was PW5 who had burnt the clothes and Ext.P5 false complaint was given against the appellant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has, therefore, provided correctives against such errors in Regulations 102 and 104.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 86,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I may dispose of the said contention here and now as being unsound as when a party relies on a term of the contract itself to make it void it is for the arbitrator to decide the question whether the claim was false or fraudulent as the clause itself indicates.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Rohtas Industries' case it was pointed out by Hegde, J. at the end of the paragraph 39 at page 719:\n In other words the existence of the circumstances in question is open to judicial review though the question formed by the Government is not amenable to review by the courts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 20,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 54,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the reading of the above said provisions and the judgments the position of law which emerges is that once execution of the promis\u00ad sory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the NI Act would arise that it is supported by a consideration.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 211,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 225,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What is specially significant is that sub-section (3-C) postulates payment of an amount to the producer who has been required to sell sugar in the circumstances mentioned there- in.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 55,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dealing with the nature of a reserve, Chakravartti C.J. said at page 588 of that decision thus: \n \"A reserve is created only out of the whole or a part of the surplus profits as they are found to be in the hands of the company at the end of the year and it is a reserve against a contingency which still lies in the future.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 50,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Special Leave Petition(Criminal_ No. 5265 of 2007] Manoj Sharma .. Appellant -versus State & Others ..",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 49,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 63,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 91,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that having regard to the claim for receiving compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, any payment under the Motor Vehicles Act will have to take note of the compensation paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the balance alone need to be considered for payment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 131,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 173,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 258,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A person cannot be sued twice for the same cause; and there should he finality of litigation; but if the same cause is not decided at all, it cannot be avoided in a subsequent suit for the same reason that it was stated in the former suit. \n 8.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has to be construed para materia to Rule 8(ii) of the R.H.J.S. Rules, as interpreted in I.L.R. 20 (1970) Raiasthan 179(F.B.), Rule 29 has to be harmoniously read with Rule 8(ii) and Rule 15(ii) and if so read the direct recruits under the R.H.J S. Rules cannot take advantage of the period of practice as a pleader in the matter of fixation of salary under Rule 29.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 71,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 127,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 136,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 196,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 256,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 367,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Gurnam Singh (PW-6) who deals in property business deposed that on 19.09.2008, when he was going towards DMC with respect to domestic work and reached near Chander Nagar Pulli (small bridge), Pritam Singh HC signalled him to stop and asked him to make an enquiry with respect to Suraj Ahluwalia (appellant).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 77,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 108,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 204,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 294,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shri Jai Singh and others(1) was, an :Instance where a domestic enquiry was held, but it was not ,accepted by the Tribunal as a proper enquiry.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 55,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": ".P1 is the copy of the Memorandum of Association and Ext.P2 is the copy of the bye-laws.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Rattan Lal Aggarwal Vs. State of Assam, 1993 Crl LJ. 2757 (Guh.) it was observed that irregularity is not to be presumed but a party alleging it may prove it. \n\n\n\nCC No. 225/03 DA Vs. Subhash Garg Page 18 of 62 39",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 89,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 226,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But that benefit is not available to those Headmasters who are not continuing as oh today as Principals and those Headmasters who were not educationally qualified when relevant rules came into force.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Hon'ble High Court decided the question in favour of the Revenue and, thus, the matter went to Hon'ble Supreme Court and their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court have observed that the law is well-settled that the IT Act as it stands amended on the first day of April of any assessment year must apply to that assessment year.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 120,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 165,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 224,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Viceroy's announcement dated April 30, 1947, practically sums up the result of the negotiations between the Government of India and His Majesty's Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 47,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 131,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(4) SCC 765] (4) Nirmal Chandra Bhattacharjee and others vs. Union of India and others [1997 (Supplementary) 2 SCC 363] (5) T.R. Kapur and others vs. State of Haryana and others [1986 (Supp) SCC 584] (6) Mohammed Bhakar vs. Y. Krishna Reddy [1970 SLR 768]",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 119,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 199,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 255,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It held that the directive principles enjoy a very high place in the constitutional scheme and it is only the framework of socio-economic structure envisaged in the directive principles that the fundamental rights are intended to operate, so that the same can become meaningful and significant for millions of poor and deprived people.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We may only refer to the decision of the Orissa High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Kanchan Bewa & Ors:, (1994) ACJ 138 where Hansaria, J. speaking for the Full Bench observed as under ;-\n\"18.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 128,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 143,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "SB Civil Writ Petition No.3560/2012 Dev Anand versus RSRTC & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No.3577/2012 Vinod Kumar versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3451/2012 Rajendra Singh versus RSRTC & ors SB Civil Writ Petition No.3585/2012 Rajesh Kumar versus RSRTC & ors",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 58,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 126,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 197,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 266,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The NHAI has taken a stand that a total sum of Rs.16,76,55,000/- (Rupees Sixteen crores seventy six lakhs and fifty five thousand only) was approved by the Department and whereas the State Government has followed their own ________ W.P(MD)Nos.14914 of 2020 and 24052 of 2018 Rudhra Devi and another vs. The Competent Authority-cum-District Revenue Officer procedure in depositing the compensation before the competent authority.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 8,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 275,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 287,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 20.3.1998 in the morning, Tarlochan Singh of village Phulewal dealing in the trade of wheat chaff, struck a bargain of wheat chaff with the complainant party.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 44,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 64,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S.P. Goyal, J., speaking for the Full Bench, came to the conclusion that the claim was against the railway authorities alone alleging that the accident took place entirely due to their carelessness and negligence and that of the driver of the train and the gateman.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, immediately MoEF returned the application to the project proponent asking it to submit applications for site clearance as well as for project clearance.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 27,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Its correct citation is Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 192 (Punj. & Har.) and not 72 ITR 122 as mentioned in the order of the CIT(A).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 81,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 115,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, in the instant case except the disclosure statement of accused himself these is nothing on record to prove that accused entered into a conspiracy with others.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The conclusion of the trial Court, to the effect, that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, being unexceptional, is affirmed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 123,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In K. Rama Krishnan v. Station House Officer, Hosdurg (1986 CRL. LJ 392) a learned Single Judge was dealing with the case launched under Section 482 of the Code CRL.MC No.935/2010 & connected cases -14- seeking to quash the proceedings on the basis of a charge- sheet which was launched against the petitioner for the alleged commission of offence under Sec.211 of the IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 72,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 148,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 179,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 361,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 372,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the changes made to the draft have to be ancillary to the draft proposal and not altogether foreign to the draft.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is true that on some previous occasion there are entries to show in the Jail register that appellant Yadav was granted interview with appellant Tripathi but according to the evidence when he became familiar with the Jail Staff all these rules and procedures were thrown to wind.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 109,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 155,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY DEPT. OF TRANSPORT M S BUILIDNG, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 22,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 46,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 79,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 89,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though the 1st respondent received a notice under O.XXI, r. 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he did not file any objection to the valuation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 63,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 94,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "60- A .Penalty for use of place for commission of an offence respecting Cocaine. \n\n60- B Security for abstaining from Cocaine offences. \n\n63. Penalty for possession of intoxicant unlawfully imported, etc.-",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Con- scious of the fact that all the three detenus were in custo- dy, he passed the impugned orders of detention on 10th November, 1989 as he had reason to believe that the detenus would in all probability secure bail and if they are at large, they would indulge in the same prejudicial activity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 116,
"end": 135,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer; 1956 AIR (SC) 404; Sunder Sham 2013.09.06 15:53",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 118,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 142,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Resultantly, the instant application under Section 378 (4) Cr.P.C., seeking leave to file appeal, is ordered to be dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 58,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 66,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Again, by proceedings dated 30.11.2012, a demand notice was issued by the petitioner, in terms of the restated agreement as varied by the waiver letter dated 19.10.2012, to HHL and the respondent- company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 38,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 168,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 176,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The power under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution can be exercised by the Central and State Governments, not by the President or Governor on their own.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 35,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 55,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 109,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the basis of Ex P-1, the First Information Report, P-57 was prepared.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Various expressions used in these provisions are not only suggestive but convey a definite intent of the rule making authority that adherence to the principles of natural justice and basic rule of law are to be observed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "I think I ought also to refer to a rule in Ch. 35 of the Rules of this Court in its Original Side, dealing with the procedure in testamentary matters.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was not the less final because it was for a limited period (vide in this connection Saraju Prasad Singh v. Gangaprasad Shah, , and that temporary character should not affect the true legal position.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 126,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The stand of defendants No.1 & 2 on the one hand and defendant No.5 on RCA U/s 96 CPC: \"RCA Dismissed\" Page 15 of 22 RCA No.114/2014: \"Vijay Kr. Sharma & Ors. V/s Jagdishwar Dayal Gupta & Ors.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 81,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 85,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 132,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 192,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"It may be mentioned that the Madras High Court in D. Mohideen Sahib & Co. v. CIT [1950] 18 ITR 200, has discussed the matter in detail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 99,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Modern proposals consistently favour the Social Insurance model under which benefits are payable directly by the fund with- out any reference at all to the injurer while retaining an option for the victim to claim either limited benefits on a nonfault basis or full damages for negligence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v.H. Abdul Bakshi & Bros., 160 I.T.R. 94 again reiterated that the presumption spelt out becomes a rule of evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 118,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 9 of the NDPS Act empowers the Central Government to permit, control and regulate, inter alia, the manufacture, possession, sale, transportation of psychotropic substances.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 25,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 57,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From that date, according to Mr. Bobde, the field of industrial disputes was exclusively held by the statute passed by the Provincial Legislature and made applicable to textile industry.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 26th June, 2001 he was on duty.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The list Exh. Ka-41 is said to have been prepared by one Ram Gopal (Munim of Bharat Singh, PW 18) by the help of the pawn register Exh. Ka-40 and on the basis of the knowledge of Bharat Singh and Chandra Prakash as to the ornaments that possibly had been stolen and carried away.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 66,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 89,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 191,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 211,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Likewise M.Os. 18 and 19 were identified by P.W.7 Pradeep Kumar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 63,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A letter dated 24th September 1993 to M/s Nuchem Investment (P) Limited was filed addressed to the Managing Director of M/s Nuchem Limited for remitting the guarantee commission at the rate of ` 30,000/- PM w.e.f 2nd October 1992 till date.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 34,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 71,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 138,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 229,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As aforesaid, there is no requirement as to the FSI under the scheme of provisions of Section 80-IB(10).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 51,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1) [1950] 18 I.T.R. 944. \n\nThe assessee obtained the requisite certificate under s. 66A (2) of the Act from the High Court and that is how Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1955 is before us.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 92,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 167,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the petitioner, not deciding the objection has vitiated the order dated 16 th May, 2014.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 100,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Mulvenna's case, (1926 S. C. 842), Lord Blackburn said that there is an implied condition in every contract between the Crown & the public servant with effect that, \"In terms of their contract, they have no right to their remuneration which can be enforced in a Civil Ct. of Justice & that their only remedy under their contract lies in an appeal of an official or political kind.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 36,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 52,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Venkataswamy, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that on the pleadings in this case there is practically an admission of the part of the first respondent that he did have resort to the order of transfer because of the various alleged irregularities bordering on misconduct committed by the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The landlord himself stated before me that the Jangpura house was also double storeyed with four bedrooms in all.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The numbers of those notes were verified with the number previously noted in the panchnama and found to tally.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The facts are as under :\n\n2. The respondent Prasant S. Dhananka ( hereinafter called the \"complainant\"), then 20 years of age and a student of Engineering, complaining of recurring fever was examined in the hospital run by the Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited as his father was employed with that Organisation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 63,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 259,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Scheme formulated by State of Punjab on August 9, 1990 along with subsequent modifications made on October 21, 1997 and December 20, 2011 is a Scheme to the partial exclusion of private operators and since it covers every route in the State of Punjab no area or route can be held to be non-nationalised route to be thrown open under Chapter-V of 1988 Act; iv.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 40,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 58,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 119,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 141,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 254,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 346,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It, however, appears that in his life-time his marriage had already been settled with the sister of defendant No. 1 Mohanlal Odhavji Thacker.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 116,
"end": 140,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision in K.M. Vishwanatha Pillai v. K.M. Shanmugham Pillai, AIR 1969 SC 493, is on the Motor Vehicles Act provisions--where the real owner holding the permit in benamidar's name has been held to be entitled to valid and lawful operation of permits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 82,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Upon the attachment being levied, the sons of Purushottamlal preferred an objection under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming the property as their own under the will of Rami Bibi, probate of which had been duly obtained as aforesaid, as Parameswari had died earlier, namely, sometime in 1950.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 138,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 202,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 272,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Kasliwal thereupon fifed an application signed by Shri Pradeep Chaudhary the learned counsel who had brought the case to him from Ajmer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 76,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 139,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further it was pointed out that the Delimitation Commission was constituted in terms of the provisions of the Delimitation Act, 33 of 2002, consisting of former Judge of the Supreme Court as its Chairperson and the allegation raised against the Commission is totally baseless.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 138,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 187,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "the complainant party is that they were supporting Barnala group but the accused party had supported Mann group and was pressurising the complainant party not to support Barnala group.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 64,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 183,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The orders of the Government dated 27.5. 1976\t and 11.6.1976 and the consequent decision of the BDA dated 111 14.7.1976 are inconsistent with, and contrary to, the legis- lative\tintent to safeguard the health, safety\tand general welfare of the people of the locality.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 45,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 99,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 119,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case, the Supreme Court has noticed that earlier also the same ** question has been referred to a Larger Bench in a reference made in Writ Petition (Crl) Nos. 531-36 of 1988 (Haryana Mahila Sangathan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 31,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 181,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 244,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Nag cited a judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Bhubani Sahe v. The King, for the proposition that a statement under Section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure can never be used as substantive evidence of the fact stated but it can be used to support or challenge the evidence given in Court by the person who made the statement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 7,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 85,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 141,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 168,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?\n\nMANMOHAN SINGH, J.\n\n\n1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 90,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The point I have to decide only came into that ease, if I may use the expression, by a side-wind, for any decision on that point was quite unnecessary for a decision of the main point involved in that case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "From those circumstances, therefore, it can safely be inferred that the accused-respondent was responsible for causing the gun shot injury to Sunder Singh with an intention to cause his death and that act of his will fall within the mischief of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 154,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 256,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 281,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "12.3 Shackleton on The Law and Practice of Meetings says that :\n\"Where the proposed arrangement is one between the company and its members, meetings of creditors are not necessary under Section 391.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 197,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One Chandrapal Singh was said to be a witness of the re-settlement, but he was not examined and nor the Patta was exhibited.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 20,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A further declaration was sought that the transfer of Chief Justice M. M. Ismail and Chief Justice K. B. N. Singh as Chief Justice of Kerala and Madras respectively being not in public interest and also because Article 222 does not confer any power to transfer a Chief Justice, is unconstitutional.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 80,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 113,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 140,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 151,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 222,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant being dissatisfied with this decision, made an application to the Punjab High Court under articles 226 and 227.of the Constitution of India for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the tribunal on the ground that it was without jurisdiction and for an order that the election petition be dismissed as there was no valid petition before the Election Tribunal for trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 127,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 153,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner, O.V.Usman Kurikkal, challenges in this Writ Petition Ext.P1 order dated 20.8.2010, passed by the Government, and Ext.P3 consequential proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Wandoor. \n\n 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 34,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 206,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appellants Navin and Satish are hereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 365 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 16,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 257,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 261,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "the matrimonial relation has for that period ceased to exist de facto, it should, unless there are special reasons to the contrary, cease to exist de jure also.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "CWP - 2173 - 2013 NACHHATTAR SINGH AND ORS.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 17,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But, it is not an absolute power to confiscate.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The legal infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel in this regard are;\n (1) Though the appellant was arrested on 15.2.2004, the alleged T.I. parade has been conducted nearly about six weeks after his arrest, as such there is undue delay in conducting T.I. parade.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 128,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "and on the view that the Indian Penal Code with necessary adaptations mutatis mutandis was in force at least in the Rewa portion of Vindhya Pradesh (if not in the entirety of Vindhya Pradesh) the first appellant was a public servant (1) [1945] F. C. R. 1915 at 222.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 42,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 147,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 190,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is the function of the Court trying the case and not of the sanctioning authority.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the case of Mobarik Ali Ahmad v. State of Bombay it has been held that a document could be proved by internal evidence afforded by the contents of the documents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 51,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(2) No second appeal shall lie from an order passed in appeal under this section, but nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to the Supreme Court.\" \n\n\f\n\n[Insofar as relevant for the present, section 37 of the 1996 Act, is very similar to section 39 of the previous Act as quoted above.]\n\n31.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 163,
"end": 176,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 232,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 279,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[72 B-C]\n Dhakeshwar\t Prasad\t Narain\t Singh\tv. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Orissa, 4 I.T.R. 71 at 74, Commissioner of Income",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 115,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, this relaxation could be given on the condition that the candidate would obtain a doctorate Degree or give evidence of research of high standard within eight years of his appointment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was placed and the accused was charged for offences punishable under Sections 302/458/324 of the IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 134,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 145,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The essence of the matter does not lie there.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "I think that the standard of proof required by the law of India under Section 84, I. P. C , read in the light of S. 106, Evidence Act is not any the less, and that a mere lack of proof by the Prosecution of a motive/for the offence cannot be a substitute for the positive proof required of the Defence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 63,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 80,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 89,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 119,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 133,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Sitaram and others Vs. State of U.P. (supra), Apex Court held \"4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 39,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 1.8.2003 passed in Civil Regular Second Appeal 885 of 1983.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 94,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 144,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was held that Section 4 can be pressed in service by any of the co-owners of the dwelling house belonging to undivided family till the decree for partition is fully executed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 26,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(4) Kenya (16th July, 1992 to 17th July, 1992)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 11,
"end": 26,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 45,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At this juncture, it is apt to quote observations of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Aluva Balaiahgari Chandra Reddy Vs. The Revenue Inspector Rajampet & another, reported in 1980 Cri.L.J. 1169, relied by the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 215,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also stated that the registered holding of the applicant is shown in the left hand side of the sketch.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "An attempt was made by the defence to project through the defence of Chammi Kaur DW-1, that the deceased had accidentally burnt herself when she fell on a hot object while cooking.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 80,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has also raised certain objections regarding testimony of this witness stating that PW4 Lalita Prasad Jain is the perpetrator of the crime and he is the person to acknowledge the supply, paid for the imports cleared, imported goods from the customs and arrange for the transport of goods from Bombay to Delhi and also sold the imported goods.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 109,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 302,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 311,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Against the above modified scheme, M/s. Sri Ramadass Motor Transport (Private) Ltd., Kakinada filed an objection petition through their Counsel before the State Government within the statutory time limit of 30 days prescribed under Section 68-D(l) of the said Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 83,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 247,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The very nature and detailed extent of the above control clearly indicates that apart from the above control there can be policy directions by the Ministry to the NHAI under Section 33 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 163,
"end": 167,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 184,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The matter was left to us by counsel for all the parties and we have made this interim arrangement.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Constitution Bench will decide whether the impugned Acts take away fundamental rights or only abridge them, and in the latter case whether they effect reasonable abridgements in the public interest.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 22,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first defendant has referred to Section 35 and the related provisions of the Stamp Act and to Sections 17 and 49 of the Registration Act read with Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 90,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 116,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 140,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 162,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 194,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent, can be made only by a registered instrument and further that all other leases of immovable property may be made either by a registered instrument or by oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 47,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as the employees of the non-statutory recognised canteens are concerned, they were also held entitled to be treated on par with those employees in the statutory canteens and as Railway servants, for all purposes.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The respondent took an objection that it is the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was applicable and the objections preferred by the DDA were not maintainable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 86,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 149,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (vide separately) ORDER",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This submission reminds us of the words of Shakespeare in the Merchant of Venice, where Luncelot tells Jessica:\n \"Truely then I fear you are damned both by father and mother.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 80,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 96,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 110,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such being the admitted position, the authorities, more importantly, the State Election Commission had to move forward.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Page No. 7 out of 24 Singh , (Delhi) 2009(1) L.L.J. 499 the Delhi High court observed:\n \"7.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The reference thereof may be received from the following:\n\n \"(a) Prime Minister of India",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 88,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As regards ground No.2 with regard to overdue charges earned at Rs. 9,19,445/-, the same is identical to ground No.2 in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the A.Y. 1997-98 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 where the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 169,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 212,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ramesam J. in Panadai Pathan v. Ramasami Chetti (1) referred to the following connotation of 'agriculture': \"Wharton's Law Lexicon adopts the definition of ,,agriculture\" in 8 Edw. VII, c. 36, as including \"horticulture, forestry, and the use of land for any purpose of husbandry etc.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 14,
"end": 51,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We accordingly accord the benefit of reasonable doubt to Appellant Mohinder Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 81,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He adopted their opinions and said that an aggressive war was outlawed by the Paris Pact, the Covenants of the League of Nations and by the Charter of the United Nations.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 88,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 169,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Generally speaking, surtax is charged only on individuals, not on companies or other bodies corporate.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As regards Mana alias Man Singh and Moti Singh appellants, their conviction under Sections 325, 325/149, 323/149 and 147, I.P.C. respectively under the impugned judgment is hereby affirmed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 120,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 128,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, we have to examine whether the learned trial court has rightly recorded the finding of guilt as against appellant Surajbhan and that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution unmistakably point to the only conclusion that accused appellant Surajbhan along with two others (since deceased) and none other is the perpetrator of the crime.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 56,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 181,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 324,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The contention was that the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction in law to entertain, consider and pass the order which it did on the miscellaneous application seeing that it was neither an appeal under section 33 of the Income-tax Act nor could it be regarded as a rectification under section 35 of any mistake committed by the Bench.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 205,
"end": 215,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 237,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 298,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was filed and cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum at Suri, West Bengal for the dishonour of a number of cheques issued by the accused-company which had its headquarters in Ernakulam, Kerala where significantly the accused-company\u2019s bank on whom the dishonoured cheques had been drawn was located.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 29,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 43,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 120,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 128,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 141,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 252,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 260,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The two factors, which were taken into consideration by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the referred to above case in arriving at a conclusion that the appellant should not be ordered to face a fresh trial are not present in the instant case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 92,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in (1992) 1 SCC 168 (Mithilesh Garg and others vs. Union of India and others), unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 23.12.2005 passed in W.A.No.459/2005 etc. batch and the order of Justice E.Padmanabhan, dated 28.07.2000 in W.P.Nos.19067 to 19069 of 2000 etc. batch.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 132,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 204,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 230,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 280,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 298,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 332,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Should, however, the purpose be the acquisition of an asset or a right of a permanent character the possession whereof is the condition precedent or the pre-requisite to the commencement or continuance of the business, the expenditure would be a capital expenditure.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The factum of accident, allegation of rash and negligent driving causing death of Sukendra Pal Singh were denied.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 100,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Yes RAJIV SHAKDHER, J IA No. 11296/2009 (O. 39 R. 1 & 2 of CPC)\n\n1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 18,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 62,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Till the fixed deposit matures the appellant will be entitled only to receive interest accruing due from time to time, if he so desires.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "the mines Initiatives and Rehabilitated in past with specific Environmental reference to last 10 years;",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The result of the examination of the appellant shall abide the result of the special appeal.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Balram Kanel, Indore 509103 167 09 Amarnath Verma, Indore 517069 156 190 142 48 58",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 14,
"end": 20,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 57,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By the same order, while admitting the above said Appeal, this Court also issued notice upon accused No.1 Patel Maheshbhai Ranchhodbhai in respect of inadequacy of sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, exercising powers under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 135,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 253,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 278,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 315,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 354,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since both of them opted to be searched before the Gazetted Officer of Customs, they were brought to the Customs Division Office and were searched in presence of P.W. 1, H.C. Jha, the Superintendent customs, Muzaffarpur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 170,
"end": 178,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 219,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is in that area the law of precedents and comparable cases should guide the Tribunals and the Courts.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v CIT, (1958) 34 ITR 807, this argument advanced by the assessee was rejected by the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 53,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the purpose of deciding this objection raised across the bar, and also partly raised in the affidavit in support of Notice of Motion, it would be also appropriate to consider the plea raised by the defendant nos. 1 to 3 in the affidavit in reply filed on 10 th March, 2006 in Notice of Motion No. 1488 of 2001 by the defendant no.3. \n 49.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 259,
"end": 276,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On this argument it will follow that criminal activities undertaken and carried on with a view to earning profit will be protected as fundamental rights until they are restricted by law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Announced in the open Court (Vimal Kumar Yadav) On 09th day of June, 2014 Additional Sessions Judge\u00adII, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 73,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 143,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The enforcement of the right created by Standing Order No. 32 would not be possible unless these reliefs can be given to the respondent.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He further pointed out that their Lordships of the Orissa High Court have wrongly considered the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for determining the nature of an industrial undertaking for the purposes of Section 80HH.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 68,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 126,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 216,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whether the petitioner/injured sustained injuries in the accident which occurred on 31.01.2013 at about 3.00 a.m. at Todapur Road, Near R\u00adBlock Bus Stand Towards Todapur to Inderpuri, New Delhi caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL4CAH6621 driven by Sumit Solanki and owned by Kuldeep Solanki and insured by Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 94,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 124,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 169,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 182,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 193,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 279,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 308,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 363,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "First of all, I.A.No.3004/2010 which is an application under Section 100 (5) of CPC for framing the additional substantial question of law will be considered.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 30,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 76,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 83,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Noble's case (supra), Rowlatt J. had to examine the ques- tion whether the item of expenditure concerned in that case was a revenue expenditure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He deposed that there were disputes between him and Desina Papayya (R. W. 2) in respect of the arrack shop at Bommenapalli.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 66,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 122,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Consequently, the complainant had issued Case No. 3014/1 one legal notice dated 10.11.2010 to the accused at the last address available in the records of the complainant which was furnished by the accused himself.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 56,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 90,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court mainly relied on the ratio of the judgment by a three judge bench of this court in ECIL.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There is no obligation on the part of Parliament to make any provision for granting relief to promote new industries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 48,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is a decision, inter alia, in respect of the amount of compensation which should be paid to the person interested in the property acquired; but legally the award cannot be treated as a decision; it is in law an offer or tender of the compensation determined by the Collector to the owner of the property under acquisition.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Statement of Jai Bhagwan was recorded on 10.5.2003 at 11.50 P.M.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The investigation of the present case was entrusted to him by Inspector Harpreet Singh Inspector/SHO (PW-17) on 16.06.2003.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 86,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 122,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this writ petition preferred under article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of the prohibition, prohibiting the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Belgaum Division I (respondent No. 1) from proceeding further with the rectification proceedings pursuant to his notice dated 16th February, 1970.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 78,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 227,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 346,
"end": 365,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On payment of requisite process fee, office is directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.10,000/- against the respondent.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this connection Mr. Bose has referred to the decision in the case of Hurdwary Mull v. Ahmed Musaji Selaji, reported in (1909) 13 Cal WN 63; and he has drawn my attention to clause (o) of the agreement in question in that case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 141,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW-3 admitted that a case FIR No. 19/2010, PS Govind Puri u/s 379/411 IPC for stealing bicycle was lodged by Bimlesh against him but it was after almost three years of incident in question.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 57,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 69,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 73,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He never raised any objec- tion to it and there is nothing on record to show that licensor had retained right to revoke the license.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In support of the same, he referred to Sohan Singh v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 174/23 Taxman 219 (Delhi) and Kirpa Ram Ramji Dass v. ITO [1982] 135 ITR 68/[1980] 3 Taxman 487 (Punj. & Har.) to point out that even under section 148 addition can be made where a concern was held to be benami of the assessee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 98,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 182,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 224,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection reference may be made to Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act which clearly lays down that insurance company could only absolve on certain legal defences as mentioned in Section 96.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 54,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 80,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 199,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As is evident from the record that, the name of Anil Kumar (respondent No.4) was recommended by the field officers i.e. the Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Officer (C).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 58,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this regard, PW7 Amiya Kumar, Chief Manager, National Insurance Company appeared in the witness box.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 31,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 74,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Another defendant's witness, Mahesh Dutt Bhargava, advocate, testifies that there was no danger of any breach of the peace.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 49,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner's case is that they live in Lucknow and they or any one of them visitng the cold storage sometimes in a day or two as and when required and that on 25-10-1990 none of the petitioners was in Itaunja nor were they present when District Horticulture Officer visited the cold storage around noon time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 50,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 173,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 212,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appellants Nos.6,7 and 8 are the partners of Shivam Corporation,which constructed the building.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 63,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So the learned Civil Judge heard the first three issues He found that he had jurisdiction over the suit, & that a fresh opportunity as required by Section 240(8), Government of India Act was necessary to be given to the applt. to show cause against the proposed punishment but was not given.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 147,
"end": 161,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 186,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Taking note of the said conduct, it was observed by Hon'ble Justice S. Murlidhar in para 12 of the said judgement that \"the society ought to have by now placed on record the relevant minutes, if in deed it was available\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 80,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The witness also proved receipt of report U/s 57 NDPS Act on 25.4.2011 qua arrest of accused Pramod as Ex.PW23/D; receipt of report U/s 57 NDPS Act on 18.1.2012 qua arrest of accused Bir Bahadur as Ex.PW23/E; receipt of report U/s 57 NDPS Act on 2.2.2012 qua arrest of accused Dalip Bahera as Ex.PW23/F. \n\n3.18 PW25",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 48,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 57,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 70,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 99,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 138,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 147,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 160,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 194,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 233,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 242,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 254,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 289,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Criminal Appeal No.475 of 2010 preferred by the State is dismissed confirming the findings of the trial court in respect of A.8 to A.10. \n\n____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU __________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO 14- 03-2013",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 30,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 177,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 240,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 252,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The view taken by the majority in A. K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1) was that article 22 is a selfcontained Code, and therefore, a law of preventive detention does not have to satisfy- the requirements of articles 14, 19 and 21.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 70,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 90,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 229,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The bar against the Civil Court entertaining any\tsuit relating to the matters under the Pension Act does not stand in the way of a writ of mandamus being issued to the State to properly consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of pension according to law.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\nORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 217 of 1968.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 100,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 332,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The criticism that the State Government in- cluded certain offences but excluded certain cognate of- fences has been dealt with by my learned brother Mukherjea and I have nothing more to add thereto.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 159,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This being the position, the appellants cannot rely upon the note recorded by the then Minister on 8.6.1999 for pleading before the Court that the Government had taken decision to withdraw from the acquisition of land in question in terms of Section 48(1) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 107,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 255,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is no dispute about the translation of the above Ayat by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 81,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That being the case of the petitioner, it is not open to him, it was argued, to contend that the Gover- nor should have allowed a Council of Ministers to remain in charge of the administration, though it had no right to do so.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Death Reference No. 1 of 1989 will stand disposed of as stated above.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Vide also Narendra v. State, AIR 1956 All 336.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 45,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "SAPPI is a vertically integrated forest products group, its activities ranging from afforestation to production of pulp and paper products.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Rule is against an order dated the 16th May, 1968, passed by Sri A.R. Bhattacharya, Magistrate, 1st Class, Diamond Harbour, 24-Parga-nas discharging the accused in case No. G. R. 359 of 1967 under Section 10 of the West Bengal Gambling and Prize Competitions Act (Act XXXII of 1957), 1957.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 54,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 87,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 195,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 212,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 293,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was discharged from the said hospital on 11.11.2008 at 6:20 PM.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 54,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is averred that the Hon'ble High Court quashed the eviction Regular Civil Appeal No. 137/2012 Page No. 5/30 proceedings in favour of the defendants no. 2 and 3. \n\n11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 96,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is what the Supreme Court said in paragraph 19 of the Report:\n \u2015The Arbitration Act which is a consolidating and amending Act, being substantially in the form of a code relating to arbitration must be construed without any assumption that it was not intended to alter the law relating to appeals.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 30,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 88,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant approached the High Court but later withdrew the application and then once again moved the Sessions Judge, Sangli for bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code on the ground that the investigation had not been completed within 90 days.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 172,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further submitted that independent mind can be applied by the court in determination as to whether the dying declaration can be relied upon or not.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This was a case where an order passed on a member of the fire brigade by an authority in exercise of his disciplinary powers was sought to be quashed by an order of certiorari.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to Dr Sahni PW 8, the death was caused by shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to the brain which was sufficient to. cause death in the ordinary course of nature.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 21,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The definition of a 'political sufferer' being a detailed one and in certain terms, it would be easily possible to distinguish children of such political sufferers from the rest as possessing the criteria laid down by the definition.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In AIR 1979 SC 855, State of Haryana v. Smt Darshan Devi, it is held that \"law must keep the promise to justice\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 56,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They have been held not to be exhaustive of all the remedies which are open to the railway administration, and it has been ruled in Mutsadilal v. Union of India, (S) AIR 1955 Hyd 61 (L), that a suit even after the goods have been delivered is perfectly valid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 185,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "2. The Bank of India Ltd. \n\n3. The Punjab National Bank Ltd. \n\n4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 25,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 60,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case reported in ILR 37 Bom 1, Scott, C. J. held that the obligations of the railway included not only the duty of taking all reasonable precautions to obviate risks but also the duty of taking all proper measures for the protection of the goods when such risks had actually occurred.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 36,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This submission is based on an erroneous assumption that the act of placing an electric line is being performed by the Transmission Company under Section 12 of the Electricity Act, 1910 which is temporarily saved as a transitory provision till the enactments of rules.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 156,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 185,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that a properly drafted complaint supported by the necessary documents and explained by an affidavit under 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed to satisfy the requirement of Section 200 Cr.P.C can certainly induce the requisite satisfaction ordinarily in the mind of the court that there is sufficient ground for proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 145,
"end": 154,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 188,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 236,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 243,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The present case is not one of lack of territorial jurisdiction or pecuniary jurisdiction which may fall in the category described as lack of jurisdiction.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The mother of Manoj Deore was present in the house at Nashik.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 25,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 60,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "First of all they reached 25D, Indra Puri, Ambala, but it was found locked.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 41,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 49,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As already noticed, the entitlement to HRA/CCA arose essentially from G.O. No. ED:67:SRP:89 dated 4.5.1990.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 106,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of Khudiram Kundu v. Surendra Mohan, reported in AIR 1934 Cal 666, his Lordship S. K. Ghose, J., at p. 667 of the report observes :-- \n \"This provision (Section 93 of the Bengal Village Self-Government Act (1919)) however does not affect the powers of the High Court as derived from Section 115, Civil P. C. and Section 107, Government of India Act. 1919.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 77,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 103,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 175,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 224,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 306,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 319,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 335,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 366,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appeal No. 609/09 - Rashid Ansari (Accd. No.14)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 17,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, doctor on duty informed the police.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The fourth respondent Thimmappa was present at the auction but did not bid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 31,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Vs. \nRespondent: State of Kerala and Anr.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 32,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Regina v. Preston Supplementary, [1975] 1 WLR p. 624 at p. 631, it had been held that the Act should be administered with as little technicality as possible.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 55,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He submitted that the Supreme Court has held that the U.P. State Land Development Bank which is registered under the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act is a \u0011State\u0012 within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 35,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 86,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 194,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 214,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Gov- ernment to take a decision in the exercise of its executive power under Art. 162\t of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 89,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is brought to our notice that one M.A. Khyum, who was a Jailor at the relevant time, filed O.A.No. 4083/91 before the very same Tribunal challenging the State Government's letter No.45053/SO.I.a/83-51-Home Department dated 25-5-80 and for quashing the disciplinary proceedings pending against him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 109,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 233,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX- A containing Section 498-A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 87,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The opinion of Chandra Reddi, J., was dissented from by a subsequent Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in Sivarama Krishnan v. Arumugha Mudliar, .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 28,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 147,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Director of Teacher Education shall make arrangements for training through the Principal, D.I.E.T. and issue completion certificate for the short term course.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The assessor was also entitled to interest @ 6.75 per cent from May 1, 1958 till the execution of sale deed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 75,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is indeed to be regretted that the attention of the learned Judges of the High Court was not drawn to this aspcet of the matter and they were not invited to consider the initial question as to whether the approver Banta Singh was a reliable witness at all.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 217,
"end": 228,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of Jamshed Howmusji Wadiav. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai and Anr. , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:\n16.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 81,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This entry found in the concurrent list enables both the Parliament and the States to make laws on mechanically propelled vehicles including the principles on which taxes on such vehicles are to be levied.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 67,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But it yields to the paramount rule that every statute is to be expounded according to its expressed or manifest intention and that all cases within the mischiefs aimed at are, if the language permits, to be held to fall within its remedial influence.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The report C. I. Sri Vakil Ahmad (PW 3) submitted in reply to Ex. P3 which gives these details is exhibited as Ex. P4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 32,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears that a writ petition, No. 986 of 1981, was filed on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court by and on behalf of the pavement dwellers claiming reliefs similar to those claimed in the instant batch of writ petitions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 48,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 105,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is also no dispute that P.S., Mohali falls within the area of district Ropar over which Special Judges, Ropar had jurisdiction as approved by the High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 42,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 82,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The computer system of BPSC was examined by the experts of National Informatics Centre (Bihar State Unit), Government of India, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 27,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 105,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 126,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 180,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Exchequer (Scotland) Lord Justice Clerk distinguished between two kinds of cases-(a) where the owner of an ordinary investment chooses to realise it, and obtains a greater price for it than he originally acquired it at ; and (b) where the act is done not merely as a realisation but in what is truly the carrying on or carrying out, of a business.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Of the five plaintiffs, those numbering 1, 3 and 5 -- Dalim Kumar, Dinendra Kumar and Krishna Kumar, Sains all (the padded way of writing 'Sen') --are the sons of Moti Lall, since deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 65,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 81,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 99,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 172,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Sukh Ram's case to which one of us (Ahmadi. J.) was a party, this Court interferred with the conviction of the appellant recorded with the aid of section 34 by the High Court because on the facts found proved on evidence the conviction of the appellant could not be sustained on the acquittal of the co-accused on the same set of established facts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 45,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 159,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further it is stated that on 07.04.2011, he deputed PSI Sudarshan and another police namely Kumar to Kalkurchi Village at Tamil Nadu State, which is native place of accused No.1 and further he requested the Engineer to draw the sketch of scene of offence and further also requested the BESCOM to give report that on the faithful night, there was electricity in the house of the accused No.1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 39,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 65,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 97,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 110,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 132,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 292,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the impugned judgment in the Civil Appeals the High Court has relied on some observations of this Court in Jaipuria China Clay Mines case (supra) but that case dealt with a different point altogether and as such the observations made in the context of the points that arose for decision there would be of no avail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 135,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The sale or purchase is to be deemed to have taken place in the State, wherever the contract might have been made, if the goods were actually in the State when the contract was made or, if the goods are actually produced in the State, at any time after the contract in respect thereof was made.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff and other legal heirs of Ram Nath succeeded to the Doctor's Lane house only on the death of Satyawati who was the limited estate holder.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 115,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Justice Sadashiva enquinj panel has tbund that 36 persons lost their lives in suspicious encounters, Human tUe is precious and no body is permitted under the law to take it otherwise than in accordance with the procedure established by law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 25,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The main purpose of admission to a medical college is to impart education in the theory and practice of medicine.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Then, request to SC No. 01/01/11 17/42 CMO, MMG Hospital, was made vide application Ex. Pw7/A and other papers Ex. PW17/B and C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 56,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit Railway Administration has referred to Paragraph 925 of Chapter-IX of Indian Railways Permanent Way Manual (hereinafter referred to as \"IRP Manual\") providing for replacement of existing level crossing with ROB/RUB on cost sharing basis is to be made where Minimum Train Vehicle Unit (hereinafter referred to as TVU) on the Railway Crossing is 1 lakh per day.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 106,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 146,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the aforesaid judgment, we accept the the prayer made on behalf of the claimants for considering the case for enhancement of the compensation amount to Rs. 10 lakhs as originally claimed, and accordingly, we examine the matter on merits. \n\n11.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In U.P.S.C. v. S. Papaiah ((1997) 7 SCC 614) the Apex Court held that issuance of notice by C.B.I., to the informant was not a substitute for the notice which was required to be given by the Magistrate in terms of the judgment in Bhagwant Singh's case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 44,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 244,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also sent information of the same to his superior Officers and also sent a requisition to the Taluka Executive Magistrate to hold inquest over the body of the deceased, since the death of the deceased had taken place within 7 years from the date of the marriage.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 124,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of this view, he cited Clay v. Yates 108 E.R. 461 (Vide Benjamin on Sales, 8th Edition, page 159).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 108,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Still further he said that it was Gopal Prasad, respondent 1, who tore the order-sheets, which fact was denied by him when examined in another case in August 1954.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 46,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In regard to the giving and acceptance of Rs. 25/- the prosecution evidence consist of the statement of complainant Sita Ram and his three witnesses viz., Ramesh Chandra Shiv Kumar and Rameshwar apart from the statement of Investigating Officer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 116,
"end": 124,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 180,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 194,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Classifying the statutes which may come up for consideration on a question of its validity under Article 14 of the Constitution in this Court observed under the third class of such statutes thus:\nA statute may not make any classification of the persons or things for the purpose of applying its provisions",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 127,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Assistant Collector of Customs has also held that Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act was applicable and has further held \"The suppression of these facts and changes has resulted in underassessment of your imports from these suppliers.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 70,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 89,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After sometime, the bus of Sai Kripa Travels reached at RTO Barrier, Balsamund and sometime thereafter, the other vehicle of Ashok Travels also came there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 44,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 78,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 138,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the serious allegation made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, I adverted to the allegations made in the petition in Crl.M.P.No.3726 of 2017, which is bereft of such details.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 166,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff and three other defendants submitted a compromise petition in Court on May 15, 1958.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The interpretation placed on Section 41(1) of the Act by the Tribunal appears to me to be so hypertechnical that it rises to the point of being patently erroneous.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This principle has its foundation in the law relating to agency.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter to the High Court for investigating the question whether there was violation of procedure contained in Clause 8(vi)\n\n(a) of the College Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 220,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the findings of the learned Seesions Judge convicting accused appellants No. 2 Sanwal Chand (father-in-law of deceased), No. 4 Bhanwarlal (Jeth of deceased), Chetan Lal (Jeth of deceased), No. 6 Popat Lal (Devar of deceased) and No. 7 Smt. Bagtu (mother in law of deceased) for the offence under Sections 304B and 498A, IPC are liable to be set aside and their appeal deserves to be allowed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 102,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 148,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 179,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 215,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 256,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 329,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 334,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 149 : 1987 Cri LJ 157, the Supreme Court took a note of the fact that in foreign jurisdictions also, where the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time is a constitutionally protected right, the infringement of that right has been held in appropriate cases sufficient to quash a conviction or to stop further proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 70,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further pointed out that the judgment of the Ld. Trail Court is not based on the Jai Kishan Vs. Diwan Singh, CA No. 37/13 Page No. 2 of 15 facts and circumstances of the case but is based on the surmises and conjectures which are not borne out by the evidence on record.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 127,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Kohli's contention is that since the learned Judges of the High Court of Punjab have failed to address themselves to this initial question, their appreciation of the approver's evidence suffers from a serious infirmity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 83,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Virendra v. The State of Punjab (1), S. R. Das, C.J., again reaffirmed this approach.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 38,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 49,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This indicates that the allegations should be such which would constitute an offence under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or under any other law, and therefore, become actionable under the provisions of the Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 130,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The assessee accordingly gave up seventy five percent of its earnings during the aforesaid year of account [April 1, 1947 to December 1, 1947] and disclosed only the remaining twenty five percent amount as its income in its assessment proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 121,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 141,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, it is for the prosecution to prove such circumstances which attribute knowledge of the accused required to prove the offence under Sections 489-A, 489-C and 489-D IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 171,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 175,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has been in politics for the past several years and is aware of the duties and responsibilities as a public servant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the judgment on award matter in Award Case No. 56 of 1952, I pass the following order: There will be no judgment on award.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 60,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The principle that each grant shall be treated as a fresh grant even in respect of the same property and to the members of the family of inamdar, was accepted, and the Supreme Court quoted with approval the law enunciated by the Full Bench of Hyderabad High Court in Ahmad-Un-Nissa case (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 181,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 263,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 281,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(b) All the 56 Interim Orders passed between 22-9-1997 and 30-7-1999 in W.P. Nos. 26353 and 26354 of 1997 are set aside, as having been passed without jurisdiction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 54,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 68,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 105,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, that did not settle the law in the circumstances which are prevailing at present.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In accordance with the conditions imposed by the Government of India, a parallel unit for manufacture of hose clips, namely \"Avalon Fasteners Private Limited\", was established in India within about a period of six months.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 68,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 157,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 184,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "With due respect, there is no violation of the Instructions and circulars of the CBDT.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For facility of reference, we may mention that against the judgment of the Special Court in CC No, 1-8/87, 35 appeals were filed in the High Court by 43 appellants therein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 105,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Out of these witnesses, Thakar Singh, P. W. 1 and Raj Pal P. W. 2, were police constables who were going to Jhabal in the same lorry in plain clothes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 36,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 57,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 114,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The witness was posted from October 1, 1965 as a Senior Scientific Assistant in the research of the Atomic Energy Commission and from December 15, 1965 in the HyPoxia Enquiry and was working under the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 43,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 124,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 151,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence the rule which has been evolved by the Judicial Committee whereby the impugned statute is examined to ascertain its 'pith and substance' or its 'true nature and character,' for the purpose of determining whether it is legislation with respect to matters in this list or in that.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The evidence of DW1 clearly shows that it is the common case of both the accused and the prosecution that accused was a resident of the locality - of the same Laksham Veedu Colony.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This contention was upheld by Tare, J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Aligarh Muslim University (supra) there was a contract amongst the parties and construction work was to be carried out at Aligarh (Uttar Pradesh).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 28,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 132,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 147,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An action is illegal if it is contrary to law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But in Asha v. United India Insurance Company Limited8 the Division Bench of the Supreme Court approved the action of the High Court in deducting L.I.C., society charges, H.B.A. etc.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 54,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 94,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This again is contrary to the holding of the Supreme Court in Kcrala State Electricity Board v. T. P. K., 1976 Ker LT 810 : (AIR 1977 SC 282) that Article 137 applies only to petitions or applications under whatever statute made to a Civil Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 141,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 158,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A letter dated 30.12.1991 was addressed by Sterling to the Divisional Engineer, Madras Telphones, in reply to the query whether they had been entrusted with the printing and supply of telephone directories, saying \"Much as we would like to provide you a copy of the order of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. we are unable to do so due to certain circumstances beyond our control.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 25,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 86,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 305,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Substance of accusation to be stated When in a summons-case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mellore J. referred to the rule as correctly stated in Corner's Crown Practice thus: \n \"The relator must not be disqualified by having acquiesced or concurred in the act which he comes to complain of, or in similar acts at former elections\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sri Papanna, learned counsel for the Corporation, however, submitted that the two provisions, namely, Sections 68 and 85B of the Act, covered entirely different circumstances.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 121,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In TNPID Act, the competent authority has been assigned specific role to be performed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1887) 38 Ch D 1, the delay was fourteen years from 1871, the year of the settlement, to 1885, the year in which the action was brought, and in the Bonhotte case, 1895-1 Ch 743, the delay was as much, from July 15, 1880, the date of the voluntary settlement, to August 1894, when the plaintiffs issued the writ in their action.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 148,
"end": 156,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 219,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the charge of causing cruelty to the deceased, the trial Court held that the evidence on record proved the prosecution case against accused no.1, of causing mental cruelty to the deceased.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to Sharma, Patel entered his chamber at the Police Station at 8.45 p.m. on 25.9. 1989 in a drunken state, shouting and abusing him, he caught hold of Sharma and slapped him, since he was violent he was arrested, hand- cuffed and sent to Hospital for medical examination.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 95,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 166,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Later, a stomach pump was forcibly used to extract from his stomach what were found to be narcotic pills.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Lastly he submitted that the High Court committed an error in brushing aside the statement made by PW 1 Komal Chand in his cross-examination which went to show that his evidence regarding identity of the appellant was highly suspect.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 115,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question of good faith cannot be decided on such irrelevant considerations such as late payment of procees fees or late payment of paper book costs, when this Court had condoned the default.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Only on the basis of the said opinion given by two Doctors, who conducted post-mortem, viz., Dr. P.R. Subramanian and P.W.9 Dr. Gandhi, P.W.14 thereupon added Section 302 I.P.C. and sent the alteration report to the court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 113,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 134,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 170,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 177,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts about the City Exchange urged and fresh evidence were decisive of a prima\t facie case for issuing process and it was an exceptional circumstance\tjustifying entertaining the second complaint and not\tto permit the trial of the case in such circumstances would be a denial of justice.\n Kumariah v. C. Naicker, A.I.R. 1946 Mad, 167 and Ramanand v. Sheri,\t I.L.R.\t 1. 56\t All 425,\nreferred to.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 312,
"end": 357,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 380,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ex.B157 was presented by my father before (he Division Bench in OSA No.3 of 1990.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On a pure grammatical construction of sub-section (4) of Section 32, it cannot be said that on the appointment of an authorised controller the industrial undertaking acquires the status of being engaged in any industry carried on under the authority of the department of the Central Government. \n\nFood Corporation of India,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 293,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 322,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But in a case of enhancement of sentence, the question of sentence is for consideration in both the matters viz. the earlier appeal against conviction and the subsequent revision application.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We allow the appeal in the manner indicated.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned Judges there relied upon the decision in Ashworth v.Munn(6) in addition to the opinion of Telang J., I and also referred to the decision Gray v. Smith(7) in coming' to a conclusion contrary to the one in the earlier case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 71,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 108,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 165,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the above discussion, it is held that the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence, Crl. Appeal No. 363-SB of 1992 --20-- rendered by the trial Court, are based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 134,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even as the guilt of an accused may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of the accused person may be established on the testimony of the single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The first appellant, Jyoti Basu, is the Chief Minister and appellants two and three Budhadeb Bhattacharya and Hashim Abdul Halim, are two Ministers of the Government of West Bengal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 105,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 128,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 180,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh (AIR 1960 SC 1168) the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court interfering with the order of the Deputy Custodian General.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 55,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "it is reasonable to think however that the petitioners must have discovered their mistake as soon as the High Court's decision in the case of Mohammad Siddique v. The State of Madhya Pradesh dated January 17, 1956 became known to them'",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 190,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 213,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No sum in excess of the monthly lease rental or the monthly hire-purchase payment has been received.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was submitted that so far as the activities of the department which can be held to be analogous to the trade and business are now being carried on by different corporate bodies, like, Bihar State Agro Industries Development Corporation Bihar State Seed Corporation, Bihar State Fruits and Vegetables Development Corporation",
"entities": [
{
"start": 187,
"end": 267,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 326,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The objections or suggestions in respect of the draft rules could thus be submitted up to September 21, 1990.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 108,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In C.C.11/1998, the third accused Prabhakaran, S/o.Sivaraman was impersonated as Divakaran, S/o.Velayudhan, Arakkal Veedu, Thiruvarpu, Kottayam.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 14,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 45,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 106,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 121,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 133,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 143,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In any view of the matter, on the authority of Hemanta Kumar v. S. N. Mukherjee, 58 Cal WN 1: (AIR 1954 Cal 340) and Damo-dhar Valley Corporation v. Provat Roy (1956) 60 Cal WN 1023, I hold that the order must be held to be effective from 14-9-1964, if not from 8-9-1964.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 112,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 181,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 248,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 270,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "M. R. Agnihotri, J. focussed that the point for determination was whether the Board is duty bound to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ravinder Kumar Sharma's case (1986 Lab IC 2076) in case of Ashok Kumar Sehgal and other writ petitioners in other cases and all other employees similarly situated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 144,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 169,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 194,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 225,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We deem it necessary to clarify the legal position and lay down the procedure to be followed as under:\n (1) Section 149 of Code of Civil Procedure is a proviso to Section 4 of the Tamilnadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 119,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 146,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 172,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 230,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused Anuj Chandra filed an application U/s 315 of the Code for producing himself as a defence witness.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 53,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I follow the ratio of the said judgment in Chitra Mukherjee's case (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These two decisions, in our opinion, provide sufficient guidelines for determining the controversy which has arisen before us in this matter.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "To illustrate, in the case of Dr. Ambedkar Medical College, it has earmarked 20 seats for persons belonging to Scheduled Caste.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 58,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whether the Rent Act is applicable or not is a pure question of law and if subsequently a decision is taken by the High Court that the Rent Act is applicable, naturally fresh application for determining the standard rent on merits is always maintainable and the KPP -37- WP Nos. 795 of 2002 & 789 of 2003 Supreme Court",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 20,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 143,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 304,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 318,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This discrepancy has been explained by Bal Kishan Draftsman (PW 9), whose evidence shows that the level of the courtyard of Labh Singh's house was higher than the ground outside.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 59,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 134,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Testimony of witnesses are broadly consistent as regards injuries sustained by PW-3 and PW-4 caused by the accused persons.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In fact, if one were to accept that the amount became bad debt immediately on its payment to M/s. Basu Associates one has no option but also to accept that the moment of giving the guarantee itself the amount had become bad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 113,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In C.A. No. of 1993 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17484 of 1991) Union of India v. Mohammed Naimulla, the respondent was working as an electrical fitter.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 19,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 101,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In such circumstance, if PW8 Ritu Gupta was having any information, as disclosed by PW16 Raj Kumar Gupta that dead body resembling Sanjay Gupta was lying near Gang Nahar, then certainly, this could have been disclosed in the missing report but it seems that either she has concealed this information or she did not receive any such information from PW 16 Raj Kumar Gupta.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 39,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 104,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 143,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 370,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Rajinder Kumar Sharma &Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors., 155 (2008) Delhi Law Times 383 the court observed;\n \"Section 25B was inserted by the legislature in Delhi Rent Control Act as a special provision for eviction of the tenants in respect of specified category of cases as provided therein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 84,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 118,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 176,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The conviction of Poona Ram is also altered to one Under Section 304, Part-II read with 149 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 91,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 95,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1) Whether the writ petitioner association has any locus standi to maintain the writ application? (2) Whether Anglo Indian community is a minority community within the meaning of clause (1) of Art. 30 of the Constitution? (3) Whether clauses 11, 15 and proviso to clause 24(f) are ultra vires of clause (1) of Art. 30 of the Constitution of India?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 180,
"end": 201,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 221,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 249,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 277,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 318,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 347,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Legislature enacted the law to delegate the power to make rules.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The aspect that these two witnesses have flatly denied the involvement of the accused persons, therefore, the testimony of these two witnesses weighs heavily in favour of the accused persons and as such the testimony of PW\u00ad2 as required to be ignored is not an acceptable argument.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "What difference would it then make as to what is the religion professed by the neglected wife, child or parent ?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This question has been considered by Natarajan, J., himself and the learned Judge has pointed out that the Wakf Board is empowered to step into the shoes of the manager and therefore will come within the scope of the third column of Article 96 of the new Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 46,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 243,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2007 SC 637 and AIR 1969 SC 1238.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 85,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 106,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If we venture to evaluate the evidence and decide whether the appellant could be convicted under Section 304-B I.P.C., the same will result in miscarriage of justice, as he was not given a chance to defend himself concerning that charge, as held by the Apex Court in the above decision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 110,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 117,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 263,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This sounds probable in the circumstances wherein right hand of the accused No.1 Amjad was fractured and made defunct in the assault leaving no option but to use his left hand.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 86,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "K. Jagannathan (PW-211) and another person belonging to LTTE helped him and also came with them up to Bangalore and a house was arranged in Bangalore through K. Jagannathan (PW-211).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 111,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 149,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 172,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We shall, therefore, have a look at the said evidence to see whether the two courts are justified or not in taking the view that the appellant Suresh Bahri had a strong motive to hatch a conspiracy with the assistance of the other two appellants, namely, Raj Pal Sharma and Gurbachan Singh to commit the murder of his wife and the two children.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 155,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 269,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 289,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 169,
"end": 181,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 212,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The imports, therefore, were the effect or the legal consequence of the \"things done\", i.e., the contracts entered into by the petitioners with the foreign dealers\". \n\nW.A.No.91 of 2011 - 26 -",
"entities": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 185,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Moreover, in my view, if Sections 81, 79(f), 67 and 67A were read together, it was impossible to come to the conclusion that the period of limitation for an election petition would start from the date of publication of the result in the Official Gazette.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 55,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 17 of the Act provides for immunity for officers and members of trade unions from punishment under Sub-section (2) of of Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in respect of agreement made between member? of the trade union for furthering the objects of the trade unions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 142,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 167,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Keeping the above principles in mind, the factors of age of the prosecutrix PW 2 Monika has to be seen.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 87,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So, under Section 2(c), a court for the purpose of the Arbitration Act is a civil court having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of a reference.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 22,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 70,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Rebello referred to the International Convention on a Civil Liability for oil pollution, Brussels which requires compulsory insurance.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 101,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even if the Corporation had agreed to consider the petitioner's request not to invoke the bank-guarantees till all its claims relating to other contracts are settled, the agreement was only to consider the said request, and nothing more.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the same case, Lord Justice Salmon indicated that the test to be applied is that of \"an ordinary child\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this Bombay case, the question was, whether the suit was barred by limitation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 14,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26.2.1998 of 1st Additional District Judge. Ballia.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 76,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 117,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The police constable on duty informed the Taluka police\tstation and the Head Constable made an entry in\t the police station diary, and another Head Constable went to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased in\t the early hours.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 63,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, petitioner-Bipin Panchal had preferred Special Leave Petition No. 1402 of 1994 before the Apex Court and the same was also rejected.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 36,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 90,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 112,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PATANJALI SASTRI C.J.- I agree with the judgment just delivered by my learned brother Das and I have nothing to add. \n\n MUKHERJEA J.--In my opinion this application should be dismissed and I deem it proper to state succinctly my own views on the questions that have been raised in the case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 89,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 129,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The authority is not only to add to the provision or vary the provision but even repeal the provision.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "[352F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2422 of 1989.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 80,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They were not charged with that formally, but they were tried on evidence which brings the case under section 237\". \n\n(1) 11925] L.R. 52 I.A. 191. \n\nFinally, we come to sections 535 and 537 of the Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 113,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 189,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ex.D1W6/7 is the copy of affidavit of defendant No.1 Mohd.Arafin to the effect that he was the proprietor of M/s Seema Lodge, situated in premises No.3745, Churiwalan, Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 64,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 124,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 166,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 173,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The constables who had taken the skeleton to B.H.U., Varanasi, were not examined and link evidence is missing.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 51,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 61,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If there is no evidence on record except the signature of the accused in file, prima facie to prove the factum of conspiracy, and there is no evidence to prima facie suggest that the signature was made by the accused in reference to the common design of the conspirator after it was first entertained.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We find ourselves unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Samdani that Section 56(a)(i) is provision of exception and/or deeming fiction and by reason of deeming fiction under Section 56(a)(i) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the meaning which is assigned to \"banking company\" in Section 5(c) is not altered or intended to be altered.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 68,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 90,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 195,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 227,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 295,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been held in AIR (1952 SC 181 (B) :",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 40,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ram Kumar Yadav versus Secretary to Govt & ors AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.16277 /2013 Kuldeep Singh versus Secretary to Govt. & ors AND SB Civil Writ Petition No.16278/2013 Om Prakash & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 90,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 178,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 227,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "purchases, by delivery of shipping documents while the goods are on the high seas on their import journey",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, PW.22 proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made arrangements to shift the body to Sidlaghatta Hospital.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 115,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also mentioned that Ramakanta Paul (PW-10), Prabir Biswas (PW-12), Nilai Das (PW-3), Benu Ranjan Dhupi (PW-11), Sujit Das, Subrata Das, Rajesh Das were in the boat along with his brother while crossing the river (d)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 37,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 60,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 79,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 105,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 124,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 137,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 149,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The manufacturer issued a certificate under Form 22A specifying the pollution standards.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It can no way be a legal gratification, but a gratification other than legal which would come under Section 7 of the PC Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 109,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 123,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is clear that the minors earned interest primarily and substantially by reason of the fact that they deposited moneys in the firm.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\"Procedure established by law\" does not end with the pronouncement of sentence; it includes the carrying out of sentence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Even the presence of Jagsir was not alleged at or near the house of Gurjeet Kaur (PW3), therefore, the conviction and sentence of Jagsir (appellant No.3) for the offence punishable under Criminal Appeal No.S-337-SB of 2001 {11} Section 436 read with Section 34, IPC, is not sustainable and is set aside.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 80,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 136,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 222,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 260,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 265,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, the observation of the AO that certain flats were left as closing stock as on 31.3.2008 is not a relevant factor for deciding the eligibility of the assessee for deduction u/s. 80IB(10).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 96,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 194,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The repeal without saving such right means that such woman had never acquired such right and that right now cannot be enforced under Section 125(3) of the Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 133,
"end": 147,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It follows, therefore, that neither the American decisions, nor the understanding by the Courts of that country as to what a duty of excise connotes can be of any utility for deciding the content of that entry in the Indian Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 217,
"end": 236,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On February 3, 1970 an advertisement was published in the Government Gazette to the effect that the Haryana Public Service Commission will hold an examination for recruitment of candidates for 15 vacancies in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 19,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 133,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 234,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To prove its case, the complainant examined Sh.Ajay Srivastav, Assistant General Manager, SEBI as PW1 and Sh.Nilender Kumar Choudhary, Audit Assistant as PW2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 61,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 94,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 133,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "the fa t. that she died under circumstances otherwise than nonnal and that the appellant herein Wa\" restdi.ng with her in 1 it.. house goes to show that it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But it makes no difference because on this point the Legislative lists under the Government of India Act make the same provision as the Legislative Lists in the Constitution,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 104,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 173,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The validity of the Act was again challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground that the Ceiling Act of 1961 having been declared void under Article 13(2) of the Constitution, the legislation was void ab initio and it was effaced from the Statute Book, it could not therefore be enforced or made operative merely by constitutional amendment without re-enacting the provisions of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 69,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 158,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 178,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was however, submitted by Shri Sanghi that there was no existing public purpose for which the acquisition could have been made.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was a bachelor aged 29 and he was residing with his sister Anushila Devi (PW-9) in an apartment situated on the Westen Street which was re-christened as Banbuk Gali.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 75,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "3) Shri Surendra Singh Sunda, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the sole basis on which the appellant has been convicted; is the dying declaration of her daughter-in-law i.e. deceased-Smt.Basanti.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 211,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Jadavji Modi and respondents I (a) to I (g) filed separate appeals in the Gujarat High Court from the Judgment of t he Tribunal, being First Appeals Nos. 1202 of 1969 and 696 of 1971 respectively.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 92,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 182,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has also come on record that during the period from April/May 2006 to November 2007, 11 SIM cards were purchased on fake names and identities from Jamatara & Mihijam, out of which two were used in Ajmer blast case and the appellant admitted in his statements, his going to Mihijam & Shabridham during that time but had not disclosed the purpose.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 158,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 168,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 205,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 283,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 296,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further pleaded that in the year 1959, he came in the service of Central Excise Department and his first posting was made at Sagar.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The other cases that take the same view are Megha Ram v. Makhan Lal, 67 Pun Re 1912: 130 Pun Re 1916: (AIR 1917 Lah 135); Kaju Mal v. Salig Ram, 91 Pun Re 1919: (AIR 1919 Lah 222 (2)); Ganda Singh v. Bhan, AIR 1923 Lah 310, and Hazari v. Neki, L. P. A. No. 13 of 1965, dated 27-7-1965: (AIR 1966 Punj 348).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 120,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 182,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 222,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 267,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 284,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No oral evidence was adduced by the insurance company; however, it marked true copy of the insurance policy as Exh. B-1.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "- (1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt - (a) where the order or decision is that of a Single Judge to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court; (b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench to the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 309,
"end": 322,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was argued that there was o real emergency and yet the proclamation remained unretracted with consequential peril fundamental rights.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It can, however, only be used as a previous statement for the purpose of either corroborating its maker under Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act or for contradicting him under Section 145 of that Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 121,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 191,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before we go to the next provision under which the appellant is liable to be convicted, we shall deal with the contention of Mr. Shanti Bhushan, appearing for the appellant Shaukat, which becomes relevant in the case of Afzal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 143,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 180,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 225,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Indeed on the respondents own affidavits it is not open to them to say that they hope that it may be possible in future to make a profit on export of sugar.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After return to Madhuban on 14.11.2006, he returned the mobile to Karan Singh and received his mobile from Karan Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 24,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 38,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 118,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The prosecution to prove its case brought into the witness box, Dr. Krishan Gopal PW1, Amar Singh PW2, Gurdev Singh PW3, Mukhtiar Singh PW4, Karnail Singh PW5, Jangir Singh PW6, Sukhdev Singh PW7, Surjit Kaur PW8, Bikkar Singh PW9, Harcharanjit Singh PW10, Chamkaur Singh PW11, HC Ajaib Singh PW12, ASI Darshan Singh PW13, SI Sarabjit Rai PW14, C. Davinder Pal Singh PW15 and Sukhvinder Pal Singh PW16.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 81,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 97,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 115,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 135,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 154,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 172,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 191,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 208,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 226,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 250,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 271,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 292,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 316,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 338,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 366,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 376,
"end": 396,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., it was held thus :-\n 7.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 86,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Rajasthan, setting aside decree for recovery of damages under the Patel Accidents Act, 1855 hereinafter referred to as the Navneetlal was a resident of Udaipur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 179,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 247,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We observe that the submissions of the appellants have a strong force.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "21. 6 MW- 121 Smt, Nallamma wfe of Doreswarny Vodakehalla Kollegal Taluk, 22",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 27,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also obvious that this averment is based on and expressly refers to the covenant in the lease which required the defendant On expiry of the lease to deliver vacant and peaceful possession to the plaintiff",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In cases of theft detected from 14th December 2005 onwards, assessment by the licensee will be made as per the provisions Page 1328 contained in Regulation 7.6.5 of the State Electricity Supply Code as amended with effect from 14th December 2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 161,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 198,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 245,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Admittedly, present complaint was not filed by either of them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There are 7 Medical Colleges in the State of U.P., to which admission is granted on the basis of the result of a 'Combined Pre-Medical Test' which is held in pursuance of the orders passed by the State Government under section 8 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 49,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 228,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 269,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the third set of CWP Nos. 7317 of 1989 and 9544 of 1992, the facts in CWP No. 7317 of 1989 may be stated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 58,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 93,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of her submission Mrs. Joshi relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, reported at (2006)10 SCC 681. \n 7.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 80,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 159,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The formula adopted by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarla Varma's case (supra) was considered by a Three Judges' Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Reshmakumari v. Madan Mohan (2013(2) KLT 304 (SC) and approved the same, summarising the formula to be adopted, in paragraph 40 of the decision as follows :\n \"40.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 153,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 206,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, Sri Shekhara Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Decision in Jhamandas's case and the Decision of this Court in Manikchand Joshi's case would apply on all fours to the facts of this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 115,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 173,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Proceeding further, the Court held : \"The term 'authorities' occurring, in Art. 12 could only mean a person or a group of persons who exercise the legislative or executive functions of a State or through whom or through the (1) A.1,R. 1954 Mad.67. \n\n(2) A.T.R. 1964 Mysore 6. \n\n instrumentality of whom the State exercise its legislative or executive power.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was contended by Mr. Agarwal that a bona fide dispute had been raised by the petitioner and, therefore, the Board could not press into service the provisions of Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 for purpose of disconnceting electricity at the premises of the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 31,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 174,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 210,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Police put the mobile number of Sanjay on surveillance and it was found that though his mobile number was not working, but his mobile set with IMEI no.35565005977470 had started working with new number i.e. 989733946.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "65.The Public Prosecutor conducts the prosecution whereas a victim ventilates his grievance.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Relying upon the aforesaid two decisions of Jharkhand High Court, learned senior advocate Mr. Thakore submitted that High Court can deny the benefit under Section 17B to the workman during the pendency of petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 101,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 166,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the light of the aforesaid relevant entries, as they stood then, a Constitution Bench of this court in The Gujarat University, Ahmedabad vs. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar & Ors., 1963 Suppl.(1) SCR 112, speaking through J.C.Shah, J., for the majority, had to consider whether the State Legislature could impose an exclusive medium of instruction Gujarati for the students who had to study and take examination conducted by the Gujarat University.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 202,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 229,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 428,
"end": 446,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This argument seems to have found favour with the learned Judges in AIR 1938 All 217 (FB) (A).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 94,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though this legal position is well established by a long series of decisions of this Court, we have considered it necessary to reiterate it in view of the manifestly erroneous approach made by the High Court to the consideration of the question as to whether the impugned clause (3) of Regulation 104 is ultra vires.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 272,
"end": 300,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus it was decided to conduct preliminary inquiry in to the matter.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We are, therefore, of the view that the Chief Justice of India acted under a misconception of the true constitutional position when he recommended the appointment of O. N. Vohra, S. N. Kumar and S. B. Wad for a period of six months and the Central Government was also in error in appointing them only for a period of three months.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 62,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 177,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 190,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 204,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 258,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this view, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the appellate decision of the Division Bench appointing DIG, CBI to inquire into the matter would not be open to attack for want of sanction under Section 6 of the Act.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 129,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 221,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They are :\n1. Bajaj Electricals Limited, Bombay. \n\n2. Crompton Parkinson Ltd., London. \n\n3. N. V. Philips, Eindhoven (Holland). \n\n4. General Electric Co. Ltd., London. \n\n5. Mazda Lamp Co. Ltd., Liecester, England. \n\n4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 39,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 47,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 77,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 85,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 105,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 116,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 125,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 158,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 166,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 192,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 203,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 212,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It does not entitle the appellate court to let in fresh evidence only for the purposes of pronouncement of judgment in a particular way.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "26. PW20 who has worked as Deputy Manager in Canara Bank, Lalbagh West Branch, has admitted in his cross-examination that number of Cheques issued by M/s.Tirumalas were also honoured.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 56,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 65,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 163,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court after discussing in detail the law on passing off action granted injunction in favor of the plaintiff despite the fact that the same trade mark was being used for different goods.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Rule 14(b), as it stood prior to amendment contained only Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 89,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Joint Secretary (Management Cell), Road Construction Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n 4. The Secretary, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 126,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 133,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 225,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 232,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Commissioner having held in favour of the applicants/appellants awarded compensation, but the High Court having held in favour of the applicants in all respects had, however, excluded the liability of the Insurance Company on the ground that the contention of deemed transfer of the insurance policy in favour of Jeeva Rathna Setty by virtue of Section 157 of M.V. Act was not actually urged before the Commissioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 325,
"end": 343,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 368,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 372,
"end": 380,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In my view, therefore, the observations relied on cannot be read out of context.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the bye laws of Mission/Society, which is called \"Memorandum of Association\" submitted to Registrar along with registration on 2nd July, 1945, it was mentioned that the name and cadre of society is \"Guru Shree Ram Chandra Ji, Fatehgarh, U.P.\" who was founder of Sahaj Marg system of attaining spiritual perfection but the society is being founded by Mahatma Ram Chandra Ji of Shahjahanpur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 227,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 238,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 244,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 375,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 391,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per statement of (PW3) Praveen, the issue arose between accused appellant No.1 - Rajkumar Kushwaha and deceased Pankaj Panchal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 33,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 101,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 129,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under O. XXI. r. 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the executing court may order that any property attached by it and liable to sale or such portion thereof as may seem necessary to satisfy the decree shall be sold.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 19,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 50,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In C.A. 933 of 1975 the respondent has been re-employed by the appellant although in his case also we declare, for reasons already given and subject to the same term till his absorption that the retrenchment is invalid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 19,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Alka, the other sister of Mukesh was married to the appellant who was unemployed for the last 2-3 years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 4,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 26,
"end": 32,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But, on the special facts relating to these components carrying electricity, they held that it was an exceptional case where the Commissioners were right in taking each component separately as each was serving a different purpose and held that each of them was not plant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But the enforcement of such rules is a matter between the Government and the management, and a third party, Hr such as a teacher aggrieved by some order of the manage- ment, cannot derive from the rules any enforceable right against the management on the ground of a breach or non compliance of any of the rules.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The two leading decisions are 8 Beng LR 433, a decision of this Court given in 1872 and ILR 35 Mad 1, a decision of the Madras High Court, given in 1910.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 137,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Per : A. B. Chaudhari, J.)\n\n\n 1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 22,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Announced in the open court (M.P. SINGH) Dated: 13.03.2014 SCJ/RC (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 39,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 58,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 98,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In recent times, an unhealthy practice has grown up among the members of the Bar to come out with affidavits in support of their clients even without the clients themselves filing affidavits setting out the facts.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But sub-section (1A) declared that such consequence should not ensue and that though the conditions specified in sub-section (1)(a) were not fulfilled and though the period of eight years had expired before issue of notice, assessment in respect of those assessment years should be liable to be reopened if certain other conditions were fulfilled and notice was issued before 31st March, 1956.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 20,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 131,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 376,
"end": 392,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, it is maintained that the infirmity, which was pointed out by the Supreme Court decision in AIR 1967 SC 1616 (supra), still persists.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 119,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not that the powers which are to be exercised without regard to the period of limitation are concurrent with those specified in Sections 11 and 11A of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 153,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A counter-affidavit has been filed by the opposite party stating that he is the Secretary of the Mirza Ghalib College Council, and not the Secretary of any committee appointed by the Council, and he has highest regard for this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 125,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 129 of the IT Act provides that in such cases the succeeding Officer may continue the proceeding from the stage at which the proceeding was left by his predecessor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 19,
"end": 25,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Lastly, reliance is placed on the passages occurring at pages 5, 78, 35, 48, 49, 57, 68, 50, 63, 80, 81, 82, 83, 89, 91, 148, 149, 156, 189, 220 and 221 as showing that a political assassination in such circumstances is justified and praise worthy and that even bloody action of revenge against Pakistan and against those who are Pakistanis at heart is justified and would be praiseworthy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 295,
"end": 303,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The opponent No. 9 Manohar is an ordinary shareholder of the Company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 26,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pleadings in these cases are, to a certain extent, repetitive and therefore, I will encapsulate the contentions taken up by the petitioners and the respondents, to understand the issues.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(xv) Fire arm wound of exit on left shoulder belt back, 9.1 cm. away from midline, 1.4 cm. x 1.3 cm. inverted margins.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In any event, like the decision in K. R. Nagappan (supra) this case also related to section 21 of the NDPS Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 110,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Soli J. Sorabjee for the Appellant in CA 2603/80.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our law there are no specific provisions as to strikes or picketing or molestation or watching and besetting etc.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "With respect to the second charge of irregularities in his official duties, the petitioner complains that when he wanted to cross-examine all the five witnesses two of them viz., Sundararn and Subrah-inanyam Sastry, were no; produced for cross-examination, nor any reasons assigned therefor and that a fresh witness, Simhadri, was examined without previous notice to him, which deprived him of an opportunity to effectively cross-examine him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 179,
"end": 188,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 214,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 325,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 taking the preliminary objections that in case the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident the respondent No.1 would not be liable to pay any compensation, nor if it is proved that the accident had occurred due to the petitioner's own fault.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 04.01.2014, the prosecutrix along with companion Karishma and Purti @ Muskan had gone to the school usually at 10:00 a.m. as she was student of Class-III standard.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 79,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Coming now to the notification No. 6822-J, dated 20-12-49 accepting the resignation of Mr. N. C. Basu, it states as follows: \n \"The Governor has been pleased to accept with effect from 16-12-1949, the resignation tendered by Sri Narayan Chandra Basu from membership of the Special Tribunal constituted by the Government of India, War Department Notification No. 1322 dated 23-9 1943, as subsequently amended.\" \n 79.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 57,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 101,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 196,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 250,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 329,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 383,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Applying a multiplier of 18, chosen by the commission, the total amount payable to the claimants comes to Rs.6,48,000/-.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Needless to emphasise that it is for Parliament to enact any law without infringing any of the provisions of the Constitution and within its legislative competence depending upon the need for such enactment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 125,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On behalf of the State, reliance is placed on (1) Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil and Another V. State of Maharashtra and others 1996(6) SCC 405 (2) Union of India and others v. M.V. Valliappan and others AIR 1999 SC 2526 (3) R.K. Garg V. Union of India and others AIR 1981(4) SCC 675 (4) Kandige Sham Bhat and Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 144,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 217,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 280,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 302,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(iv) Because, Indore Development Authority was to act according to directions contained in letter of 26-9-1997.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 42,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 110,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Company carries on business of financing purchases of motor vehicles on the security of those vehicles.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There were a number of complaints against the plaintiff, when he was the Principal of the Ranchi College, and the Bihar University had requested the Government to recall him from the University service.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 104,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 130,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It could be challenged only before the Supreme Court in an appeal from the final decree.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The proceeding was conducted in presence of Anupam Shukla (PW-2) and Upendra Prasad Gupta (PW-7).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 57,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 89,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was treated at Magadh Hospital, Patna.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 33,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 40,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, the Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State, tendered into evidence PX, report of the Chemical Examiner, and closed the same.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Article 12 of the Constitution provides an inclusive definition of the term 'State' by saying:\n \"In this part, unless the context otherwise requires, 'the State' includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the State Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 30,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 209,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 336,
"end": 341,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 389,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Notices of demand were issued by the Plaintiff on 22nd November 2005 and on 7th April 2006.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 68,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 90,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One envelope through which notice was sent at her Vijay Enclave address has been returned undelivered and the same is available on file.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "V.K. SHALI, J. \n\nDecember 22, 2009 KP",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 34,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Neither the Additional Superintendent, nor subsequently the Deputy Inspector General nor the Inspector General cared to enunciate this \"normal behaviour\" towards the flag, any departure from which might, according to the Inspector General even render an officer liable to dismissal from service for the offence of allowing the honour of the Flag to be \"besmirched\", to quote his own word.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of A.P. Aggarwal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and another26 (para 10 & 11); Guman Singh (supra) and of this Court in the case of M/s Neogy & Sons. and others vs. State of M.P. and others27 (para 6 & 8 to 10). \n\n21.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 139,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 181,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 282,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In his confession Arivu (A-18) described N. Vasantha Kumar (PW-75) as his partner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 23,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 58,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of these allegations and irregularities, petitioners' stock of ornaments was seized under Section 66 of the Gold Control Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 132,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By their letter No. 62/22/56 SR 11 dated April 3, 1957 (Annexure R-I of the counter-affidavit) the Government of India informed the State Governments that they had decided that the work of integration of services should be dealt with by the State Governments in the light of general principles already decided in the meeting of the Chief Secretaries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 54,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 118,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(10) The FSL Report (Ex.PXX) is dated 09.06.2003.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 12,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "14) One H.V.Kumar is examined as DW2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 17,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is sub-Article (4) which makes the appointment of a person other than a member of the Legislature of the State as a Minister permissible, but it stipulates that a Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 21,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appeal is directed against the order dated 02.02.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in IT (SS) A No. 172/Del/2005 and pertains to the block period 01.04.1999 to 06.07.2000.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 57,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 101,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 131,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 175,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 189,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Petitioner has filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, praying to award compensation of Rupees 4,00,000/- with current interest and costs. \n\n 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 101,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 127,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Said samples were sent to the Chemical examiner.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "therefore, of the opinion that the observations of Kanhaiya Singh, J. lend no support to the contention of Mr. Pandey.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 65,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 117,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To a person who has disclosed the source of acquisition of the Bonds, these immunities are of no use.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The appeal was allowed on 22.1.1996, wherein it was held that the first respondent had validly obtained a decree in respect of the suit property and that Rajapandian cannot be said to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, since the sale in his favour is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 35,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 165,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Government of India purchased these articles and paid the price by cheques on the Bombay branch of the Reserve Bank of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 23,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 128,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "MADAN LAL KAUSHIK .....Appellant Through: Mr. Randhir Jain, Advocate",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 17,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 111,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Decisions of the Supreme Court are authoritative, more so when High Courts have to deal with the same statute.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 30,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There could be no mixing up of the two.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Achyut v. Regional Transport Officer, , the Apex Court held that despite publication of a scheme under Section 68-C of the 1939 Act proposing to nationalise contract carriage service would not be an impediment for grant of permits under Section 63(6) thereof in respect of the routes covered by the scheme.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 39,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 118,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 253,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There she found appellant Arun but not Sadhana.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Instead of referring to the other Decisions on which reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the defendant we may refer to the decision in Lakshmi Narayan's case because it refers to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and also of the Federal Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 161,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 232,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On October 3, 1991, more than a, year prior to the date of expiry of the lease, TISCO applied for a second renewal under Section 8(3) of the Act for a further period of 20 years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 85,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 133,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By order dated September 10, 1987, this Court stayed further proceedings in the suit filed by Renusagar in the Mirzapur Court and the stay was to remain in operation during the pendency of the petition filed by General Electric for enforcement of the award.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 33,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 125,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court has not recorded any finding to the effect that the electricity board authorities were negligent in performance of their duty and further held that in view of the earlier dismissal of the suit, the subsequent writ petition would not be maintainable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Does the key word 'vest' connote and denote divergent things in the same section and Act visa vis Government and the Gaon Sabha?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor should satisfy viz.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Respondent No.9-Rajiv Marriage Palace too filed a reply inter- alia stating that the venue had not been formally inaugurated till the time the incident occurred and it was only because the school was serving a social cause that the venue was offered to them without charging a single penny in consideration thereof.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 37,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the orders of DIG, Anti Terrorist Squad (for short ATS), a team of ATS headed by Sub Inspector Ritesh Sahu (PW-21) was constituted to proceed on the directions of Superintendent of Police, Narsinghpur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 109,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 203,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These regulations are framed to carry out the purposes of the Medical Council Act and for various purposes mentioned in Section 33.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 81,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 130,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "DW 2 further stated that on 13th June, 2010 Om Prakash and Suraj came to him at 11 pm.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 43,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 64,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After reaching the spot, police part was briefed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There are times when commitment to the values of the Constitution and performance of the constitutional role as guardian of fundamental rights demands dismissal of the usual judicial deference to legislative judgment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is submitted that as the effect of death and deletion of name of appellant no.1(2) Murarilal was never considered and as the appeal had already stood abated, therefore, any order passed on earlier occasion would not apply as res judicata.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 95,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The relevant facts, as per the evidence adduced and the First Information Report, are that on 26-02-1999, the deceased couple, namely, Vikas Nanda (D-1, age 26 years) and Kavita Nanda @ Priya Nanda (D-2, age 23 years), arrived in Goa from Mumbai for their honeymoon and stayed in Hotel Seema at Ribandar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 104,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 146,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 197,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 233,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 245,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 303,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In his opinion, septicemia could develop within 24 hours of the occurrence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus, obviously the detaining authority would have confronted the findings contained in these orders with the confession statements relied upon by the respondents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "An\t examination of\t all the facts and circumstances revealed by the entire\t evidence, including the effect of non-production of the better evidence available which. for some unexplained reason was not produced, shows that\t the plea of private defence cannot be reasonably ruled out.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Appellant P. N. Taluqdar who was a paid employee of the Hindusthan Cooperative Insurance Co., Ltd. held 300 shares and was a director of the Company and Shanti Ranjan Sarkar, a son of N. R. Sarkar's deceased brother, held one share.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 173,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 196,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I am satisfied that Explanation III of Sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the Act which seeks to put a meaning not contemplated by the British Parliament on the word \"sale\" with reference to forward contracts is invalid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 150,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, under the circumstances, we find it difficult to place reliance upon the discharge slip Ex.PW5/A, particularly when the MLC of PW4 Jagmohan Singh has not been proved.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 156,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After listing these complaints, the Committee gave its considered opinion as under:\n 11.2 We feel that most of these complaints are genuine and they should be remedied.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus, the two civil revisions and Civil Revision 341 of 1967 on being converted into and registered as C, W. J. C. 509 of 1967 have eventually come before us for hearing and disposal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 60,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 126,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as the conviction under Section 449 IPC is concerned, for the same reasonings the conviction of appellants R. Pandian and R. Thungamalati cannot be sustained and they are acquitted of the said charge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 46,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 124,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 144,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India and Anr. [1989 (4) SCC 187] this Court, while considering the provisions of Article 146(2) of the Constitution of India which is in pari materia with Article 229 of the Constitution of India, held :\n\"The legislative function of Parliament has been delegated to the Chief Justice of India by Article 146(2).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 93,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 156,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 185,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 227,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 256,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 304,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 353,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 371,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These observations of Narasimham C. J. cannot possibly apply to situation where the \"subsequent event\" has taken place before the right of the applicant to claim pre-emption has been perfected by the presentation of a completed application fulfilling all the requisite conditions envisaged in Sub-section (3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 308,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "DW\u00ad7 HC Hari Ram stated that he remained posted in PS R.K. Puram from 2005 to 2007 as Head Constable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 16,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 64,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to him, on 02.07.2003 itself a confidential information was received by P.W.2 Rajesh Kumar Srivastava regarding transit of the contraband Hashish by the tanker in question.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 31,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 111,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(13) Som Datt\t Datta v. Union of India & Ors., [1969] 2 S.C.R.\t177; (14) Bhagat Payyavula v. The Union of India &\nOrs., [1967] 3 S.C.R. 302; (15) Siemens Engineering & Manu- facturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., [1976]\nSupp. S.C.R. 489; (16) Associated Cement Companies\tLtd.\nv.P.N. Sharma & Anr., [1965] 2 S.C.R. 366; (16) A.K. Kraipak JUDGMENT:\nferred to.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 71,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 146,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 262,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 344,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 363,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It may be noted here that a company by the name of Swetu Stone Pvt. Ltd. had applied for and was allotted shares in the petitioner company on payment by cheque of Rs.5 lacs.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 72,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n In Kajal Sengupta vs. M/s. Ahlcon Ready Mix Concrete decided by the Delhi High Court Cr.M.C. 1640/2011 on 27.4.2012 observed in para 12 as under :\n12.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 54,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 86,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 104,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 117,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By giving a restrictive and narrow meaning to the expression we will be depriving a large number of victims of train accidents (particularly poor and middle class people) from getting compensation under the Railways Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 207,
"end": 219,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, these men were committed and ultimately convicted in the manner mentioned in the beginning.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He contends that the words \"as far as possible\" are words of limitation and must be interpreted to mean that the rules made should be consistent with the provisions of the CPC as amended from time to time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 172,
"end": 175,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, the Supreme Court in the case of R. Raghuram, supra, noticed the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 29,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No report/Challan is filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigating Agency so far.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 78,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So on 22nd September 1999 and on 10th July, 2000 when the two witnesses were examined, the Crl. Appeal No.617/2004 UOI v Victor Nnamdi Okpo Page 11 Of 16 cross examination was deferred as counsel for accused was not available.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 25,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 139,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Respondent shall intimate to the claimants/ petitioners about it having deposited the cheques in favour of petitioner in terms of the award, at the Suit No.838/11, Ram Lalli & ors. Vs Ratan Singh & anr. (pg- 14 of 15) address of the petitioner mentioned at the title of the award, so as to facilitate them to withdraw the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 152,
"end": 206,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nIn the aforesaid decision of Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (supra), the three amounts were shown to have been received by way of loans from three individual creditors of Calcutta under Hundis.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 58,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 178,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "upon grant or extension, petitioner No.3 Ranjan Kumar Ghosh reached the age of 60 years in 1995 but allegedly although he is still working, the had not been paid his salary after July 1996.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 59,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n PW6 HC Phool Kanwar has stated that on 18/08/2003, he was posted as Malkhana Muharrar at PS Paschim Vihar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 21,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 107,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n4.In support of her case, the claimant respondent herself appeared as PW-1, PW-2 Shiv Murti Verma and PE-3 Shiv Pratap Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 99,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 126,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He stated that he had resumed the same job after joining the duties.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n Applying the principles mentioned above to the facts of the present case, the charge for offence under Section 149 IPC has been framed legally.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 117,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 121,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": " \n The plaintiff had by his 1st notice dated 27th February 1961 (Ex. P-27), called upon the defendants to render an account of the royalty which had become due for the year 1960, with a request for its payment, together with the arrears of royalties up-to-date within a week, failing which he threatened to take legal action for its recovery.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 63,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is well to recall that acting under this very power, Parliament enlarged the scope of sales and purchases of goods in the course of inter-State trade or commerce by Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 66,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 177,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 212,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He directed P. W. 20 to go back to Mangalore and hold an inquest over the body of Monu who had died some time after P. W. 20 himself had seen him in the hospital the previous night.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 44,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 86,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Inasmuch as the plaintiff has not chosen to file an affidavit or give any valid reasons for his non-appearance on 15.10.2003, the application is not maintainable in law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 124,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, the fact that the report was lodged belatedly is a relevant fact of which the court must take notice.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 28/4/1998 PW.1/complainant issued notice U/Sec.18(a) and 22 of the Act to A2 and A3 as per Ex.P108.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 62,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even though the company did not commence as a quasi-partnership, in all probability, the petitioner joined the company with an understanding with NVR that the petitioner will be entitled to participate in the management and would be properly remunerated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 149,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Learned counsel for the appellant states that he has not been in contact with the appellant since long.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Rule 4A had to be amended on 27.4.92 keeping in view the observations made by this court so as to give effect to the aforementioned notification bearing No. 33-Edn. dated 27.3.9O thus, rule 4A as amended by 27.4.92 has to be read harmoniously with Rule 27 of 1940 rules.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 36,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 178,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 192,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 214,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 255,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is an arbitrary mode of capitalization of the compensation in an injury case by deviating the procedure which is so far established and settled by the judicial pronouncements of this Court and the Apex Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 200,
"end": 210,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the circumstances, while inter se merit position may be relevant for the Patna High Court LPA No.1200 of 2013 dt.24-06-2015 - 38 - appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re-evaluation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 92,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 112,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 126,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When once the rules have been framed for the purposes of the procedure as contemplated which is required to fulfill the object of the section in the Act, the procedure can only be that and nothing beyond.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The University which had inspected these two appellant colleges and considered the course of studies which they offered, was in a far better position to decide whether the students who had studied for the earlier course were fit enough to be allowed to appear for the examinations of the University of Rajasthan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 288,
"end": 311,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly the learned counsel referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Gopal Ready v. State of Andhra Pradesh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 75,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 132,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case Rule 12 of the Medicinal Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956, the provisions of which are pari materia with the unamended provisions of Rule 57-I was challenged before the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 20,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 84,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 169,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 209,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the petitioner the difference in the ex-factory price and F. O. R. price minus freight and packing charges, if any, would go to the Cement Regulation Account and the petitioner would thus be deprived of his legitimate profits on the sale of its cement.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On completion of other required formalities, investigating agency filed challan under Sections 498 (A), 306 and 201 of the I.P.C. in the Committal Court which in his turn committed the matter to the Court of Sessions, Tikamgarh and eventually the matter was tried by learned trial Judge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 115,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 129,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 227,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per section 2(a) of the I.D. Act Central Government is the appropriate authority for industry established by Central Government and hence State Government has no juruisdiction to send dispute if it pertain to industry established by Central Government. \n15.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 19,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 35,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 54,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 130,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 254,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After hearing learned counsel for both the parties we consider that the questions referred by the Income-Sax Appellate Tribunal should be reframed in the following manner so as to bring out the point actually in controversy between the parties :- \n \"1.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is a \"right to be let alone\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "No doubt, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has admitted that, there are two lanes in the said road for movement of two vehicles at a time.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The main reason for constituting the Special Bench is the submission of the CIT in his letter addressed to the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal to the effect that the view taken by the Tribunal in the aforesaid order in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 1985-86 has been \"virtually overruled\" by the subsequent decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s .",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is understood that Dileep purchased the property for Rs.45 lakhs.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In W. P. No. 15602 of 1994, the following averrnents are found in paragraph 9 of the affidavit :-- \n\"9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 26,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel next referred to the evidence of P.W. 8, Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Rai, supporter and active party worker of the election-petitioner and submitted with reference to paragraphs 6, 7 of his Examination-in-Chief that P.W. 8 was entrusted with the task of organizing party workers.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 79,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is pointed out that the confession statements were made on 18.2.2005, but the recoveries were effected on 24.2.2005 and the following dates.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 118,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was thus held that not being the trial of the summons case but. a committal enquiry, Section 247, Cr PC (Old) neither applies, nor can it apply under valid anology.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 99,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reference may also be made to the decision of this Court in Kehar Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Admin.) (1988) 3 SCC 609.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 121,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. L.S. Udawat, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the defence version has not been put to Lichhma and Patram in the absence of such cross-examination, the version given by Nihalsingh is of no value to the defence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 190,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ultimately, he was driven to the extent of filing the petition for divorce.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He has also contended that under Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act certified copies of documents can be accepted as evidence of the transaction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 73,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Gopi Shanker stated that at about 10 p. m. when he was leaving the hotel for his home he saw Arjun, Gopal, Mst. Draupdi, and Cyan Prasad entering the hotel in an intoxicated condition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 98,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 119,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 136,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By its letter dated 5th May, 1958, the committee requested the Government to define the scope of the inquiry and also to furnish the committee with a list of employments in which minimum rates of wages have to be fixed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 13-3-1953 Sarju Rai executed a deed of gift regarding Barnai property in favour of Shri mati Piari, Shrimati Pana, Kumari Radhika and one Ram Asre.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 13,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 63,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 101,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 132,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 149,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This judgment in K.N. Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore and Ors. was followed subsequently by this Court in the case of The D.F.O, South Kheri and Ors. v. Ram Sanehi Singh AIR 1973 SC 205 wherein this Court held: \"By that order he has deprived the respondent of a valuable right.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 62,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 186,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "at about 3:00 PM my brother-in-law(husband of the sister of my husband) Rajesh Kumar s/o Raj Kumar, r/o 53/16 Ashok Nagar came to my house and demanded water from me.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If I don't receive any response to this letter within a period of 7 days I may file a writ petition against the Universities and medical and engineering colleges in Karnataka before the High Court of Karnataka to stop this sale of seats.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 174,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 209,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It did not expressly refer to the acts of an \"agent\" other than an election agent and thus created some difficulty as Sub-section (1) was subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2) which dealt only with corrupt practices committed by \"agents\" other than election agents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 133,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 182,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now the question is whether accused/appellants Devendra Singh and Upendra Khare have been rightly convicted under section 302/149 I.P.C. for the murders of aforesaid deceased persons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 61,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 79,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 129,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 136,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The purpose of entering into a contract by the petitioner with the ownerof the petrol pump at Lalgopalganj and plying the vehicle 30 kms. off the route every day is definitely for oblique purposes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 106,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "every negotiable Case No. : 2815/12 Uma Shankar Goel V/s Virender Singh Page No. 8/14 instrument was made or drawn for considera\u00ad tion, and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiat\u00ad ed or transferred for consideration;\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 35,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 85,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The handicapped category certificate is after the last date of application.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Satyadhyan's case AIR 1960 SC 941 (supra), there can be no doubt that tie order of Bhargava J., dated the 26th October 1962 made in C.R. No. 385 of 1962, was final as regards this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 85,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 143,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 175,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 204,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nHowever, Learned Addl. P.P. Mr. Vyas for the State of Gujarat submitted That the trial Court has erred in recording the acquittal of the accused for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 63,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 201,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 205,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On March 28, 1962, the process-server, Bhorilal, submitted his report which, on translation, reads as under : \n \"I went to the house of Swaroop Lal Kanhaiya Lal Tiwari and Jhumarlal Swaroop Lal Govind Narain Tiwari with notices, under Section 34 for the assessment years 1940-41 to 1948-49, to the house of Swaroop Lal Kanhaiynlal (sic)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 17,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 168,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 215,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 246,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 331,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendants proved the due execution of the Will by producing in evidence DW2 Sh. Bijender Singh, the attesting witness of the Will, who withstood the rigours of cross examination.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 99,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I also do not appreciate the submission of the Revenue that incongruous results would follow by restricting section 45(7) only to section 45(1).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 121,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 143,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Of course we do not see any force in the contention of the Government that since the notification Ex. 3 has been passed in exercise of its executive powers it is not justiciable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Under Section 27 Rigorous imprisonment of Arms Act for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 16,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 50,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On considering the testimony of witnesses coupled with the documents filed on record, it is established that Sonu Tiwari @ Somnath suffered fatal injuries in an accident which took place on 26.11.12 at about 8.00 PM at Bata Mor, near Milan Vatika, NH\u00ad2, Faridabad involving vehicle bearing no. HR 29 Y 0134 by Satinder Kumar/respondent no.1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 130,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 198,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 263,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 324,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In so far as injuries suffered by Mr. Rajaram P. Babar, the said information was available on the basis of the FIR, which discloses that treatment was received by Mr. Babar from Dhanvantari Hospital.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 172,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 198,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said section empowers the Registering Officer after registering such instrument to refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value if the Registering Officer 'has reason to believe' that the \"market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Article 246(2) of the Constitution empowers the Parliament and the Legislature of a State also to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List-III viz., Concurrent List in the seventh schedule of. the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 34,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 58,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shiv Dayal Tanwar is the father of petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned Shri Altaf Ahmed, Sr. Advocate further submitted that the petitioners appeared before the Special Judge pursuant to the summons issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 160,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 168,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The incumbent teacher must be on the role and active service of the Universities/Colleges on the date of consideration by the Selection Committee for Selection/CAS Promotion.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus this fact stands established by the evidence of three witnesses that the appellant took the deceased with him and from Mallawan, he was going towards Bangarmau.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 132,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 164,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He will also transmit a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of Government of West Bengal for his appraisal and doing the needful in terms of the observations made by us in the body of the judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 94,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question is whether the fixation of such deemed date can be said to be arbitrary and therefore, violative of Article 14 and 16.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 130,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the purpose of Stamp duty, it makes no difference whether the deed is a deed of lease or agreement to lease.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We are concerned with only four out of those twenty-three mining leases.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Allegedly, when the matter was brought to the notice of the appellant, he undertook to remit the amount on or before 30.01.1996.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 127,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rameshwar Prasad (PW 5) has stated that the appellant prepared the copies and thereafter asked the complainant to give Re. 1 and 12 paise as fee and thereafter gave Re. 1.12 and obtained the copies.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Subsequently, chemical analyzer's reports were received from the A.C.A. Pune, which are produced at Exhs.40 to 42, respectively.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 76,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since, in view of the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid authorities, the provisions of Section 50 were Crl.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 109,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The residential premises of the petitioner were searched on 4th May, 2006.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 73,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These old provisions, however, have no application now from 1st April, 1989, onwards).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 75,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our opinion that on the basis of the aforesaid facts, the learned Advocate General has rightly submitted that the learned Single Judge has erroneously held that the Scheme had been initiated at the behest of the Bengal Peerless or that it has not complied with the provisions of the 1972 Act.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There is no doubt that the motor cycle is a movable property or goods within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 113,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He requisitioned the photographer and the crime team.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In paragraph 10 of the said decision, the Apex Court held as follows;\n \"10.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(10) Reliefs asked for by Mr. Joseph and Mr. Nair are similar to those asked in Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 248 and 254 of 1960. \n\n (11) All these petitions have been argued together by Mr. Singhvi, learned Counsel for all the petitioners.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 128,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 198,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": " It has been further held that the select list would ordinarily remain valid for one year, extension cannot be presumed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Against this jdugment also Special Appeal No. 594 of 1997 and 580 of 1987 was filed by Sri Umesh Chandra Saxena.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 73,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 111,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act or the principles analogous thereto places the burden in respect thereof upon the assessee, as the facts are within its special knowledge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 19,
"end": 38,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No plea was taken by Satnam Singh, Kulwinder Singh, Jagdev Singh and Amrik Singh, that they were only the labourers, engaged by the owner, or the driver of the truck, to load the gunny bags, containing poppy-husk, and unload the same, at a particular destination.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 64,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dr. S. K. Kaushik PW 3 has deposed that at 1.40 A. M. during the night intervening 22nd and 23rd July, 1986 he recorded the dying declaration Ex. P/104 of the injured Jetha Ram in the Bhartiya General Hospital, Churu in presence of Dr. Rakesh Bhargava and he got the thumb impression of Jetha Ram on it at place X.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 107,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 176,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 216,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 251,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 296,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Tribunal held on the first question that \"the finding is irretrievably linked up with the contention raised by the assessee.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": " \n\n On 23.01.2011, secret information was received by SI Rajesh Shah that a boy, namely, Ramesh involved in the crime was expected to reach New Delhi Railway Station, towards Ajmeri Gate side.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 17,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 68,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 149,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-Inspector Sat Narain further deposed that he prepared inquest papers and request for post mortem Ex. PW-9/C and Ex. PW-9/D. \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 21,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Earlier the petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition No.1104 of 2011 titled Satbir Singh V. State of Haryana before this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 107,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The loan amount was to be repaid in EMI of Rs.14,000/\u00ad each in 35 EMIs and the first installment shall be paid after one month of the date of loan.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PSI Panditrao of the A.C.B. directed them to report to his office on the next day i.e. 17th September 1980.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 27,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 106,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Neither plaintiff No. 1 nor P.W2 has elaborated such a plea of custom to complete the so-called plea in the plaint.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Only after she recovered from that illness and her mental condition improved, in February, 1964 Maya Rani's uncle, P.W. 8 Birendra Kumar Ghatak informed Maya Rani that Gopal had died in a motor accident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 143,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 162,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 173,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There are some other assertions made by the respondent in her application for leave to defend stating that she is working and running the business from the suit shop which is the only source of livelihood for her.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and decree, dated 25.02.2013, made in M.C.O.P.No.1326 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Krishnagiri District.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\tFor Appellant \t: \tMr.J.Chandran JUDGEMENT ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 57,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 83,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 133,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 166,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 267,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 328,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned authorised representative submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of Tribunal Ahmedabad \"A\" Bench in ITA No. 3594/Ahd/94.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 144,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The factual matrix as per the allegations in the complaint which are necessary for disposal of the present case are that, the accused approached the complainant and requested for personal loan.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Suresh Kumar PW13 is the brother- in -law of Hushan Lal, father of the child.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": ":\n\n\n The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants against the impugned judgment/decree dated 09.11.2009 passed by the Ld. Trial Court in Suit No. 1062/02 titled as 'Sh. Gauri Shankar ( since deceased) Through LRs Vs. Sh.Har Narain ( since deceased) Through LRs & Ors. \n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 120,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 170,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 283,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Lastly, the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Onkarmal Meghraj (HUF) [1974] 93 ITR 233 (SC), cannot be ignored.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 116,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n During the course of investigation, vide entry No.29 dated 18.11.2010 Ex.PW.20/L made in the rozmancha, offence under section 25 of the Arms Act was added.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 72,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 131,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 147,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection it is also to be noted that though the first accused stated while questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. that he filed a detailed statement he did not file any detailed statement, explaining the various circumstances which appeared against him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 113,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 128,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Nothing can be 'imported into it From outside.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The proposed amendments in the Act are aimed at early disposal of cases relating to dishonour of cheques, enhancing punishment for offenders, introducing electronic image of a truncated cheque and a cheque in the electronic form as well as exempting an official nominee director from prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 306,
"end": 338,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per Section 19(iii)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, inserted by Act 50 of the Central Act, with effect from 20.12.2003, she can institute the proceedings for dissolution of the Marriage at the place where she is residing at the time of presentation of the petition and therefore, the Family Court at Chennai, is competent to decide the lis between the parties. \n\n 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 25,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 51,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 119,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 308,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reference was also made to Office Cleaning Service Ltd. -vs- Westminster Window and General Cleaners Ltd., (1946) 63 RPC 39 where the rivals were using \"Office Cleaning Services\" and \"Office Cleaning Association\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 123,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 211,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, if he proceeded on the assumption that the \"actual\" reasons were those as noted in the said form, the proper course of action as directed by the Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (supra), has not been followed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 156,
"end": 169,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 188,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said certificate was issued much prior to the occurrence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A1 on the other hand, has asserted that he had absolutely no connection either personal or CBI Case No.14/11 RC no. AC\u00ad1/2000/A 0002/CBI/SPE/ACU\u00ad1/New Delhi CBI Vs. Dr. P. Das Gupta & Anr. \n\n professional, with Serdia Pharmaceuticals and it is A2 alone who was responsible for arranging the initial payment for upgradation of tickets and therefore she received the refund of the economy class tickets.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 187,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 233,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to Clause (a) of Section 111, Transfer of Property Act, a lease of immovable property determines by efflux of the time limited thereby.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 38,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 64,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That reads as follows: \n \"That the construction work of family quarters for Officer and staff, messing house for non-family man and coolie-shed are to be immediately taken up to suitable lands in consultation with Gen. Manager of M/s Katihar Jute Mills Ltd., plans for officers' quarters are to be submitted to Mr. S.K. Bhattar for sanction\". \n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 234,
"end": 257,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 327,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the final report, it is stated that no offence is made out on the basis of the receipt of US $ 3 lakhs by way of DD.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In order to substantiate this, he has examined P.W.3-Ashok Jindam, who was officer of the Ahmednagar Merchants Co-operative Bank.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 65,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 128,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The injuries on his person were such that he might have taken the help of attendant for his daily routine.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 1-9-1978 the Full Bench in State of Karnataka v. Sri Laxmi Talkies ILR (1984) 2 Kant 1192 unanimously held that R. 107(l) (b) of the Rule~ was intra. vires of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 92,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 128,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(iv) The petitioner's appeal against removal from service was pending before the Governor of Madhya Pradesh on 1 November 1956 when the States were reorganised.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 107,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 126,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Adarsh Travels Bus Service's case, supra, has ruled that an increase by way of number of trips with the vehicle can be granted in the notified area.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 26,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She was brought to Kotha No. 56, GB Road, Delhi by Teena and her husband.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 47,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On behalf of the two accused, the first contention raised is that there is non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 115,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Kailash Chand Sharma (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 93,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 117,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not disputed that had Iyer not gone outside India, his salary and perquisite to the extent of Rs. 70,500 were not allowable under s. 40A(5).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 32,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 55,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 145,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW.1 received letter from Drug Controller for statement of Karnataka as per Ex.P147 and 65 documents from Drug Inspector, Belguam as per Ex.P148 to Ex.P212 and 76 documents from Assistant Drug Controller, Mangalore as per Ex.P213 to Ex.P288.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 68,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 129,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 214,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ext. X3, the minutes of the election conducted to the post of Vice President on 17.7.06, shows that the name of the respondent was proposed by Sri. Leon Bernard, the independent member and supported by Ms. Sreedevi Mohan, the member belonging to LDF {CPI (M)}.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 87,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 160,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 220,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 259,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An application U/s 151 CPC was filed by the plaintiff for marking Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 exhibits on the admitted documents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 22,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 26,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case, it is the State Government which carries on the State transport undertaking of Madras, and, indisputably, that undertaking is a part of Government, or a department of Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 106,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As mentioned hereinbefore there is no formal contract in compliance with Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India in this case, embodying the terms upon which the plaintiff now sues the defendant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 87,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 116,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to Section 99 (1) (a) (i), while making an order under Section 98, where any charge is made in the petition of any corrupt practice having committed at the election, the High Court is bound to record a finding whether any corrupt practice has or has not been proved to have been committed at the election and the nature of corrupt practice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 35,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 75,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case, reliance was placed upon Harishankar Rastogi Vs.\nGiridhari Sharma (AIR 1978 SC 1019) which is as follows: \"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 101,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He submitted that the land continued 30 wp1826pil219.1 to be owned by the State Government and the MFSCDC Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 110,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At the said place, a heap of sand is shown.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Only from column \"Currency\" one can presume that comparable companies were operating in Europe, America or Malaysia (RM).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 94,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 103,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 115,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "while dealing with Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, making a reference to Oxford English Dictionary, this Court has held that the site of the building is a component part of the building and therefore inheres in it eh concept or ordinary meaning of the expression 'building'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 62,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 82,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nIt was urged that, the claim at different part of the plaint is contradictory. \n\n6.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has to be reiterated that the Wakf Board is the authority under Act 43 of 1995 to enforce the wakfs by way of administration and such administration shall be done by the Wakf Board only as per the terms of the wakf.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 183,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He levied tax under Section 201(1) and interest under Section 201(1A) for all the three assessment years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 34,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 69,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On hearing the petitioner and also on marshalling the said copy of the documents furnished by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the arguments canvassed by the petitioner holds no water because as per article 141 of Indian Constitution the decision of Hon'ble Apex court is binding upon this court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 207,
"end": 218,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 241,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 276,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No material has been placed before us to hold that the finding arrived at by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, on an appraisal of the revenue record is vitiated.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Otherwise there would have been defect in the appeal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the decision of the Supreme Court in TT Antony on which heavy reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioners cannot go to the rescue of the petitioners.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 44,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 57,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of assessee which had independent CPP it could not be said that it was not carrying on the business of generation and distribution of power.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this connection, the taxpayer relied upon three decisions, first on the case of CIT v. Sakthi Charities 244 ITR 226 and on two decisions of ITAT referred to at page 152 of the paper book.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 118,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 147,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per 22.56 PPR Chapter XXII, Volume No.3 (Page No. 927) this register may be destroyed seven years after the date of last entry (Reference in this regard is also made to SO No. 64 dated 1.11.1998 according to which Kalandras under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C., inquest and offences punishable under provisions of Section 80 to 96 D.P. Act 1978 can be destroyed after seven years)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 172,
"end": 181,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 197,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 248,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 256,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 326,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 340,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is upon these principles, I think, that I have to determine whether in the present case the publication was upon a privileged occasion .....\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is also the conceded position of fact that no enquiry was initiated and held by the University on the charge of unauthorized absence from duty.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel for the State could not support the prosecution story.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Kapadia has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K.T. Plantation vs. State of Karnataka delivered in Civil Appeal No. 6520 of 2003 and other cognate matters.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 61,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 115,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 158,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After thorough investigation, the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) for prosecution of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 342 and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, was prepared and presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 72,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 81,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 178,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 194,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 199,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 27 restricted the right Of the foreman to claim consolidated payment of all the future subscriptions from a defaulting prized subscriber and it was not to be unless demand was made for the same in writing.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 133 (1) (b) relates to trade or occupation which is injurious to health or physical comfort.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 19,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever.....\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We allowed him to place the letter Before us and it appeared that the appellant had instructed the Solicitor not to take any further part in the appeal and at the same time had discharged him from his employment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "16.In Hem Chand v. State of Haryana, (1994) 6 SCC 727 Hon'ble Apex Court had held that :\n\"As mentioned above, Section 304-B IPC only raises presumption and lays down that minimum sentence should be seven years but it may extend to imprisonment for life. Therefore awarding extreme punishment of imprisonment for life should be in rare cases and not in every case.\" \n\n17.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 53,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 72,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 123,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 127,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel for the accused Sri.Babu Nair contends that the golden rule of literal interpretation and the Mischief Rule in Heydon have got to be adopted while considering the scope of the amendment to Section 202 Cr.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 220,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 228,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The aforesaid two partners executed a need of lease dated June 27, 1952 (annexure \"C\"), letting out the cinema premises along with all the appratus, machineries, furniture land and building appurtenant to it to Messrs. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 233,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 255,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But, at the same time, the private complaint filed by him was forwarded for investigation by the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravur under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C and evidently, pursuant thereto, crime No.6/02 was registered at Varapuzha police station, as can be seen from Ext.A1 and it was investigated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 152,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 174,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 188,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 278,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Madhu Limaye's case, AIR 1978 SC 47 this Court has exhaustively and, if I may say so with great respect, correctly discussed and delineated the law beyond mistakes....",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 38,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the basis of FIR, police registered Crime No.222/2003 for commission of offence under Section 364-A/34 of IPC against the accused persons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 56,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 105,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Counsel cited Madhavnagar Cotton Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1968 Delhi 54, in support of his argument.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 75,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In pursuance to directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan on 04.08.2015, a review meeting was held with the representatives of Concessionaire, Lenders, IE, RO and PD of above project in NHAI on 05.08.2015 under chairmanship of Member (Fin) at NHAI HQ, New Delhi to review the status of work, balance work and means of finance to complete the project. \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 79,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 198,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 212,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 255,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 269,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter on 13-10-69 an application under Section 181(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 was filed by the said learned lawyer in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta for setting aside the ex parte order of maintenance dated the 2lst April, 1969 and for an ad interim stay of the order pending the hearing of the application.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 22,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 58,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 93,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 188,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 267,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the award amount directly in the bank account of the claimant in UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi within 30 days of the passing of the award failing which it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the period of delay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 116,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 148,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The observation is as follows :\n \"In my opinion, the Civil Court's jurisdiction to grant a declaratory relief that the plaintiff belongs to Konda Reddy Community does not stand ousted at all. \n\n ",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This power to regulate has nothing to do with the grant of the permit to individual owners.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the light of the said contentions it is necessary to refer to Section 217 of the CrPC, which reads thus:\nRecall of Witnesses when charge altered:\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 76,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 88,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the legal demand notices dated 27/05/2009, 17/02/2010 and 08/04/2010 are Ex. PW 1/2, Ex. PW 1/3 and Ex. PW 1/4 respectively.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 44,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 56,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 04.05.89, Jagtar Singh, approached the accused, with a copy of the resolution dated 28.03.89, at his office, situated at Focal Point, Ghallu.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 13,
"end": 25,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 95,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 143,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of Romesh Thappar v. The Province of Madras, , the Supreme Court held that so long as the possibility of a law being applied for purposes not sanctioned by the Constitution could not be ruled out, it must be held to be wholly unconstitutional and void.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 55,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 184,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He is the husband of plaintiff no. 1 Parmeshwari Devi and father of Plaintiff no. 2 Lalit Asija.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 53,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 95,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the written statement, the appellant had claimed that the suit was not maintainable because the suit premises were her matrimonial home where she was entitled to reside.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel submitted that the circular of the Inspector General of Registration issued in the year 2007 directing all the Registrars and Sub-Registrars to register cancellation of documents only if both the parties to the documents consent, was challenged before this Court and the said circular was upheld by this Court in the judgment reported in 2009 (6) CTC 1009 (DB).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 354,
"end": 376,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the said judgment, the Supreme Court also in Minerva Mills Ltd., v. Union of India, emphasized the facts that the reasonableness of law is not a matter of enquiry for the court and the objective \"reasonable\" qualifies the nexus.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 85,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The other witness Dinanath Sona-wane has been examined to prove the despatch of letter, dated 12-5-1982 Ex. 92 and the refused envelope Ex. 58.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 31,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 103,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The contention of the learned counsel for he appellant, therefore, was that with licence Ex.R.1 Risal Singh was not competent to drive passenger bus and therefore, no liability could be fixed on the appellant/petitioner as he could not be said to be a authorised person.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 107,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The policy also provides for insurance of risks which are not covered under section 95 of the Act by stipulating payment of extra premium.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 86,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also found from the evidence of the ocular witnesses that the accused had taken away not only the cycle, but also the weapon used for stabbing the deceased Subramaniam.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 162,
"end": 173,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to Sri Haranahalli, the complaint as against respondent/accused No. 2 was definitely maintainable and could be proceeded with against him in view of no bar thereto under section 446 of the Companies Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 191,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 212,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also relied upon 2008 ACJ 1935 Zila Singh v. Mukes Kumar and Others.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 70,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After committal proceedings, a case in SC No.69/2004 was registered on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bellary.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 52,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 120,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) submitted that looking to the documents seized, surrounding circumstances and human probabilities the addition made is justified.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 137,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Delay to approve by said Officer was the grievance in the writ Court earlier in the writ petition no. 3232 of 2000 where petitioner was successful to have an order directing the State respondents, namely, the Director of School Education, West Bengal, concerned to consider the issue within time frame as fixed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 114,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 250,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As such, the matter has been referred to a Larger Bench of 5 Judges by order dated 26.9.2002.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 92,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the above facts and circumstances, the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants is decreed with cost.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. V. K. K. Menon in this connection, relied upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Narottamdas. v. P. B. Gowarikar, AIR 1961 Madh Pra 182.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 94,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 152,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Praveen Jain & Ors (Shri.) Vs. Dr. Mrs. Vimla, 2009 IV AD (Delhi) 653, this court observed;\n \"The powers of this Court under Section 25B(8) are not appellate powers and this Court has only to see that the Trial Court had acted in accordance with law and not transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction.\u201f\u201f\n\n32.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 72,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 142,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per Section 284 of Companies Act, a director can be removed by an ordinarily resolution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 18,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 35,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendant relies on an unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court in APOT No. 780 of 2002, APO No. 528 of 2002, GA No. 741 of 2002, GA No. 1003 of 2001, CS No. 217 of 1989 (Deepak Prakash v. Jayanta Kumar Bose) delivered on June 16, 2004.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 99,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 120,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 140,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 161,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 219,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 247,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They reached at Mussourie, but her brother in law (Devar) did not allow her to come down from the car and told that he would talk to the police officials.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 25,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further in Vijender Singh v. Eicher Motors Ltd & Anr decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 05.05.2011, it was laid down that any person who issues blank signed cheque should understand the consequences of doing so.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 52,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 102,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of CIT v. T.S. PL. P. Chidambaram Chettiar [1971] 80 ITR 467, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider and explain the said observations of Lord Macmillan in Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh's case (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 72,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 168,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 205,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During statements of the prosecutrix (PW/3) and Arjun Patel (PW/7) on one hand and statement of Karishma (PW/4) on other hand exaggerations as well as lacunas were also found.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 59,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 104,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The date of commencement of the West Bengal Ordinance No. VI of 1967 is the 26th August, 1967.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 68,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 93,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "J. concurred with the opinion of Sankarasubha Iyer, J. Joseph Thaliath, Ag. C. J. took a different view",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 50,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 70,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further stated in the counter affidavit that disciplinary proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were initiated by the District Forest Officer against G.Nalandah Krishnamoorthy, Office Assistant and S.Lazar, Forest Guard and an exparte order of removal of service was passed against G. Nalandah Krishnamoorthy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 141,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 221,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 251,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 354,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As I have already pointed out, the question there was whether the selection of different classes of goods for exemption was a matter of detail.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "They are plainly indentures of lease between the Rani and the assessee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 53,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dr. S.K. Pippal (CW /2), Dr. Keshav Singh (CW/3) also examined as court witnesses.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 41,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of this, and since the period of three years was to expire on 19th August 2012, the Plaintiff by its letter dated 3rd August 2012 stated that it would like to sell its entire shareholding of 2,71,65,000 equity shares which the Defendant was obliged to purchase or cause to be purchased, and requested the Defendant to indicate the specific procedure by which it would fulfill its commitment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 86,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 137,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The arguments advanced by him in Writ Petition No. 5771 of 2011, therefore, hold good even for the purposes of present petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 63,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n42. Section 115 of the Evidence Act defines estoppel as 'When one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representive shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representatives, to deny the truth of that thing'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 17,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 37,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. A.M. Trivedi submitted that exclusion of Oath Commissioner for the present purpose would tantamount to extreme technical view which the Constitution Bench has not appreciated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 158,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It would be attaching importance to false rumour flying from one foul lip to another.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to him, the effect of the proviso was considered by the Hon'ble Special Bench in Lalsons (supra) and hence, the decision of the Hon'ble Special Bench should be followed and the deduction allowed on export incentives ignoring the losses suffered by the assessee from the export business.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 98,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Of course, the Addl.D.G.P. continues to contend that if the petitioners have suffered any damages, the proper forum for them is to approach the civil court or the criminal court where the trial regarding the murder of Balakrishnan is pending and not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court for compensation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 218,
"end": 230,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 - Management by referring the letter dated 11th June, 2013 (addressed to Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Nasik) and another letter dated 19th June, 2013 (addressed to Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nasik) submits that Respondent No.2 have responded said letters and justified their action.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 115,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 182,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 224,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 289,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Coming to the question dealt with by lower authorities as to whether the provisions of s. 69A would apply in this case the learned counsel argued that no cash was found with the assessee as on 11th May, 1987, i.e., on the date of search.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 93,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 207,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On April 4, 1973 the respondents (in Appeal No. 47 of 1972) appeared before the court and obtained an order for release of the goods in their favour upon their furnishing bank guarantee for Rs. 2,20,000/- and upon a further undertaking that the guarantee would be renewed as and when necessary till the disposal of the appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 16,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 58,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He recovered original document from PW.37 P Vasanth Roy, Proprietor of Ethikem Pharmaceuticals on 1/5/98 and handed over the same in favour of PW.1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 55,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 94,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 104,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Exhibit 21 is the statement of accused No. 3 Abdullamiya Usmanmiya recorded on 28-2-1976 by the Superintendent, while Exhibit 22 is the statement of the said accused recorded by the same Superintendent, on 22-2-1976.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 215,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nAnd it also imports an obligation on the part of the authority to decide the matter on consideration of the evidence adduced and in accordance with law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Further, any such Director, who has been summoned, can take all defence during cross examination of the revisionist\u00adcomplainant and also in his defence evidence to show that he was not the person incharge or Page No. 15.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is well settled that unless the claim of the deputationists for a permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation is based upon any statutory rule, regulation or order having the force of law, a deputationists cannot assert and succeed in any such claim for absorption.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The points highlighted at paragraphs 22 and 23 at page 21 of the Note File are as follows:-\n \"22.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Caltex are just that: a company incorporated in Bahama Islands outside India and therefore a body corporate or corporation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 62,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 76,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I, therefore, hold, subject to confirmation by Government, that your factory does not come within the purview of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952.\" \n4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 153,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The original order was passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Pali, purporting to act as Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Properly for that area.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 57,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The documentary evidence consists mostly of letters written by Purabi to Basudeb, as also letters to and fro between Pulak Banerjee on one hand and Basudeb and his people on the other.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 155,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The day hooks from 22-8-1931 to 15 6-1934, house rent ledgers from July 1931 to 1945 leaving the periods from July 1936 to June 1937 and July 1939 to June 1940 and house rent receipt books from 11-10-1932 to 4-12-1944 have been filed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 28,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 41,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 204,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 217,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even the other items which were forwarded to the F.S.L., which included the bricks containing blood-stains as well as the blood-stained 'zabba' with thirteen cuts and the bloodstained soil which was collected from the 'tali' of Gigabhai's house, were all found to be having human blood of group 'B' as per the chemical analyzers report and the serologist's report Exh. 35.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 56,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 236,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was filed only on February 5, 1971.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 37,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In absence of any such application being filed, the judgment-debtor was invited to make submission with regard to the enforceability of the foreign award as by that time the original award and the certified copy of the agreement were taken on record.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": " (Passed on 27.10.2015) Per S. K. Gangele J. \n\n Petitioner has filed this petition for quashment of the order dated 08.08.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal in a private complaint case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 126,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 176,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW5 K. Mahapatra, Chief Vigilance Officer admits that no departmental enquiry was conducted against any public servant in this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is significant to notice that there is no evidence to show that there was any scuttling or that the A.S.647/94 & 331/1996.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 124,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n It may be stated at this stage that by Act LXVII of 1957 which has been \"subsequently passed by Parliament, Act LIII of 1948 has now been limited only to oil fields.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 58,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 126,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "amongst \n other witnesses.\n \n 5. The learned trial Court had framed charge against the \n accused for committing an offence punishable under section 376 of IPC and under section 57 of the Bombay Children Act vide charge \n\n\n dated 23rd October, 1989 (Exhibit 3). ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 240,
"end": 251,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 263,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 284,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 292,
"end": 311,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 346,
"end": 360,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On similar footing, MTNL may be an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12, Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 24,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 96,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 119,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused further disclosed that his house was Id Masjid Moth, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 74,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh L.P.A. NO.1416 OF 2013 :{ 31 }:\n are reserved for the State of Haryana, what to say of HCMS quota, which is a sub-category providing for reservation for in-service candidates.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 100,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 148,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of the above issues, in O.S.No. \n\n5873/11, plaintiff examined his P.A. holder as P.W.1 and through him, Exs.P-1 to P-26 documents got marked.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 52,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court upheld this contention and stated that during the said periods coal was transported from the colliery of the company to consumers outside the taxing State, as a result of the covenant or incident of the contract of sale.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It seems to us that this is the reason why the provisions, inter alia, of Section 17-B in the same form as the were in the West Bengal Ordinance No. VI of 1907 have been introduced again and again in the enactments that followed in addition to the saving provisions we have referred to.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 86,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 159,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Notification No. 234/86-C.E., dated 3-4-1986 gives its own definition under the heading 'Explanation' as follows :-\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The certificate issued by Dy.Comdt. And OC Tps. Rampal Singh showed that the deceased had obtained the following medals during active service in various operation areas: \n(a) Sena Seva Service Medal \n\n(b) Sangram Medal \n\n(c) Poorvi Star \n\n(d) 25th Indept. Anniversary Medal. \n\n2.17G",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 60,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question arises as to whether the cases pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate on or prior to October 29, 2002 were also required to be dealt with by the Court of Sessions or not?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 135,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "has deposed that the second accused took the police and the panchas including PW16 to the house of his maternal Aunt Lakshmamma, situate at II Cross, Mallikarjuna Nagar, Shimoga and told the police that in the said house he has kept the weapon used for commission of the offence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 127,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 177,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It comes to an end on the expiry of the prescribed period under Section 25 of the Motor Vehicles Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 74,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 100,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decree-holder examined NAW 1 Dhanraj. NAW 2 Rajendra Kumar and NAW 3 Ummed Mal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 40,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 62,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 82,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On this basis it has held that the claim of M/s. Bokaro and Ramgur with regard to 1457.56 bighas was not at all maintainable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 55,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Prosecution witness No. 12 Dr. Chandulal Bhanjibhai Barochiya",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 61,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is evident that the Legislature did not intend to provide for applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act, and did not intend enlargement of time to file the election petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 118,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, one cannot exclude depreciation allowance while computing profits derived from a newly established undertaking for computing deductions under Chapter VI-A.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In our opinion, in the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 had not been granted any time-table by the Regional Transport Authority.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 172,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has also found from the conductor and driver of the bus in which his father had gone on that day that deceased Gopinath has not travelled further from Hunsur and that at Hunsur near Balaji Palace Hotel his father had been kidnapped by some body.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 122,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 160,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 179,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thakkar, learned advocate for the Appellant, has further submitted that para-414 of the Bombay Civil Manual is of obligatory nature and the appellate court is bound to frame suitable points for determination in appeal in accordance with the same principles on which issues are framed by the Trial Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 107,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also to be noted that in the ancient authority of Fatawai Alamgiri, it is stated that a woman undergoing Iddat on account of Talak (divorce) is entitled to maintenance and lodging, whether the Talak be revocable or irrevocable, and whether she be pregnant or not.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In such a situation there is no question of any personal ill-will or motive.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This in my view is nothing but an arbitrary decision in terms of the Apex Court judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After extracting Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code, the Supreme Court observed that \"there could not be any dispute that if forgery was committed while the document was in the custody of a Court, then the prosecution could be launched only with a complaint made by that Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 38,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 69,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent/defendant filed the written statement in June 2007.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Guarantee Fund is maintained by the Finance Department of the State Government.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The appellant in MFA No.21465/2012 has not disputed the occurrence of the accident on the date, time, place and in the manner as alleged by the claimants in their claim petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 34,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Division Bench of this Court has held that there is nothing wrong if the Sponsoring Authority {10} crwp 641.14.odt decides to drop preventive action under Section 110 of the Cr.P.C. and instead, take stringent action under Section 56 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 170,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 185,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 237,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 268,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However the assessee company has been enjoying the possession of this plot as per the report of M/s Little & Co, referred to earlier.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 111,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as the first aspect is concerned, it has arisen because of the fact that on similar goods, under one condition, that is, if the goods have suffered tax under the State Sales Tax Act, no entry tax has been levied whereas if the goods have not suffered such a tax, like the goods imported from outside the State of Karnataka, it attracts the levy of entry tax.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 169,
"end": 188,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 329,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Gazette of India Extraordinary : Part Ii Section Ii 1963 at page 1045). \n(14) It is apparent from the objects and reasons that the object of substituting the present sub-section (1) of section 16 was to provide more stringent punishments where they could be imposed for most of the offences contemplated by section 16 read with section 7 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 197,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 319,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 339,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n12. Turning to the inclusion of the names of the Janapada Sabhas elected from urban circles and inclusion of the names of the Presidents, Vice Presidents and Chairmen of the Standing Committees of the Janapada Sabhas, it is the contention of Mr. Gokhale that their names had been wrongly included.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 218,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 255,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of this, there is no merit in the submission that PW-7 Sandip Kashid and PW-8 Rakesh Jagnade were introduced by PW-2 Prashant in his evidence for the first time before the Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 76,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 100,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 133,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, seizure is to be Crl.M.C.1161/2007 & Connection 13 effected and what is to be done after seizure is explained in the statutory rules.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 41,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case it was held by the Supreme Court that \"the ordinary rule is that specific performance should be granted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Recruitment of Para Teacher after 1-999 have been made in accordance with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India i.e., by inviting applications and submitting the eligible persons to selection as per the criteria prescribed in the circulars issued by the State Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 90,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 119,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the decision cited does not help the case of the appellant as the suit property is purchased by the respondent from the DDA and the perpetual lease deed stands exclusively in the name of respondent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 134,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the purpose of their manufacturing process, they purchase the raw materials like chemicals, petro products, based oil, beedi leaves, bulk drugs and/or packing materials from outside the State of Karnataka and after causing entry thereof in the said local areas, consume the said goods in their manufacturing process or packing of finished products. \n 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 190,
"end": 208,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When a court question was put to her, she admitted that she had made false allegations against the accused Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa in her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. (Ex.PW2/A) but took the plea that she did so as she could not see assailants and public persons told her that assailants were Karnail Singh and his wife Deepa.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 120,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 139,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 174,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 183,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 323,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 342,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That being so, notice, Ex. H-5, relating to the assessment year 1950-51, issued by the Jaipur ITO under Section 148 of the new Act, must be held to have been issued according to law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 97,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 115,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In case of Halimuddin Ahmad v. Ashoka Cement Ltd., 1976 Cr.LJ 449, it has been held as follows: \n \"A complainant is not required to set out in the complaint all the evidence in his possession.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 65,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The contention of the petitioner is that the book was printed and published in Poona, copies thereof were seized in Poona in enforcement of the order of forfeiture and therefore this High Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application in so far as it is referable to Section 99B. \n 25.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 84,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 121,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 295,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, while interpreting statutory provisions, the courts should keep in mind the objectives or purpose for which statute has been enacted.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Then, we may refer the judgment in the case of Sanjay Singh and another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another since reported in (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases 720 wherein in paragraph-52 this is what their Lordships has said:-\n \u201552.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 180,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The schools have, however, seriously disputed the allegation of indulging in commercialisation and/or exploitation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n The same has been endorsed in this endorsement as per sub-sec. (2) of S. 58 of Indian Registeration Act 1908 (Central Act XVII of 1908) read with R. 73 sub-R. (ii) of Mysore Registration Rules 1965.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 77,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 137,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 165,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 199,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was also held that Rule 10 of Order XXXVIII CPC makes it clear that attachment before judgment shall not affect the rights, existing prior to the attachment, of persons not parties to the suit. \n\n 14.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 50,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sinha, J. also seemed to think that the provisions of the said Act imposed unreasonable restrictions, and thus were void because of Sub-clause (f) of Clause (1) of Article 19 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 174,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 194,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defence raised was that the suit was not maintainable in a civil Court as the subject matter of the suit was a matter of domestic concern relating to the business of the society and, therefore, barred under Section 51, Co-operative Societies Act and the bye-laws of the society.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 211,
"end": 221,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 249,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the proceedings taken by the second respondent in terms of Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, is totally without jurisdiction, misconceived and arbitrary.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 80,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 134,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the minor was ordinarily residing with the respondents at Calcutta in April, 1971, they filed an application in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta, for being appointed as guardian of the minor, which was registered as Act VIII case No. 20 of 1971.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 69,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 171,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 271,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Next submission of the defence counsel was that Anil Kumar, accused had made extra judicial confession before Charan Singh, but Charan Singh did not support the prosecution story.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 122,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 140,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The combined effect of Ss. 63, 63-A, 63-B and 63-C is that the inter-State Commission will deal with inter-State permits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 85,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgement of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore District at Vellore (FTC) passed in SC.No.112/1998 dated 17.5.2002, convicting the Appellants for the offences under Section 304(B) of IPC and sentencing them to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment.\n\t\tFor Appellant \t:\tMr.K.S.Rajagopalan \t\t\n\t\tFor Respondent",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 141,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 166,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 182,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 248,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 255,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 344,
"end": 359,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was also held that the statement of witnesses recorded in preliminary enquiry must be supplied, otherwise that would amount to denial of opportunity of effective cross examination.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Even assuming that the appellants being strangers to the transaction were not entitled to challenge the passing of consideration for the sale-deed, it was clearly open to them to plead, and they did so plead, that the sale-deed on the basis of which the plaintiffs-respondents claimed the right of redemption was a bogus and a sham transaction.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Phool Kumar v. Delhi Administration, which was a case under section 397 of I.P.C. one of the two eye-witnesses had not identified the appellants at all and other identified him at the 4th or 5th round.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 38,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 74,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 84,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v.Biram Lal, (2005)10 SCC, 714, the Supreme Court again took the view that non-production of Chemical Analyser's report may at best deprive the prosecution of the corroborative evidence but where other evidence is sufficient, it would not in any way prejudice the case of the prosecution particularly when the evidence of the prosecutrix is duly supported and corroborated by other witnesses. \n\n 20.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 75,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 94,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It can therefore be said that their existence and their functions have at least been recognized by Parliament, which to my mind has a twofold consequence : in the first place it negatives any notion that the Board are a private tribunal, and secondly it confers on the Board what I may call a public or official character.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 109,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Addl.P.P. for the State of Gujarat submitted that however the trial Court has erred in recording acquittal of the accused of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 46,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 187,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 191,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said cheque was presented for encashment with the bank of complainant but the same was dishonoured and returned with remarks \"Payment stopped by Drawer\" vide memo dated 29/11/2012. \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 173,
"end": 183,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Announced in the open Court on 08th day of December, 2014 (SUMEDH KUMAR SETHI) ACJ/ARC/CCJ(West)/08.12.2014 E. No. 36/2013 Jitender Chawla Vs Tarun",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 57,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 147,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rangalal v. Shyamlal, 50 Cal. W.N. 735 : (AIR 1946 Cal 500), this argument is untenable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 130,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 26.03.2007 an application was moved under Order IX rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC for setting aside ex\u00adparty order dated 22.02.2007. ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 84,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 91,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 141,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Allowing the defendant to continue the use of the trademark 'MEROMER' would create an impression amongst consumers in the trade that the trademark of the defendant is also connected with the plaintiffs and their business or that the goods sold by the defendant are being sold and manufactured under the sponsorship and with the approval of the plaintiffs.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Section 3 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 provides that within six months from the date on which this Act becomes applicable to an Industrial Establishment, the employer shall submit to the Certifying Officer five copies of the drat) standing orders proposed by him for adoption in that industrial establishment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 66,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Repelling the arguments advanced on the side of the petitioners, learned Additional Solicitor General of India Mr. Gopal Subramaniam submitted that both the grounds of attack on the constitutionality of the offending Section are without merit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 110,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 132,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But Mr. Karuppan did not file his \"Written Submissions\" till the after-noon of 14-12-1994 long after the expiry of the time given by us.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 89,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S.T.R.P. No. 57 of 1963 is directed against the order of assessment made in respect of the disputed turnover of the petitioner for the assessment year 1958-59.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 23,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said Rule 157 does not lay down any particular form or any formality to to be complied with by the General Manager when making rules in exercise of the power under that rule.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 17,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n An independent witness-of-fact, Mehardeen (PW-2) was also examined.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 43,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n (iii) There is no provision in the Act similar to Section 10 of the Bombay Money-lenders Act, providing for stay of the suit in order to give to the money-lender an opportunity to apply for and obtain a registration certificate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 94,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The sum of Rs. 100 was an undertaking by the vendee to discharge an earlier usufructuary mortgage on the property executed in favour of Srinivasa Goundar (D.W. 9) by Sowbagiaramil and the earlier usufructuary mortgage is marked as Exhibit B-25 dated nth October, 1940.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 153,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 179,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the matter of Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1984 SC 121 the Supreme Court said, \"What may be unobjectionable as a transitional or temporary measure at an initial stage can still become discriminatory and hence violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution if it is persisted in over a long period without any justification.\" \n 77.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 82,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 100,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 257,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 277,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, it is apparent that Kurukshetra University was directed by the State Government to conduct Centralized Counselling for admission to B.Ed course three times, firstly, in respect of Government and Aided Colleges; secondly, in respect of member colleges of the Association of Self Financing Colleges of Education; and thirdly, vide communication dated 28.11.2006 in respect of 16 additional institutions which were granted recognition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 48,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 365,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner's counsel has even not referred to any provision of the IPC which provide for the minimum sentence but still not incorporated within the ambit of excluded offences in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1927.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 74,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 188,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, Section-19 requires clarification by way of interpretation that ordinarily, when the confiscation is modified or annulled by the High Court in appeal or where the person affected is acquitted by the Special Court, the money or property or both shall be returned to the person affected.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 21,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To the same effect are also the observations of the Calcutta High Court in Ambica Ranjan v. Manikganj Loan Office Ltd., AIR 1928 Cal 468.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 71,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 136,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.10017 of 2011 and connected petitions 29 arbitrariness.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 76,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This decision completely supports the contention of Mr. I. M. Nanavati and the only attack which the learned Advocate-General could level against it was that the Punjab High Court had fallen into an error in regarding sub-section (1)(a) as a general provision and sub-section (1A) as a special provision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 179,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 236,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 280,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On making searches, they found that accused No.1 was in possession of fake Indian currency notes worth Rs.2,000/-, and on interrogation, accused No.1 confessed that he procured the fake Indian currency notes from accused No.18-Shareef Sheik, who is a Bangladeshi national.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 227,
"end": 240,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Initially notices had been issued to the respondents and the Government Advocate was directed to take notice on behalf of the respondents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This Court in more than one decision held that equality clause does not forbid geographical classification, provided ; the difference between the geographical unite has a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Learned Additional Sessions Judge sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under section 498A of the IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 141,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 152,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Reliance was placed on the judgment of E.Giri Yadav, M.A vs Union of India rep.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 77,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Barring the above type of typical cases of the urgency, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that in other cases, the particulars of what is obviously to be done in public interest need not be concealed when its validity is questioned in a Court of justice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Munshee had also referred me R. M. D. C. v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628 for the contention that as the notified scheme is law, one must try to see the intent of them that made it and that could be gathered from the wordings actually used in the Statute.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 79,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Regarding the recovery of the lantern, from the room of the accused, it is said that there was nothing unusual in it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Devilal (PW-1) and Sudhabai (PW-2) are the father and mother of the deceased and they have categorically stated that the non-applicants were used to harass and beat their daughter Mayabai and on the dead body a team of doctors found abrasion measuring 2.5 x 1 cm. on left chin.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 19,
"end": 27,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 187,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": " \t\tD.B.Criminal Appeal No.226/2003 D.B. Criminal Appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment & order dated 21.1.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No.1 Kota in Sessions Case No. 89/2001.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 72,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 90,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 124,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 169,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 233,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 262,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The evidence on record would show that no such suggestion was put to the prosecution.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Levy of penalty under Section 271B is neither mandatory nor a must.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 34,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The mode and manner in which the District Magistrate requisitioned the vehicles and allowed the Chairman, New Barrackpore Municipality with the power of delegation or entrustment warrants note of caution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 134,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, section 34 Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 21,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 39,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nHe has further contended that tax is a 'restriction' on free trade and there is no reason why a different meaning should be given to the expression 'restriction' under Article 304.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 170,
"end": 181,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This means that recording of the complaint must have started at about 7-00 a.m.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Now the question is whether the provision for bad and doubtful debt is the provision for diminution in the value of asset or for known liability of which the amount cannot be determined with substantial accuracy.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The first objection raised by Mr. Dasgupta, therefore, must fail and is overruled.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The objections of the petitioner were rejected on 16th November, 2009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 69,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question as to whether gratuitous passengers travelling in a private car or pillion riders carried on two-wheelers are automatically covered under a package policy/comprehensive policy came up also before The Madras High Court recently in Royal Sundaram Insurance Co.Ltd. v. V.A.Meenakshi and Ors. (C.M.A No.312 of 2009).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 213,
"end": 230,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 324,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ext.P17 is the chemical analysis report received from the F.S.L.wherein MO.7 was referred as item 13 and human blood was detected in MO.7 cement block.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 71,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of K.V.R. Iyyanager vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 1988 (2) CRIMES VIII 882 it was held that in order to establish an offence of forgery under Section 463 IPC punishable under Section 465 IPC the presence of the original document before the court concerned is necessary.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 84,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 163,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 167,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 196,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 200,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By its reply, dated December 11, 1962, the company informed the Registrar that the arrangement with B.M.T. Commodity Corporation had been referred to by the directors in their report to their shareholders amounting to an approval of the",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 128,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Government of India Act, 1935 which followed, with a mixture of shrewd calculation and pretended solicitude for the welfare of minority encouraged factions by giving them political recognition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 33,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n10) After trial and upon appreciation of evidence adduced in the case, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted both the accused persons of the charge under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 162,
"end": 175,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 200,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Nor was there any suggestion for impairing the integration of the country.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The counsel also relied on decision dated 27/2/2008 of this court in review petition filed in CWP No. 2187/2007 in support of his submissions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 111,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nFurther, at page 760 of the report, the apex court further held as under:-\n \"The question whether there was real accrual of income to the assessee-company in respect of the enhanced charges for supply of electricity has to be considered by taking the probability or improbability of realisation in a realistic manner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Earlier, in SELVARAJ V/s. VENKATACHALAPATHY , a learned Judge of the Madras High Court opined that victim in Section 372 proviso would not include a complainant in a complaint case and the term victim used in the said proviso should be confined only to victims in cases instituted otherwise than on a complaint.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 45,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 86,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 120,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Chief Minister, after considering the aforesaid names, appointed the third respondent as 1)0 and IGP of police (Head of Police Force), Karnataka, Bangalore in the Apex Scale of Rs.80.000/- with immediate effect and until further orders vice Sri.N.Achutha Rao, IPS retiring from service on 30. 11.2011.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 148,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 159,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 262,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 305,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Presently we shall advert to the spectrum whether an appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is in substantive sense of the term or is in a different orbit not to attract the conscientious embrace of vested right or is it opposite to christen it as Intra-Court appeal making it vapid and put it to rest in the mausoleum.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 85,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Firstly, in the present case it is deposed by the complainant that he had given the loan to the accused in cash in installments from September, 2011 to the middle of December, 2011.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "P.W.34 is the Senior Draftsman in Neyveli Lignite Corporation and as requested by the Investigating Officer, he prepared the sketch/blue print.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 61,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(2) She would be conscious of the danger of being ostracised by the society or being looked down by the society including by her own family members, relatives, friends and neighbours.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "No cogent reasons have been disclosed as to why these witnesses who are sought to be examined now could not be examined earlier.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "JUDGMENT calendar for bidding process was changed from initial 05th November, 2014 for opening the bid to 15th November, 2014, then again to 24th November, 2014, thereafter to 29th November, 2014 and finally the same was fixed to be the 05th December, 2014.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 82,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 125,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 160,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 195,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 256,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 8-5-57 permit No. Ws 4943 for 26 mds. of wheat was issued in favour of the Fair Price Shop No. 1766 owned by the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 9,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 93,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This order will dispose of C. Ws. Nos. 1203 to 1207 of 1958, and 17, 124, 202 and 206 to 209, 509 and 510 of 1959.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 113,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, the contention on behalf of defendants 2 and 3 is that it is the plaintiff's own case that the employment of defendant No. 1 al Saharanpur came to an end and plaintiff appointed him afresh at Agra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 157,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 215,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What is respondents' own stand as regards this policy, Annexure-R/3-II, is to be found in paragraph 8 of their return, which is reproduced below :",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In view of our finding it is not necessary to refer in details the other decisions referred to us by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The next instances of sale and lease transaction pertains to Universal Starch Chemical Limited.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 94,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that Matriculation was not one of the qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Lineman at the time of revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986, and as such, Assistant Linemen employed with the HSEB/UHBVN could not have been granted the benefit of pay which was ordered to be released to \"Technical Posts\" by the State of Haryana.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 217,
"end": 225,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 286,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 411,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In her cross-examination, PW-1 Ratna has stated that the deceased was not mentally sound and she was taking treatment at the Sion Hospital.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 36,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 138,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But here again, in cases not falling under Sections 236 and 237 Cr. P. C, the appellate Court cannot convict a person of an offence with which he was not charged in the first court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 63,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 72,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On completion of investigation and on the basis of evidence collected he has to form opinion under Section 169 or 170 of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forward his report to the concerned Magistrate under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 117,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 128,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 221,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 232,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In its view, the failure on the part of the Regional Transport Authority to specify in the notification made by it under S. 57(3) of the Act, the date on which and the time and place at which the applications and the representations received would be considered, rendered its proceedings void.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 72,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 129,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that according to his information appellant No.1 Mahipal Singh has suffered a stroke (heart attack).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 107,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was treated with disdain and contempt.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Writ Petitions Nos. 12794, 12797 of 1978 and 39853 of 1982 the petitioners have urged that the impugned Acts were violative of Articles 19(l)(f) and (g) and 31(l) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 43,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 61,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 165,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 185,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Omission to ask tenant to attorn could not be fatal or to postpone the actual sale till it was done. \n\n 8) Petitioner Anil Kumar filed his evidence by way of affidavit and deposed facts on oath which he had pleaded in the eviction petition and it appears that affidavit was reproduction of those words.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 128,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He claimed the information furnished in Ex.P.1 by the Public Information Officer to be false and claimed that the procedure prescribed by Ex.P.3 was not followed in transferring the subsisting works.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was not done on permanent basis.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Then comes sub-section (4) which reads:\n \"313.(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he has committed.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 26,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides no period of limitation for a suit against a person in whom the trust property has become vested for any specific purpose or against his legal representatives or assigns for the purpose of following in his or their hands such property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 38,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as loss of earnings after last date of trial is concerned, a multiple has to be selected in injury cases from the statutory Table appropriate to the age of the injured person as on the last date of trial.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "An attempt was made in this case, on behalf of the counsel, to persuade the Supreme Court to depart from the principle laid down in Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd.'s case , but the Supreme Court pointed out that they reconsidered the matter again and were of the opinion that the method followed in Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd.'s case was the correct method.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 158,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 189,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 320,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is no reason why such a construction should be placed upon the expression \"the State Government\" when it is possible to place upon that expression a construction in tune with the division of legislative powers under the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 226,
"end": 238,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was that a fixed amount of Rs. 250 per month was payable to the parties as remuneration for their services from the date of commencement of the business up to the date of the actual starting of the work.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There more distributions were made in the accounting year ending 30th September, 1953, relevant to the assessment year 1954-55 amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Term No. 1 in the agreement was that a particular line, location of which was detailed therein, was to be treated as the boundary between the Puthenpeedika Mala of the second party and Cheria Cheerothumkalam Mala of the first party and it was further provided that considering these properties respectively as that of these parties they were to be in possession of these respective portions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 160,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 212,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 3 provides for the issuing of a notification of the intention of the State Government of regulating purchase and sale of agricultural produce in an area as may be specified in the notification, and it also provides for inviting objections which when received are required to be considered by the Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"Total income\" is defined in Section 2(45) to be the total amount of income referred to in Section 5, computed in the manner laid down in the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 100,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We may also refer to at this stage, the \"General Development Control Regulations\" (GDCR) as notified by VUDA in pursuance of provisions of Section 12(2)(m) and Section 13(2)(c) of the TP Act which govern the activity of construction in and around the city of Vadodara.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 80,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 108,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 155,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 176,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 190,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 267,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the version of the deceased in Ex.P-13, the dying declaration recorded by P.W.15 the Police Officer, one Venkat Rao and three or four others rushed to their house on hearing her cries and putout the flames.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 128,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Advisory Council is to be appointed by the State Government under Section 17. \n\n27.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 80,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel Mr.R.Vijayakumar would contend that a conjoint reading of sub Section 23(1)(a) and (b) would make it manifestly clear that no order passed by Rent Controller is appealable, except those orders passed under any of the provisions of Rent Control Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 106,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 267,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further stated that nothing was recovered from his possession and that he has nothing to do with the offence of the present case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Madan Lal and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh; 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 100; held that once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it, because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 30,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 110,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Income-tax Officer in such an event can refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner after initiating the proceedings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The arbitration will take place in Singapore as per the international law.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 44,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. B. P. Rajgarhia has also relied on the case of Addl. CIT v. Watan Mechanical and Turning Works [1977] 107 ITR 743 (AP) [FB], which is a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 127,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 192,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mere application of Section 20 to a land which satisfies requirement of section 29-A, per se, would not attract the provisions of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1887\"), and to the extent, the suit which otherwise would lie in Civil Court, can be instituted or cognizable by a Provincial Small Causes Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 84,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 169,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On payment of such amount Section 149 of the Code would apply and the suit would be deemed to have been filed on the day when the unstamped plaint with the prayer for permission to institute the suit in forma pauperis was filed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the language used in the Statute is clear and unambiguous, it is the plain duty of the Court to give effect to it and considerations of hardship will not be a legitimate ground for not faithfully implementing the mandate of Patna High Court LPA No.1841 of 2016 dt.28-10-2016 the legislature.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 229,
"end": 245,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 265,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 279,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The scope and ambit of Order 12 Rule 6, CPC was discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. Ltd. v. United Bank of India, reported as VI (2000) SLT87=III (2000) CLT 299 (SC)= AIR 2000 SC 2740.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 38,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 43,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 78,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 218,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There were 10/15 more children who were returning home along with him.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was submitted however that the observations of their Lordships amounted to an obiter dictum which ought to be followed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The said appeal of the petitioner No.2 Ramdas came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2000 (Annex.28).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 45,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 94,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Chagla submitted that neither SEBI nor Central Government could be regarded as person aggrieved or person adversely affected Dy the order under appeal, The Companies Act does not contemplate any notice to SEBI nor any right of appeal in conferred on SEBI in the proceedings under Section 391.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 38,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 61,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 173,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 213,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 258,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 295,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the instant case, in their statements, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused/appellants, took up the plea, only of false implication.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 59,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 67,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Ramkubai & Ors V Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak & ors. JT 1999 (5) SC 630 it was observed that :\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 75,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Suit items 1, 2 and 3 were included in the Lift Irrigation society of which one Daggubati Raghavaiah the brother-in-law of P.W.2 was the President till 1-9-1976.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 66,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 100,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 160,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus in relation to the assessment year 1949-50 (T. R. C, No. 233 of 1956) no portion of the disputed turnover, Rs. 2,16,550, is liable to be taxed, neither Rs. 1,27,765, which represented only labour charges, nor Rs. 73,627, which represented contracts which did not involve any sale of spare parts separating nor Rs. 15,158, which represented die value of what has been referred to as the \"fabricated\" parts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 73,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Ammonia Supplies Corporation (supra) the Supreme Court was considering the scope of section 155 of the Companies Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 31,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 119,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After the construction of the Tribunal on and from 11th October, 1982, there is no power of review or revision available to the Collector of Customs under the said Act and the only recourse open to him is to file an appeal in terms of Section 129D of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 69,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 247,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of this contention which is a general proposition I have referred to Sec.27 of the Sale of Goods Act, a commentary on Pollock and Mulla, Roman Maxim \"Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet\" which has been explained by Benjamin's Sale of Goods, which has also been explained in Broom's Legal Maxims.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 89,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 111,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 136,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 146,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 159,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 222,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 278,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Applicants are the accused for murder charge.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The compromise running into 128 pages is admitted to both the parties.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "So far as the former contention Under Section 95(2)(b) is concerned, the learned Counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Motor Owners Insurance Company v. J.K. Modi and in M.K. Kunhi Mohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty explaining the difference between the claims Under Section 95(2)(a) and claims Under Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 54,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 139,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 186,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 232,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 300,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 334,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 360,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These States were established with effect from 1-1-1956 under, the States Reorganization Act and the two High Courts were established under S. 49(2) thereof.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 55,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 92,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 148,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was, therefore, argued that the levy itself and its subsequent increase were illegal as there was no authority in law for such levy.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He may choose to exercise, his. discretion to require such person to show cause or he may not.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Where, however, a law made by the State Legislature on a subject covered by the Concurrent List is inconsistent with and repugnant to a previous law made by Parliament, then, such a law can be protected by obtaining the assent of the President under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 157,
"end": 167,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 264,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 284,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After considering facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the assessee gisted above, the learned CIT (Appeals) cancelled penalty Under Section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act in respect of Rs 3 lacs added in the trading account.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 149,
"end": 166,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 178,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In U.P.Transport Corporation v. Trilokchand reported in 1996 (4) SCC 362, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the second schedule suffers from many defects and it is only guide not reckoner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 72,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 99,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW.21-Puttaraju is another signatory of Ex.P.18 which was taken during inquest proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since both the petitions have arisen out of FIR No.178/2012 registered at PS Bharat Nagar and are against common order dated 04.03.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (North West), Rohini Courts, Delhi, therefore, both the petitions are disposed of by this common order. \n\n4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 89,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 135,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 214,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even before this court there has been no controversy raised with regard to any such distinction at the Bar.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "When a businessman enters into a contract whereunder some work is to be performed he seeks to assure himself about the credentials of the person who is to be entrusted with the performance of the work.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "An extraordinary general meeting of the members of the Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. was held at 5-30 p.m. on the same day and the resolutions of the board of directors were approved.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 80,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 1st respondent rightly refused to grant the petitioner's prayer to direct the 2nd respondent to club his applications with that of the 5th respondent to dispose of both the applications together especially in the light of the decision of this Court in Antony v. State of Kerala, (1962 Ker LT 193).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 256,
"end": 300,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW 5 Ramraj, who is said to be owning a field near the disputed field has also stated that in Chopara-wala-khet (disputed land) at about 9.00 a.m.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 11,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 111,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears that the Corporation and the company then held 38,604 and 1,01,918 shares respectively.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We may only note that this decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was in 1969, long after the decision of the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred against the decision of the Punjab High Court to which we have earlier referred.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 68,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 126,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 196,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 24th January, 2001, his pay was revised and pensionary benefits accruing as a result of 1997 Pay Revision was sent by order made on the same day.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 21,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Pratap Rai Tanwani Vs. Uttam Chand, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 490 the Supreme Court on the question of subsequent events and their relevance has held that the appellate court should evaluate and adjudicate the subsequent events and their effect.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 67,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also argued that the prosecution has failed to complete the chain of circumstances, so as to unquestionably return a finding that it is the appellant and the appellant alone, who has committed the crime.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It may also be noted that by order dated 28.11.2016 passed in this appeal, this Court granted conditional bail to A1 to A4 following the guidelines laid down in BATCHU RANGA RAO V/s. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH . \n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 206,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to her, -\n (i) A2 Indrapal and A3 Raju had persistently subjected her to sexual exploitation during the period from 7th July to 10th July, 2005 in the house occupied by A2 Indrapal at Rewa.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 36,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 48,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 153,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 190,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 198,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If they find that unauthorized constructions have been put up close to their wires it is their duty to ensure that that construction is got demolished by moving the appropriate authorities and if necessary, by moving a court of law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The intention of the Act was to cover, as far as possible, the entire field.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due 47 Criminal Application No.258.13 (APL) to private and personal grudge.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We are also unable to accept the submission of Mr. Singhvi that the review petition filed by the petitioner itself was a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, direction given in the review petition should be treated as if given in a writ petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 147,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 176,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On his disclosure the appellant Nandu @ Nand Lal was apprehended from his room in Gita Nagar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 48,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff's witness Kasturchand has stated before me that the rates mentioned in the invoices were the rates at which these goods used to be sold by the plaintiff in November, 1941.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 35,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the facts in the present grounds are identical to the facts in the case of M/s. Punjab Kashmir Finance Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment year 1997-97 in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001, our order in the said appeal in ITA No.5(Asr)/2001 of even date shall be identically applicable to the facts in the present grounds and accordingly grounds No.1 to 5 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 118,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 173,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 227,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first decision relied on by the Learned Counsel for the petitioners is in Dr. Jagdish Saran and Ors. v. Union of India where reservation of 70% of seats for medical graduates from Delhi in post-graduate courses run by the Delhi University was challenged as violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 122,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 189,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 242,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 292,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 312,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the counter-affidavit filed by the MCH, none of the facts stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner are put in issue.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 41,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The benefits of the increase of the retirement age to 60 years shall not be available automatically to all judicial officers irrespective of their past record of service and evidence of their continued utility to the judicial system.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The next question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the acts attributed to the accused persons.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The use of the word 'instituted' in connection with, the word 'remedy' is undoubtedly inappropriate.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 18.10.2008, Pawan Kumar Constable produced six photographs along with six negatives of the place of occurrence before SI/SHO Ravinder Singh (PW-5), which were taken in possession vide memo Ex.PW/S.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 15,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 142,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus the petitioner has failed to discharge the initial onus of proving unlawful subletting , assignment or parting with the possession by the respondents in favour of Twinkle Art Gallery also.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 187,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the total amount thus found, due to the plaintiff, they allotted to him certain immoveable properties of the partnership at the highest value put upon them by the parties.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Moreover the objection that the result of the election has been materially affected cannot be taken in this case under Section 100(1)(d), which does not apply to the facts of this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 136,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is seen from Milan Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.27 that a plain reading of section 10 was held to show that the aggrieved person can file a complaint directly to the Magistrate concerned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 52,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 87,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One V.G.Reddy working as Field Officer, S-MAC Services Ltd., in his complaint lodged to the Police informing about the accident which is marked along with the FIR as Ex.P.1 has stated that he was on duty near Doddathogur Cross, N.H.4 on 4-11-2004.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 59,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 246,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The point is, if similarly placed petitioners/parties invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 and able to demonstrate that they are also entitled to get protection/reliefs, we just cannot deny the same merely because there are alleged contrary views.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 118,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned advocate for accused has attacked the case of the prosecution that as per the complaint-Ex.P1 it is the translation of her English complaint into Kannada and the original complaint which was in English, written on 30-01-2012 is not seen the light of the day and the same is not produced before the Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 226,
"end": 236,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The trial court after framing the issues and after recording evidence came to the conclusion that the defendant was a licensee and that the services of the defendant had been terminated on 10-1-1976 and that the defendant had failed to prove that he was tenant of the suit premises.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 189,
"end": 198,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nThere is a no due certificate given by Sri N. Subramanyam, P.W.1, the husband of the plaintiff on 1-10-1979 as per Ex.D-2 acknowledging that the 1st defendant has paid rent upto-date at the rate of Rs.250/- per month as per the lease deed executed in the year 1961 in respect of the mortgaged property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 59,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 109,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, this section is creating a substantive offence and is not merely a provision effecting a change in the procedure for trial of a preexisting substantive offence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Of course, it had come out in evidence that appellant No.2 was found making some sound.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the said reply, it has been denied that respondent No. 2 (the Collector, Bikaner) has gone to the spot or that any police force had been sent and it has been asserted that the possession of the property was demanded, delivered and taken over in a peaceful manner after preparing a panchnama at the spot.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 83,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This proposition is very well established and explained by the Supreme Court in Sri Shiv Ratna Makim v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 610.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 135,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hanumappa executed a will on 19th December, 1941.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A criminal case in crime No.17/2011 was registered at Kaladagi Police Station.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 35,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 77,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We will now refer to IAC v. Coromandal Fertilisers Ltd. [1989] 29 ITD 455, an order of the Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal, on which strong reliance was placed by Mr. Tralshawala, the learned Senior D.R.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 73,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 100,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 178,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It may be recalled that all that has been urged with regard to non-applicability of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is that offence of cheating cannot co-exist with the offence under Sections 3, 4 and 5(c)(i) of the Act of 1978.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 95,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 120,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 213,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There should be at least oral dedication to the Almighty God.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On a plain reading of different sub-sections of section 86, it is apparent that no foreign State may be sued in any Court in India, except with the consent of the Central Government which has to be certified in writing by the Secretary to that Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 58,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 130,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 181,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus offence u/s 307 IPC is not made out in respect of injuries caused to ASI Giriraj Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 20,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 24,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 91,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At P.S. \n Sector 23, Dwarka, FIR No. 150/11 was registered under Section 279/304 A of IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 34,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 96,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 103,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, the observations of the Supreme Court in Kondala Rao v. A. P. S. R. T., , CM, H.M.T. Co-op. Society v. State of Rajatthon, and Ramnath Verma v. State of Rajasthan, . \n 54.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 46,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 79,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 130,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 171,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case, the accused was 32 years old.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the said context, it was held that the Ld. Judge had framed nine issues which specifically covered the myriad nuances of the dispute and since there was no change in the circumstances, therefore, the Ld. Trial Judge should not have dismissed the suit and the impugned order passed by the Ld. Trial Judge was set aside.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court in Govinda Menon v. Union of India, 1967 Ker L. T. 336 = (AIR 1967 SC 1274) considered the question whether a lease of this nature could be sanctioned without public auction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 93,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hon'ble Supreme Court granted liberty to Late Sh. Hazura Singh to approach the civil court or any other appropriate forum which would decide the matter without being influenced by the observations and findings of the Hon'ble High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 21,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vadivelu v. Sundaram, 2000 (8) SCC 355 has reiterated the same principles in paragraph 16, which is being quoted below:\n \"16.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 18,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 72,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In his further cross-examination, he was confronted with the omissions in the statements Ex. P/l and Ex. D/l about the injuries on the back and the hand.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The offences in both the matters are different.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The same principle also applies to the petitioner in this petition under Article 32 which is based on allegations of political motivation against some political parties in causing alleged interception of his telephone.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 83,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After careful consideration of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, we are unable to agree with Mr.N.Dinakar, that invariably during investigation a person arrested must be taken before a Magistrate and orders obtained before the finger prints of such persons could be taken by a Police Officer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 47,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 100,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The conditions impugned in this Writ Petition are necessary to protect the environment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The said special reports U/s. 57 of the NDPS Act were forwarded to senior officers of police and received vide diary no. 1442 and 1443 in the office of ACP, N & CP on 06.06.2010.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 32,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 48,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 177,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(The estern boundary of the property which is a portion of Puthenpeedikamala and which is being enjoyed by Parambatt Velavudhan and his son under a registered lease deed of 10th April, 1952 is mentioned as thodu (in that document).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 76,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 127,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 189,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff who is the nearest heir to Seshagiri Rao is entitled to the properties described in Schedules 'A' to 'E', When he came to Eluru on the 25th of August 1954 to claim his reversion, defendants 1 to 8 set up a will alleged to have been executed by Ramamma on 21-8-1954.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 141,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 168,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 265,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 278,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner has placed all these orders before this Court as well, as Annexure A-7(Colly.)\n\n9.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Third bail application was filed by Dildar vide Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 722 of 1992 and Hon'ble V. N. Mehrotra, J. granted him bail on 31-3-1992 with the following order :-\n\"This is third bail application by the applicant; his earlier two applications have been rejected by me on merits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 95,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 122,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 156,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon the pronouncement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sahadevan alias Sagadevan Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai reported in (2003) 1 SCC 534.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 104,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 228,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, if injunction is withheld and the several steps contemplated by the MOU are allowed to be completed and the transaction is completed, at worst the plaintiffs share in the new company will be proportionately reduced to the total shareholding of the new company.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Saifuddin Saheb case (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that a divorced muslim woman is also entitled to get maintenance from his husband like any other divorced wife of other religion, in view of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 227,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 261,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n 23.Regarding the second leg of argument of Ld. counsel for the respondent that the present appeal is not maintainable in view of the judgment 2013 CRI L.J. 2764 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and in the judgment National Commission of Women Vs. State of Delhi and another judgment 2011 CRI L.J. 962 Supreme Court",
"entities": [
{
"start": 145,
"end": 163,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 196,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 317,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In an attempt to overtake the truck No. RRW 321, it collided with the truck, as a result of which Pata Ram received multiple injuries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 106,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, appreciating the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting defendants/appellants that the suit property should not go into the hands of third parties, the claim of the contesting defendants/ appellants herein that they have a right of pre-emption over the suit property as against the aliens to the suit property deserves to be safeguarded, as protected under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 383,
"end": 392,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 400,
"end": 424,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decrees were sent by the Special Judge to the Collector of Banares for execution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 70,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioners contended that petitions are maintainable having regard to the principles laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court in DWARKADAS MARFATIA & SONS v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY, and MAHABIR AUTO STORES v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, SRILEKHA VIDYARTHI v. STATE OF U.P., 1995 AIR SCW 1613 and INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. SADHANA AGARWAL, . \n\n13.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 137,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 209,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 316,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 368,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n(9) ILR 41 Mad 743 : (AIR 1919 Mad1944) (FB) is the Full Bench decision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 46,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the aforesaid facts it can be safely inferred that appellant Tripathy was not happy with the Collector though it may also be said that the Collector had also acted rashly and that was sufficient motive for entering into the conspiracy with appellant Yadav in order to get rid of the Collector.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 74,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 260,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She, on instructions, contended that it is merely a claim to shift burden on the poor driver Dajgit Singh who himself is a poor person and not even in a position to own a two wheeler what to talk of a vehicle being Contessa.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also necessary to consider the provisions of Sub-rule (1), (2), (2A), (2B), (2C) of Rule 5 which were introduced by the Amendment Rules: (1) The force shall consist of a unit at the centre in the Ministry of Railways, to be known as the \"Railway Protection Special Force\" and other units on each Zonal Railway.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 96,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 222,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whether the claim is for specific performance or for damages, what is sought to be enforced is a contract affecting immovable property of which the only evidence permissible under the Evidence Act is the unregistered agreement to lease and that evidence is shut out by Section 49(c) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 184,
"end": 196,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 282,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the absence of a statutory provision his right depends solely upon the terms of his contract of service:\n\" The law declared by the Federal Court and by any judgment of the Privy Council shall, so far as applicable, be recognised as binding on, and shall be followed by, all Courts in British India\" (see Section 212, Government of India Act, 1935).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 287,
"end": 300,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 318,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 349,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the course of trade and commerce, the brand name or trade name exist independently of the registration which affords further protection under the Statute (refer Bombay High Court decision in the case of Consolidated Foods Corpn. v. Brandon & Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1965 Bom. 35).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 164,
"end": 181,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 277,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question arises as to whether the accused could be able to establish their said stand or not on the record.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "With the authoritative pronouncement of law regarding the bail, it would not be necessary for us now to consider the earlier arguments of the learned senior counsel regarding the nature of the offences as we have already made clear.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to the respondent the University in the camouflage of doing service to the society is embarking on a commercial venture illegally and unauthorisedly.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Admittedly, the deceased and Sarojini alone were living in the house while Vinod was working at Sidhi, obviously he was coming and going to his place of duty.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 101,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "does not prohibit the Wage Board from giving a reason for its decision.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It, had been therefore reiterated as following:\n \"We are of the opinion that only Government employees whose services were regularised on or after 1.10.1994 will not get the benefit and the stand of the Government in this regard is correct\". \n\n5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 147,
"end": 156,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent 1 is the Union of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 34,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also places reliance on the illustration (c) to Section 127 of the Contract Act, and RAM NARAIN v. LT.COL HARI SINGH, . \n\n23.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 62,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 82,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 119,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ex. WW1/23 Letter dated 18.01.1983 written by Mr. R.S.Tiwari, Convenor, S.C.C, UNIT to Mr. Ajay Shankar",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 34,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 77,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further more, it appears that as the appellant before the Supreme Court was satisfied with the observations made by the Court, he did not press for a decision on the question of court\u00adfees and confined his arguments only to the question as to whether the court\u00adfees should be levied under s. 7(iv) (b) of the Court Fees Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 71,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 301,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 323,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Had he been at Batala at 7 p.m. on the day of occurrence, it is not likely that he could have reached his village before 9.30 or 10 p.m. on the day of occurrence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 21,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This was, in a sense, negative as it merely prevented the municipality from levying particular kinds of taxes.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Learned Additional Session Judge has also come to the conclusion that no lease-deed has been executed in favour of Tulsi Ram in accordance with rules of U.P. Zaminadari Abolition & Land Reforms Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 124,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 197,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now that we have set out the objectives intended to be achieved by our founding fathers, the question arises whether those very persons could have intended to empower the Parliament, a body constituted under the Constitution to destroy the ideals that they dearly cherished and for which they fought and sacrificed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 171,
"end": 181,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 224,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As far as the petitioner in W.P.No.31 135/2011 Is concerned, he submits that the petitioner has not given his residential address: he has only given his electrical shop address.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 46,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner alleged that on the basis of the joint measurement its dues for the total volume of the work executed by the petitioner were in excess of the mobilization advance made by the claimant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Sessions Case is registered on the strength of the charge-sheet filed at the conclusion of investigation of F.I.R. registered on 29-10-1998 by C.B.I., Mumbai vide C.R. No. R.C. 3(S)/S.C.B./98-Mumbai for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 365 of I.P.C. C.B.I., Mumbai on investigation, charge-sheeted five numbers of accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 364 and 201 of I.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 139,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 157,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 254,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 264,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 279,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 410,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 414,
"end": 420,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Not only that one valuable land scam was involved between the two.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Full Bench held that the order of dismissal was passed merely on the basis of his conviction and without considering the conduct which led to his conviction, as is the requirement of Rule 19 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification and Appeal). Rules, 1965.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 187,
"end": 198,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 269,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Obviously, the State Government fell prey to the utter false reasoning presented by the applicant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, the learned senior counsel for the respondents relied on a decision reported in 2009 (1) SCC 475 (Speech and Software Technologies (India) Pvt Ltd vs Neos Interactive Limited), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:\n `22.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 194,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 229,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They denied that the present appellant No. 3. Advance Engineering Company had hired the truck from the appellant No. 2 Modern Construction Company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 73,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 146,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All that is said is that the Transport Authority must consider the applications according to the order in force at the time it hears them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The further Appeal, filed by the Appellants, before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, was dismissed on 1st April, 1996.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 100,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 134,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But from the table set out in Jagdishlal, it would be noticed that in that case, Jagdishlal, the general candidate, reached the post of Deputy Superintendent on 27.10.87 before the reserved candidate H.S. Hira was further promoted as Superintendent on 27.5.88.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 91,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 169,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 209,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 259,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A further declaration is sought that the plaintiff is entitled to the exercise of all rights on the preference shares held by it under section 87(2)(b) of the Companies Act and a prayer is also made for permanent injunction restraining defendant nos.1 to 8 and defendant nos.13 to 17 from interfering in any manner with the voting rights by the plaintiff on its preference shares.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 151,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 172,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This amount had been demanded for installation of new transformer as old transformer was overloaded and his tubewell meter was not functioning properly.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit the authorities of the Corporation undertook to take steps for allotment of shops to the petitioners as soon as the same is raised as also to pay them the compensation amount no sooner the same is made available in the light of the decision taken by the District Administration under Memo No. 09.04.2007, Annexure-5. \n\n 4.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As already stated by us, manufacturers of bulk drugs who claim to be affected by the Drugs (prices Control) Order, belong to a class of persons who are well and fully informed of every intricate detail and particular which is required to be taken into account in determining the price.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Reg istry is also directed to issue show cause notice to the surety of the app ellant as to why the surety bond cannot b e f orf eited and recov ered .",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act cannot possibly be held to take away any remedy available with reference to the well-recognised doctrine expressed in Pollock and Wright on possession thus :- Possession in law is a substantive right or interest which exists and has legal incidents and advantages apart from the owner's title (p. 19)\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 36,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 162,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 173,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In making this submission the following passage from the Judgment of the Supreme Court in -- 'Thawardas Pherumal v. Union of India, (S) AIR 1955 SO 468 at p. 474 (H) was quoted: \n \"A reference requires the assent of 'both' sides.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 86,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 151,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Likewise, if under Section 39 of the Act of 1950 the Board has the power to revise any decision of the Collector, then the Board would be competent to revise the decision of the Collector given under Section 28 of the Abolition of Jagirs Act unless the Act expressly prohibits the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 29,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 210,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 241,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Death of Sukhjinder Kaur took place in the house of accused on the intervening night of 24/25.02.1994.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 101,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, while deciding any question of the cause of accident where a minor is involved, the area of driver's duty must be examined with greatest precision, because in the cage of a child the driver must take all precautions to avoid the collision.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In that case the assessee had agreed to purchase a tile factory, vide written agreement dated 22nd May, 1950.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 108,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His explanation to the effect that some intruder caused the injuries and ran away is rendered unacceptable given his conduct in not raising a hue & cry even, let alone giving a hot pursuit to the attacker and the above circumstances and evidence on record.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(undoubtedly at a time when she had become pregnant) besides her own evidence, the respondent had adduced the evidence of R.Ws. 3. 4 and 5 and her brother Thamma Reddi, R.W. 6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 155,
"end": 167,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After registering the complaint in crime No.79/2011, the PW-11 has sent the FIR report as per Ex.P.17 to his higher officer and also to the court and further on the same day, he visited the scene of offence and in the presence of panch witnesses namely Smt.Shashirekha-CW-1, CW-15- Chandru, CW-16-Subbanna and he has drawn spot mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and also collected the bloodstained mud and also plain mud.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 257,
"end": 268,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 289,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 305,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The order, I agree, does not in fact offend against Article 19 (1) (a) or 19 (1) (g) (per Chandachud J.).\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 84,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 100,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This English decision was followed by a Division Bench of the Travancore Cochin High Court in Cheriyan Joseph v. Dr. James Kalacherry, AIR 1952 Trav. Co. 75.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 156,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That is why we have referred to Section 23 (xxi) which gives the Syndicate powers to withhold or cancel the result of any candidate at any University examination, \n \n\n 38.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 48,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "the question is whether a Sessions Court can add such a person as an accused in the absence of any committal order having been passed against him ?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Yash Sharma and he gave the information to the concerned IO on 21.06.2008.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 121,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In B.V. \n\nNagesh v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy reported in JT 2010(10) SC 551: 2010 (13) SCC 530, while dealing with the issue, this Court held as under:\n 4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 92,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In arriving at that conclusion the learned Judges laid emphasis on the special words of Clause (4) of that section that no application under Sub-section (3) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of sixty days from the date of the order of acquittal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 156,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Sukhdev Singh and others vs. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Reghuvanshi and another [1975 1 SCC 421], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that Regulations being framed under statutory provisions would have the force of law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 95,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 117,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Chander Kant v Laxmi Chand Ex.No.75/2010/03 be decided without evidence and hence, following issues were settled on 15.2.2014 viz;\n 1. Whether the front side of the first floor of property in question comprises of two flats as F\u00ad30/F\u00ad1 and F\u00ad30/F\u00ad2 as stated ?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 43,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 125,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But would that be extendable in case",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The substance of this memorandum was that the petitioner had got his passport renewed fraudulently by suppressing the fact of pendency of the Hare Street P.S./DD (Kolkata) Case No. 476 dated 24 September 2002 in column 20(b) of the passport application form.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 171,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 209,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before 1930, there, was no system of compulsory insurance in respect of third party risks in England.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 100,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as the plaintiff's claim against Chattar Sen (defendant No. 1) is concerned, plaintiff relied on paragraphs 2 and 7 of the agreement dated 9th September, 1949, between him and Chattar Sen.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 51,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 165,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 195,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Law of course to some extent would punish offenders, but is doing little to curb this type of utterly obnoxious dowry torture.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But, the bulk of the cases (civil, criminal) in the subordinate Courts concern the Law of Contract, Transfer of Property Act, Sale of Goods Act, Negotiable Instruments Act, Indian Penal Code, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure etc., which are all Central Laws made under List III.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 98,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 124,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 143,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 171,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 190,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 215,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 243,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our opinion, further the husband (appellant) was not bound to accede to the request of the wife to give up his residence at Bankhedi where he was residing with his parents and to accompany the respondent to the place where she had taken up the service.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 135,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No written document was executed in respect of the same at the time of giving the alleged loan.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It also appeared that all the registers were filled by one person as the hand writing was appearing to be of one person.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The said Syed Shami was not examined as a witness before the trial Court in O.S.No.623 of 1985.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 94,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Yet another contention of the learned Counsel is that though there were other material witnesses present according to the prosecution case, they were not examined and the testimony of the interested police personnel is not reliable and in any case not sufficient to convict the accused/appellant Vinod.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 296,
"end": 301,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has come on evidence that Inspector Baldev Singh kept the entire case property with him till it was deposited in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Amritsar on 30.9.1997 through ASI Surinder Singh, (PW-3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 161,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 174,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 201,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "6.4 Consumption of Energy by the captive developer at his point of consumption from the grid over and above his captive consumption shall be charged at the ruling rates in KSEB chargeable for his category of consumer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 172,
"end": 176,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was, therefore, contended that the phrase must be read only in respect of those contingencies with which it is consistent.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this context, they relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of \"Mithu Singh Vs. State of Punjab\", [AIR 2001 SC 1929], in which it is held that merely because accused knew that co\u00adaccused was himself armed with a gun and also had knowledge about previous enmity between co\u00adaccused and deceased, inference that accused had common intention to kill cannot be drawn.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 144,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The \"sliding scale\" test for determining the level of interactivity of the website, for the purposes of ascertaining jurisdiction of the forum state, was laid down in Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F.Supp. 1119 (W.D.Pa.1997).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 167,
"end": 236,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 30-4-1982, the Court had directed the prosecution to produce the statements recorded Under Section 161, Cr. P.C. of the witnesses Rajendra Jain, Badri Prasad, H.P. Kuchhar and P.C. Tripathi, who were cited as prosecution witnesses, but the same were not produced in the Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 105,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 115,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 146,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 160,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 174,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 192,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Subordinate Judge passed an order on July 31, 1952, which ran \" that in view of the notification constituting a breach of the injunction, the property of the defendant State of Bihar shall be attached to the value of Rs. 5,000.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 62,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 194,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the AAC had wrongly mentioned the figure of RS. 1,06,628 in respect of the machinery account, the Tribunal directed the ITO to allow depreciation on the correct figure of Rs. 1,08,000 at the rate applicable to machinery.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 13,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I am, therefore, of the opinion that the respondent's trial at Sitapur was not barred by the provisions of Section 403(1), Cri. P. C. \n 8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 70,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 121,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 133,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(See 59 State v. Dinkarrao Narayanrao Deshmukh (1), also Maruti Rao S. Gube Patil v. State (2) and also Special C.A. No. 229 of 1968, dec. on July 11, 1969",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 46,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 94,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 132,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 155,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A person, by name Asaram Bapu claims to be a Saint.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 29,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also admitted position before us that 1960 Act has been enacted by the Legislature of the State of Maharashtra in exercise of its power under Entry 32 List II, which reads as under:--\n 32. Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporation, other than those specified in List I, and universities; unincorporated trading, literacy, scientific, religious and other societies and associations; cooperative societies.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 52,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 116,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 164,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case for the prosecution briefly was that the house of Rahayya in Dudyia was burgied on the night of April 20, 1957.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 76,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 119,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His evidence further shows that two of the culprits viz., appellant Machhi Singh and appellant Jagir Singh had chased him and fired the shots at him which caused injuries to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 80,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 106,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sections 30 and 31 provide for acquisition and disposal of land and Section 32A to 32 G provide for the levy .and collection of betterment charges.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 18,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 87,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It would thus appear prima facie that Hira Nandani Builders and Apex Builders obtained 300 metric tonns and 250 metric tonns respectively of cement on applications submitted by them through the intervention of Pesi Tata.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 59,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 77,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 219,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 12-1-1998 the Division Bench consisting of their Lordships B. Subhashan Reddy, J., and G. Bikshapthy, J., passed the same order and at the instance of APSRTC the Division Bench consisting of their Lordships P. Venkatarama Reddi, J., and A. Hanumanthu, J., passed the order dated 29-4-1998 referred to above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 80,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 103,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 160,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 230,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 253,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 291,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts of this case clearly established how the section operates as a shutter on the exercise of the right.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Respondents 3 and 4, Dharmeshwar Kalita and Someswar Neog, respectively, also were amongst the tenderors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 39,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 57,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The same view was taken by the Federal Court in Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chandhuri (2) following the dictum of Hughes, C.J., in Patterson v. State of Albama(3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 102,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 133,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ranojirao Shinde (supra) this Court did hold that money and choses in action could not form the subject-matter of acquisition under Article 31, clause (2) and the reason it gave for taking this view was the same as that which prevailed with the majority judges in Kameshwar Singh's case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 50,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 188,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 315,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further submitted that SHO Police Station Kotwali Alwar was directed to restore the possession of suit property which was only one room.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 62,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reference has also been made in the course of argument to Nawab Mir Nazar-ali v. Akaji, (1928) 11 Nag L J 62 where it was held that a suit for recovery of arrears of lawajama was governed by Article 131.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 108,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 202,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The jailed defendant loses his job if he has one and is prevented from contributing to the preparation of his defence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the day of the offence itself, Sarwan Singh, Gurdial Singh and Banta Singh went by a bus together and got down near the road which leads to the village Sohian.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 161,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The writ petitions before us undoubtedly involve a question relating to dwelling houses but, they cannot be equated with a suit for the possession of a house by one private person against another.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Hira Lal Rattan Lal v. Sales Tax Officer, Section III, Kanpur the Supreme Court said : \n\"13.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 64,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further DW2/1 Sh. Abdul Salaam who is not a party to present suit has deposed as witness for the defendant no.2 (represented through LRs).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 30,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first respondent challenged the said judgment and the criminal appeal filed by her allowed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram whereby the conviction and sentence imposed on the first respondent was set aside and the appellant was acquitted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 153,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The observation of Sanderson C. J. in the case of Mozahur Ali v. Emperor, 27 Cal WN 99 : (AIR 1923 Cal 196) that Section 342 Cr. P. C. contemplates that the object of the examination of the accused under Section 342 Cr. P. C. is to enable him to explain any circumstance appearing in evidence against him has never been disputed in any case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 28,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 107,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 124,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 134,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 215,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 225,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "See also Mani @ Udattu Man & Ors. v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police (2009 (3) SCALE 431).\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 91,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the insistence that the specifications described in the statute by any logic amount to doing away with the basic and broad ingredient of 'Mischief by fire', in our view 29 of 32 CWP No.2822 of 2017 along with 17 connected matters 30 is a needlessly hair - splitting and far-fetched proposition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 189,
"end": 208,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears that the Gupta and the Singhania groups were at one time jointly running the company as well AS the Corporation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 25,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 50,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Union Public Service Commission had further noted that the Vice-Chairman, as a matter of fact, had stated before Justice Chinnappa Reddy Commission that he did not recollect exactly the conversation he had with Sri Baidwan on 28.5.1982.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 35,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 151,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 226,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 239,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For these reasons, therefore, I fully agree with the majority view of the High Court (Misra, Shukla and Singh, JJ.).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 91,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 99,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 109,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It can very well be presumed in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC decided on 15.4.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08 that the deceased might have been spending one- fourth of Rs. 12,792/- on his personal expenses as he had left behind five dependents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 114,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 135,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 155,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "vesting it in the executive, though responsible to the legislature, would be undemocratic, as it might enable the executive to abuse this power by securing the passage of an ordinary bill without risking a debate in the legislature",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "When the respondent-landlord took out execution proceed- ings for ejectment of the appellant-tenant,\the objected under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure contending\tthat the decree passed by the civil court was a nullity, as\t the premises in question\twas governed by\t the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 11 of 1973.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 133,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 160,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 343,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the absence of notification u/s 1(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the bar of Section 50 of the DRC Act is not applicable in view of admitted fact that the aforesaid area was not urbanized as on the date of commencement of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 39,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 75,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 113,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 261,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further submitted that chit commission cannot be equated with professional receipts and the yardstick of Rs. 10,00,000/- cannot be applied to this case as under Section 44AB professional receipts are relevant only to those professionals that are referred to in Section 44AB of the Act and not to others.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 164,
"end": 176,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 276,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the same point reliance was placed on a decision of the Special Bench of this Court, Jyoti Prokash Mitter v. The Hon'ble Mr, Justice H. K. Bose, .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 147,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent submitted an explanation in which he submitted that Durgalu was not handed over to him on March S, 1954:, as alleged nor at any time before he proceeded on March 7, 1904:, on casual leave.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 74,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 118,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 184,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It must be remembered that the Fundamental Rights are constitutional guarantees given to the people of India and are not merely paper hopes or fleeting promises and so long as they find a place in the Constitution, they should not be allowed to be emasculated in their application by a narrow and constricted judicial interpretation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 108,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 213,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "You are accordingly requested to take appropriate action for the protection of the child rights conferred on children by the RTE Act, 2009 in elementary schools.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 138,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The same view is also taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Nithiyan P. and S.P. Prasanna vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994 WLR 624).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 139,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the absence of explanation at all on the side of the Government, except change of Government then and there, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have accepted the case of the petitioner (A. Obaidhullah) and quashed the charge memo on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 200,
"end": 214,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The intention was to avoid any restriction being placed by the States hampering free movement (1) [1950] S.C.R. 88. \n\nthroughout the territory of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 114,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 151,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the affidavit filed on behalf of the State they were produced before Sri U. Section Narain, Additional Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who made the order under Section 112 at 1 p. m. i. e., within 24 hours of their arrest.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 103,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 179,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is a well-settled principle of interpretation that words used by the Legislature are not readily to be accepted as surplusage.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "All her attempts went in vain; she inevitably filed a petition u/s. 125 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court in C. Misc. No.455/07. \n\n4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 71,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 82,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 127,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Keeping in view the constitutional concept of tax, whether the penalty is treated to be an additional tax or an impost under its statutory provision, necessarily it is a tax for the purpose of Article 265 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 193,
"end": 204,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 224,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.1984 of the Bombay High Court in Civil Writ No. 3063 of 1983.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 43,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 68,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 99,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Consequently, the Government of India appointed a High Power Committee on 7th April, 1986 under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice R.B. Mishra, a retired judge of this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 37,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 89,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 139,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are not persuaded that the rule stated in Clay v. Yates 108 E.R. 461 is applicable to the supply of printed material as in this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 71,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection, it is advantageous to refer to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 4, the Director General of ICAR, wherein he stated that first essential qualification pertaining to educational attainment was relaxable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 122,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court thereafter referred to the decision by the Federal Court in Ralla Ram v. Province of East Punjab and observed that the decision in Sir Byramjee Jeejeebhoy's case (supra) was affirmed by the Federal Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 114,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 174,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The conclusion in that regard reached by the trial Court appears to us just and proper and is, therefore, affirmed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The right of carrying on business in firearms is a fundamental right and respondent should have kept in view the basic requirement of law, viz., renewal of the Licences could not be refused on flimsy and extraneous considerations.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid facts taken together would suggest that Britannia is not a bona fide purchaser of the said bill without notice of conspiracy or fraud.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 106,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On behalf of the assessee, we have heard Shri A.K. Sen, Senior Advocate and Shri Harnam Shankar, who represented the case on behalf of the interveners, Arvind Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. and Shri S.L. Batra, who was representing the assessee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 185,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 205,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Agrawal Roadlines Pvt. Ltd. 's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Poddar Steel Corporation's case (supra), held that the only mistake committed by the petitioners was that they annexed the demand draft issued in favour of other Corporation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 30,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 124,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 157,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What has been recognised on one hand in regard to maintenance cannot be taken away by the other for providing reasonable and fair maintenance.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\"The High Court inevitably is the guardian of the independence and integrity of the subordinate judicial service, whose control is constitutionally vested in it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Ex. PW1/12 to Ex. PW1/15 are the postal receipts and acknowledgment cards.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The burden to rebut the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act is not discharged.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 54,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 74,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(b) \"Scheduled Tribes\" means such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Gujarat under Article 342 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 182,
"end": 198,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 216,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 236,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The distinction between the meaning of the words \"accure\" or \"arise\" was noticed by Mahajan, J., at page 496 and by Justice Mukherjea, at pages 514 and 515 white referring to the earlier decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rogers Pyatt Shellac & Co., v. Secretary of State for India, where he brought out the distinction between the word \"accure\" and the word \"arise\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 91,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 133,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 222,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 285,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the appeal preferred from the judgment of the High Court upholding the said conviction and sentence the Hon'ble Apex Court, after having considered the defence version that Lakhiram was killed by the father of the accused Meharsingh on seeing his sons being assaulted by lathi and balkathi, accepted the plea of right of private defence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 125,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 184,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 235,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 138B provides for the admissibility of a statement made and signed by any person before any Gazetted Officer of the Customs during any enquiry or proceeding under the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Paragraph 11 and 12 of the judgment in M.Venugopal (supra), is reproduced hereinbelow:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further deposed that on 5.7.1997, he was the Principal of the and he has done the admission of Rubi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 35,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 102,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But Section 9 does not prohibit allocation of matters which can be tried by a Single Judge, to a Division Bench.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The second part of Clause (1) of Section 32, viz., \"the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of; that person's death comes into question\" is not to be found in the English Law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At this stage, we must refer to a controversy with respect to the meaning and effect of the court's judgment in : 1984CriLJ647 .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 126,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This suggestion was rejected because it might become necessary in the national interests to send a competent judge to some part of India in spite of his own inclinations.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 136,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the decision reported in Yashoda v. State of M.P. ((2004) 3 SCC 98), it was held as follows:\n \"Law does not permit a court to speculate or conjecture so as to imagine events about which there is absolutely no evidence on record.\" \n\n 41.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 70,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As aforesaid, on the basis of the complaint (Exh. 39) lodged by Bapu Bhosle, Police Head Constable on 2-10-1991, First Information Report was lodged at Police Station, Tahsil, Sub-division Kotwali, District Nagpur bearing Crime No. 448 of 1991 on 2-10-1991 at 7.10 p.m.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 111,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 174,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 196,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 213,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 256,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Vimadalal has referred to two recent decisions of the Calcutta High Court and the Madras High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 77,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first respondent has also taken notice of their own order dated 23-07-1997 in Appeal No. 39 of 1997 filed by the petitioner in the case of Srihari Mills Limited wherein it is submitted that a rehabilitation proposal envisaging a total cost of Rs.6.17 crores.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 78,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 103,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 164,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It discloses that till 2008, Prashant was working in the United States as an I.A. 8479/10, 8480/10 in CS(OS)1307/2010 & IA 3577/10 in CS(OS) 505/2010 Page 3 Analyst Developer, and later as Commodities Trader.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 70,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(The proviso was added by Finance Act, 1968 from April 1, 1968.)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 43,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 62,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That was a case where the request of the prosecution to tender a pardon to the respondent-Vipin Kumar Jaggi was rejected by the Sessions Judge under Section 307 of the Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 107,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 160,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused No.1 B.K.Nair were looking .25 \u20ac'\\_) ' .-.. .. . \n\n after the affairs of the firm on behalf of P.W. 16 Shakti kurnar Gurha.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 21,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 130,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of this decision, it cannot be said that in case of the State being an appellant, leave application can be preferred within a period of three years, and after the leave being granted, the appeal can be preferred within reasonable period as held by the Division Bench in A. B. Pathan's case (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 278,
"end": 290,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this context we may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of Ambica Quarry Works etc. v. Slate of Gujarat and Ors. and Ambalal Manibhai Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , wherein it has been held as under:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 132,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 197,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW 2 Santosh has also stated that her husband was earning Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- per month.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 12,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Assistant Government Pleader contended before us that the two committal orders passed by the learned Magistrate, Dhari, should be quashed as they had been passed in breach of the mandatory provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 337 of the Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 130,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 245,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondents Nos. 4 to 7, that is, Sarvasri Sher Andil Khan, Moghal Khan, Abdullah Khan and Mannan Khan, are the tenants in possession of the premises aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as the premises).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 62,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 75,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 90,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 106,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There was thus a change in the proposal for transfer of Chief Justice K. B. N. Singh within a period of less than 14 days.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 84,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "irrespective of the question whether ;an appeal lies thereto from the ultimate decree or order passed in the suit or not",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Seven persons including the three respondents, Singhara Singh, Bir Singh and Tega Singh were prosecuted for this murder.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 61,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 72,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(See State of U.P. v. Ajay Kumar and Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya v. Bal Kishan Soni.)\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 96,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Bhagwati, J., (as he then was) speaking for himself and two other Judges observed at page, 583: \n \"The basic principle which, therefore, informs both Articles 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against the discrimination, Now, what is the content and reach of this great equalising principle?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 168,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the application under Article 226 tried by Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji, a challenge was thrown to this act of seizure on the ground that he had no reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation but in his affidavit he has not been able to produce materials to sustain this belief, \n \n\n 44.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 36,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 77,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, conferment of such power was necessary as Parliament rightly found that Section 21 of the General Clauses Act was not adequate to meet the situation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 63,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 93,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 120,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "6. Under an agreement for security services, for the same cottage, the aforesaid lessee was required to pay Rs.30,000/- to the club and these charges were liable to be increased by 5% after first year and 10% after the second year and every year thereafter.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Fatima Tile Works Vs. Sudarsan Trading Co. Ldt. the learned single Judge of Madras High Court held that since the relationship between the holding company and its subsidiary necessarily implies exercise of great control by the former over latter, the use of a trade mark by subsidiary can fairly be treated as use by holding company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 49,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 96,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Gupta relied on a decision of our learned brother P. B. Mukharji, J., in the case of Mercantile Express Co. Ltd. v. Asst. Collector of Customs , where his Lordship held that such change of mind, varying from case to case, 'will lead to utter confusion in the very basis and principle ot\" taxation and grave uncertainty of business and the most unfair discrimination of taxes'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 68,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 146,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further observed that if the management of the college were purely a private body with no public duty, mandamus would not lie.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This very precise question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and was answered by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Raj Kishore Prasad (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 137,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The letter dated 14th February, 2011 clearly states that Sleepwell was accepting 90% of the Bill of Exchange amount provisionally and the same was also conveyed to its bankers who was initially insisting on 100% payment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 36,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 66,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Furthermore, the admitted facts need not be proved.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However the Magistrate in such cases can alleviate the grievance of the complainant by making resort to section 357(3) of the Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 118,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner on 7-4-1993 instituted Civil Suit No. 674 of 1993 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, inter alia, seeking a declaration that the decree for divorce dated 20-11-1990 passed in M. J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 26,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 112,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 192,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "income-tax, the rate at which relief is to be given shall be Dominion rate of tax :",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The nine persons who were charge-sheeted were:-\n 1. Shibu (1st petitioner herein)\n\n 2. Suresh Babu @ Thambu 3. Sivadasan @ Dasan (2nd petitioner herein)\n\n 4. Sivarajan @ Sivadasan",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 57,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 107,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 129,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 180,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It seems that the judgments of the Honble Apex Court 1 to 4 supra were not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge which deals with awarding of compensation in death cases.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that order he proposed the punishment of 'barkhastgi\" and directed that a copy of the tentative findings be served on Shri Kesar Singh and he be asked to show cause why the punishment of \"dismissal\" should not be imposed on him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 137,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even proceeding on the basis that the Act did not in terms confer on the licensee the power of assessment in theft cases till 7th June 2005, we would invoke the following principles enunciated by the Apex Court in Unique Butyle Tube Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation :-\n 14.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 139,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 210,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 283,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The present case, in our opinion, is one in which we need to make it clear that the overruling of the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court will not affect cases that have already been tried or are at an advanced stage before the Magistrates in terms of the said decision.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\n21.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 154,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The diverse amounts claimed by the petitioners in their respective petitions need not be referred to as nothing turns on the quantum of the amounts claimed by them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "At the same time, it has to be borne in mind that certainty and continuity are essential ingredients of rule of law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On completion of the construction of the Ghat, the Sabha through its President Pt. Mohan Lal Sharma executed a General Power of Attorney on 13.12.1996 in favour of respondent no.3 in regard to the abovementioned land measuring 13.5 Bighas (out of the total of 26 Bighas approximately).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 99,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 150,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India (supra) has not been diluted in the decision of Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab (supra) nor by necessary implication, the ratio laid down In Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India has been overruled in the decision of Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 89,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 166,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 258,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 325,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One\t was whether the respondent\tNo. 1,\t the Renusagar Power\t Co. Ltd., was 'own' source of generation of electricity for respondent No. 2, the Hindalco, under section 3(1)(c)\t of the\t Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 73,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 161,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 187,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the above we are clearly of the view that the principles laid down in the G.O. dated 15.7.2002 cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 105,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 170,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 190,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 23rd February, 2001, Dr. B.L. Wadhera filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1262 of 2001 in the Delhi High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 22,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 40,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 83,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 107,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that being aggrieved by the impugned order the petitioner has already submitted an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the Collector, Satna and the instant petition may be disposed with the direction to the said authority to decide the same expeditiously.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 188,
"end": 198,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 232,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 256,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, PW-7 conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Inspector Anant Shankar has come into the witness-box as P. W. 8 and he has unequivocally stated that the date of birth of a boy who had appeared at the High School Examination could be changed by the Board only after the recommendation of the Director of Education, and that the Inspector of School had no power to order any correction in such a case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 27,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Cumulative effect of the above discussion is that since this court finds that there was no admission of the respondent no.3 to pay any money to the plaintiff, so, I do not any force in the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the appellant, whereas, I am having full inclination with the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the respondents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Respondent No. 5 was impleaded as insurer of the said bus along with non-applicant No. 2 Akram as owner of the vehicle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case, the State Government framed Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966, in exercise of the statutory power conferred on it under Section 15 of the Mines and Mineral (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 100,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 169,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 233,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is in that background, this Court observed that it was satisfied that the driver of the parked lorry alone to be blamed for the accident.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(1) of s. 80J, when that section came to be enacted with the result that the \"capital employed\" that was required to be computed for the purpose of s. 80J was the \"capital employed in respect of the previous year\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 154,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1999) 6 SCC 667 = AIR 1999 SC 2979 = (1999) 5 JT 237, in which it was, inter alia, observed as under :\n \"Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has been given the power and jurisdiction to issue appropriate Writs in the nature of Mandamus, Certiorari, Prohibition, Quo-Warranto and Habeas Corpus for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights or for any other purpose.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 53,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 123,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 143,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case a First Information Report registered for offences under Sections 120B read with Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code led to a charge sheet, but the State ultimately withdrew the prosecution by filing an application through the Public Prosecutor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 83,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 114,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 139,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That complaint is the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No,. 213 of 1968 heard along with this appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 72,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(PER B.R.GAVAI, J) The State of Maharashtra has approached this Court being 2 Criminal Application No.258.13 (APL) aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First th Class, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 683 of 2013, dated 30 March, 2013, thereby directing investigation to be conducted as per the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a complaint filed by respondent herein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 14,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 43,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 114,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 203,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 249,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 271,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 346,
"end": 360,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 394,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court did not interfere in the appeal filed by the insurer and when the matter was taken by the Insurer to the Apex Court, it came to be held as under:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 130,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. H. H. Smt. Chand Kanwarji (supra) held that the scrutiny note of Revenue Audit constituted \"information\" within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act because the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India was empowered by statute to scrutinise the proceedings of the Income Tax Department and to point out defects and mistakes which adversely affected the Revenue.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 20,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 79,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 195,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 217,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 270,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Our particular attention was drawn towards the view expressed by Hon'ble Tulzapurkar, J. (dissenting and minority view) at pp. 114 and 116 : \n\"The material provisions in regard to the computation of income of an assessee under the head 'Profits and gains of business' are to be found in ss. 28(i), 29 and 14(1) but these have to be read subject to s. 5 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 84,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 310,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 352,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sakiri Vasu's case does not lay down such a law as canvassed by the learned counsel.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are not here called upon to consider a case where the assessee failed to make a claim though there was no evidence on record to support it, or a case where a claim was made but no evidence or insufficient evidence was ad- duced in support.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This Court heard learned senior counsel Mr.Mihir Joshi for J. Sagar Associates for the petitioner, learned Advocate General Mr.Kamal Trivedi assisted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Sangita Vishen for respondent-State of Gujarat and learned senior counsel Mr.D.K. Singh with learned advocate Mr.Siddharth Dave for respondent No.3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 78,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 140,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 207,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 239,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 280,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 320,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A Commission appointed under the Act does not decide any dispute.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, we find no merit in the plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant - revenue under Section 260-A(7) of the 1961 Act, read with Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 122,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 138,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 165,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 196,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions are allowed and the orders dt. 24-2-1982 and 23-9-1985 of the State Government and the order dt. 4-9-1985 of the Divisional Railway Manager, Jabalpur in so far as they relate to the movement of charcoal purchased by the petitioners in public auctions from the forest authorities are hereby quashed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 81,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 95,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 146,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 190,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As a result thereof - P.W.16 would state that P.Ws.1,2 and others were taken in the van and enroute in a Mill another person was taken and all of them reached the investigating police station.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We are inclined to agree that the grant of a constitutional passport to the Supreme Court by the High Court is not a matter of easy insouciance but anxious advertence to the dual vital requirements built into Art. 133(1) by specific amendment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 220,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similar was the criticism in respect of Surjit Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 52,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "it was assessed to sales tax on a gross turnover of Rs. 5,64,631/- and a taxable turnover of Rs. 2,92,319/- by the Assistant Superintendent of Commercial Taxes, Darbhanga, by his order dated the 25th of October, 1959, a copy of which is annexure A appended to the statement of case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 161,
"end": 170,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 216,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword.\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In R.Mohan Vs. A.K.Vijaya Kumar (2012) 8 SCC 721, Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that in case the compensation is not paid as imposed under Section 357, a separate sentence can be imposed qua imprisonment for default in payment of compensation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 48,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 68,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 156,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the prosecution, after the accused got his baggage X-rayed, PW1 identified him as Abdul Rasheed Abdul Rehman and asked for his travel documents and accordingly, the accused handed over his MO1 passport and MO2 tickets for his travel by Air Maldives flight.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 121,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 261,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that an international treaty between States A & B is neither intended to confer benefits nor impose obligations on the residents of State C, but, here we are not concerned with this question at all.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Legal position is thus clear that the mere wording of the reference is not decisive in the matter of tenability of a reference.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In exercise of the said power the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Slaughter Houses and Meat Stalls) Rules, 1996 have been issued and which have come into force with effect from 16-7-2002.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 101,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 176,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sri C. Kodandaram, learned counsel for the assessee, placing reliance on the judgment in Thanthi Trust's case (2001) 247 ITR 785 (supra) submitted that a charitable trust may hold a business as a part of its purpose and it may carry on the business which it does not hold as a part of its corpus.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 102,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 128,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "with which I am in respectful agreement.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(v) That hymen of the prosecutrix PW 2 Monika was found torn and vagina admitted two fingers easily and there were no tears present in the vagina and these facts go to show that she was habitual to sexual intercourse and this aspect also negatives the allegations of rape.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 45,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I.O. had arrested the accused Balwant on 30.5.2002 who had handed over his 'angauchha' to I.O.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This view has taken by Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra versus Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and another reported in AIR 1982 SC 1249, the apex court has taken view that the Judge's record is conclusive, neither lawyer nor litigant may claim to contradict it except before the Judge himself but nowhere else.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 33,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 136,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 152,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He went on to depose that since some personnel of Delhi Police had visited his residence the previous evening and had met his sister, leaving directions for him to appear in the court, he had come to the court on his own.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 62,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During pendency of the appeal before the first appellate Court, Pandit Ramdhan Joshi has expired and his legal representatives has been brought on record and they are Respondents in this appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been so stated by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 81,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Government had clarified its stand on 6.10.2006.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is in that sense that the assets do not exist to the extent that they are distributed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "An application for amendment of writ application registered as G. A No.2645 of 2004 filed in connection with present appeal A.P.O No. 94 of 2005, which was heard by the Division Bench (Corum: Justice Pratap Kumar Ray and Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar(as His Lordship then was).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 83,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 144,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 216,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 250,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Upon these submissions, prayer is made for grant of bail.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The State Government has framed Rules for the purposes of the Act.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "I entirely agree with Ranganath Misra, J. that the Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal should be or should have been a Judge of a High Court or he should have for at least two years held office as Vice-Chairman.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A perusal of certain unsigned account copies of Shri.R.Ramakrishnan supposed to be from the books of M/s.Siva Trust shows that the relevant properties were purchased in the year 1980 and the last payment towards the sale consideration was made on 26.05.1980 to total consideration passed was found to be Rs.1,82,700.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 67,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 115,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 257,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Another reason mentioned by the court below is that \"For Plot ACBD the eastern boundary without any doubt is Kodappadi thodu and Kodappadimala and the Western boundary is Muthalarappan mala.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has also filed two more suits for recovery of the amounts due to it for the supplies made, that is CS No.998/1999 against NEPC India (for recovery of Rs.5,28,23,501/90) and CS No.11/2000 against Skyline (for recovery of Rs.13,12,76,421/25), in the Madras High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 116,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 135,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 189,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 205,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 268,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appellant No. 2, Messrs Food Specialities Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various well- known articles of food including New Maggi 2 minute noodles with sweet sour taste-maker while appellant No. 1 A.K. Roy is the Manager, Quality Controller of the Company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 49,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 105,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 291,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A reading of the impugned order shows that the learned ARC took up the eviction petition and decided it as if it was an application seeking an interim mandatory injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and doing so in examining whether Petitioners have made out a prima facie case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 180,
"end": 205,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 209,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was, however, urged that the view that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Mankad, J.) was a party, in Criminal Appeal No. U40-A of 1978 decided on August 11/12, 1980, was directly in conflict with the above decision of the Division Bench in Criminal Appeal No, 782 of 1977 and other decisions of this Court wherein similar view has been taken.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 117,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 172,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 202,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 309,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused, his wife and their son aged about 11 years and also deceased Neelakandan Nambudri and his wife Subhadra Devi (P.W.4) were residing in the same house 'illathumadom'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 121,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the same decision considered the impact of non-compliance of Section 50 it was held that !!it would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 76,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, the installation of antenna tower as well as DG Set on the top floor of property bearing no. D-141, Krishna Park, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi, i.e. suit property as more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan annexed herewith is declared as illegal, unauthorised and in violation of the building bye-laws.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 146,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 157,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is a real though subtle difference between 'suitability' and 'arbitrability' in the context of subject matter of disputes.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Ld. ARC also did not consider the fact that witness PW3 namely Jawahar Ram, JE, Electric NDMC admitted in the cross examination that the point Y at Ex. PW3/B about the meter being commercial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 116,
"end": 127,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 146,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Subsequently, the pri- mary section of the institution was separated from the College section and it was given the name as \"Bishun Narain Basic School\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 150,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The relevant provision is contained in Rule 28(A) of the Rules which prescribes the criteria, eligibility and procedure for promotion to Junior, Senior and other posts encadered in the Service, Under Sub-rule (5) of the Rule 28(A)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 230,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court held that the existing provisions of the Bombay Rent Act relating to the determination and fixation of the standard rent can no longer be considered to be reasonable and therefore the said provisions are liable to be struck down as having become totally unreasonable and arbitrary.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 74,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On behalf of the petitioner it is argued that the learned Judge misread the evidence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As regards respondents contentions that in the absence of attornment from Smt. Lalita Devi to him, petitioner was not entitled to claim rent arrears, ld. ARC relied upon a Supreme Court judgement reported as \" Mahendra Dass Gupta vs. Vishwa Nath Bhikaji Mogul AIR 1997 SC 2437\" and held that attornment by tenant was not necessary though desired to confer a validity to the transfer of landlady's right.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 185,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 276,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Mehta further submitted that once the said conditions are fulfilled, then the Income-tax Officer is under an obligation to register the firm and in support of it, he referred us to a decision in the cases of Agarwal and Co. v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 10 (SC) and of Ratanchand Darbarilal v. CIT [1985] 155 ITR 720 (SC). \n63.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 256,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 316,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This, in our opinion, is the only reasonable construction of the whole Explanation contained in Section 171.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW 12-Dr.Hanamantha Ramanna Katti had deposec[ that on 28.04.2004.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 33,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court held that where a question is one on which debate is possible and acceptance of one view over the other involves a decision on policy, the Court should not deal with and decide on such question.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One of these papers is the Register of Unidentified Persons in P. R. B. Form No. 70 kept under Rule 417.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A select list of 127 candidates was prepared by the Commission and was forwarded to the State Government on 6th January 2003.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 124,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the approver was not a participant to the packing of the hand grenade, he could not possibly be in possession of the pieces.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr.Vijay K. Gupta, learned Counsel 20/31 Rajesh Berry Vs. Genesis Educational Foundation for appellants referred to para 4 of the order dt. 18.01.08 whereby the complaint u/s. 138 N.I. Act against Geeta Berry was quashed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 88,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 148,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 179,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 188,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 208,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If, therefore, any government action is calculated to implement or to give effect to a Directive Principles, it would ordinarily, subject to any other overriding considerations, be informed with public interest\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "By taking advantage of this Chief Executive Officer of the inquiry i.e. Sonia Bagale called upon written explanation from Head Mistress to cover up complaint and grievances of the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In case of Surinderpal Singh son of Naurang Singh, date of birth mentioned in the application, which is available at page No. 215, was 14.11.1965.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 145,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Elaborating contention No. 2, Mr. Rastogi vehemently contended that temporary permits are granted for a limited period to meet any of the contingencies contained in Section 87(1) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 41,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 178,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the judgment in CWP No. W.P. No. 10002(W) of 2002 dated 16.9.2003 passed by Justice Chattopadhyay has been given on consent of the Counsel for the petitioners.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 160,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 176,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 208,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The report Ex. P/105 of the Forensic Science Laboratory read with the letter Ex. P/103 of the Superintendent of Police, Churu to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur shows that Baniyans Articles 17 and 18 of the accused Rajudas and Mahaveer respectively and the Barchi Article 20 recovered the instance of the accused Rajudas through recovery memo Ex. P/83 had blood of 'B' group.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 125,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 189,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 251,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 264,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 303,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 349,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If it does not make a reference it shall record and communicate to the parties concerned its reasons therefore.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Chapter III deals with 'Ceiling on vacant Land Chapter IV deals with 'Regulation of transfer and use of urban land' and Chapter V contains miscellaneous provisions,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 57,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 129,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His Lordship Justice Vivian Bose, as he then was of the Nagpur High Court, has held that the word 'shall' used in sub-rule (2) of Order 21 Rule bb is mandatory and the irregularities in conducting the sale shall render the sale void.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 146,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Ajay Sinha and another (supra) has held that \"Ordinarily, insurance service would not come within the public utility service.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 85,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW3 in his examination\u00adin\u00adchief has initially stated that one person came to him through one of his employee to get property documents prepared in back date and it was only when PW3 was cross\u00adexamined by Ld. APP that PW3 stated that the said employee was Raju @ Mahesh Khanna.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 255,
"end": 275,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned judge observed that the undertaking meant the entire organisation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On March 15, 1993 the Cricket Association of Bengal wrote to Doordarshan asking it to send their detailed offer which could be any one of the two alternatives mentioned in the letter.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 17,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 51,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 72,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There has since been an addition: six children instead of five: q. 4 et seq. to Bankim Chandra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In case of difference of opinion as between the various consultees, the AICTE would have to go by the views of the Central Task Force.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 77,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If there is any balance left, it shall be paid over to the official liquidator.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Madras High Court has also adopted the same view, vide the decision In re, C. M. Raghavan where it was held that it is for the Magistrate to consider whether it as necessary to direct the personal attendance of the accused, who was exempted under Section 205, for questioning under Section 342 of the Code and that the omission to examine the accused personally does not vitiate the trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 21,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 262,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 297,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Aggrieved, Indus filed an appeal before the CESTAT, Bangalore, which allowed it through its Order, dt.19.02.2014.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 16,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 61,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 112,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Article 32 of the Constitution gives a wide power to the Supreme Court \"to issue directions or orders or writs\", which is larger than that of the British courts issuing prerogative writs, although it is confined to the enforcement of the rights conferred by Part III dealings with fundamental rights.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 30,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 266,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The policy does not cover (i) use for organised racing pacemaking reliability trial or speed testing (ii) Use whilst drawing a trailer except the towing (other than for reward) of any one disabled mechanically propelled vehicles (iii) Use for carrying passengers in the vehicle except employees (other than the driver) Not exceeding six (6) in number coming under the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 384,
"end": 416,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(See Paras 5-020, 5-027 and 5-028 of Russel on Arbitration, 22nd Edn.).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 33,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court noticed the scope of Section 9 of the Code and observed that Sections 17 and 18 of the 1993 Act bar the civil court's jurisdiction only in regard to claims by a bank or a financial institution for recovery of debt due to such bank or financial institution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 48,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 97,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The roots of this principle are found in the well established rule of common law of England \"that where a person has been convicted for an offence by a Court of competent jurisdiction the conviction is a bar to all further criminal proceedings for the same offence\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 91,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The court would also invoke the legal maxim construction ut res magis valeat guam pereat, in such cases i.e. where alternative constructions are possible the Court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than one which will put a road block in its way.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Testimony of PW 15 will be taken at a later stage as he was an Investigating Officer, whose further examination and cross-examination has been directed in the remand order.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the budget of 1986-87 a rebate scheme was evolved for the purpose of granting incentives for greater production of edible oils from non-conventional oils.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 25th July, 1989, the CJM directed the police to register a crimi- nal case against 14 persons who had caused obstruction in judicial proceedings but subsequently\t since\t unqualified apology was tendered, the CJM directed",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said Civil Appeal was allowed in favour of the applicants herein and the 1st respondent herein/2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad, who was shown as 3rd respondent in the said Civil Appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 129,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The sixth charge is with reference to the conspiracy entered into by the first accused with the third accused, the owner of Vasantham Press at No. 96, Portuguese Church Street, Chennai, for printing counterfeit US Dollars of 20 denomination through PW2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 139,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 184,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W.1 has further admitted that his father has asserted in his plaint in O.S No.1209/2009 that he himself, plaintiff, his wife, defendant and his wife are co-owners of Rudreshwara Enterprises.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 89,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 191,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent has denied that the petitioners are the landlords of the tenanted premises. \n\n13. Section 2 (e) of the DRC Act defines the word \"landlord\", it includes a person, who is entitled to receive the rent of any premises on behalf of somebody else.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 110,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 125,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If Clause (b) is to be interpreted to mean that it has been left at the sweet will or arbitrariness of the authority to give one relief or the other, it is manifest that such a provision will be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 212,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 232,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The approved scheme, as mentioned earlier, excludes the operation by others of stage carriage services on the above mentioned route Madurai to Kumuli except those whose names are mentioned in Annexure II attached thereto.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 139,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 149,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Union of India has been revising and liberalising the pension rules from time to time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By way of the present judgment, I shall decide the complaint case U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (hereinafter Said as NI Act) filed by the complainant Sh. Vimal against the accused Pawan Soni ( Proprietor of Balaji Water Supply) S/o Late Sh. Satpal Soni.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 104,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 132,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 168,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 199,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 236,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 261,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She claims to have known the wife and tried to bring about the reconciliation by approaching the Commissioner of Police.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In that case it had happened that the appellant had taken away the minor to Shadiabad, where her parents resided only three or four months before the application was made.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 85,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": ". 427/01, 429/01, 153/01 & 230/01 Page 20 of 46 witness deposition contrary to the prosecution case that, the entire raiding party including the appellants had travelled by Tata Sumo brought by Gurdip Singh (PW-7), the complainant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 205,
"end": 217,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Hajarnavis for the revenue has relied upon two aspects touching this question.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Commissioner (Appeals)'s order is upheld on this point.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for the applicant prays for withdrawal of the bail application filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. \n\n Prayer is allowed. \n\n The bail application is dismissed as withdrawn. \n\n (RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE dixit/-\n Criminal Appeal No. 548/2010 25.02.2015 None for the appellant. \n\n Shri V. Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 102,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 117,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 211,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 256,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 267,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 311,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thanks to famous \"due process clause\" of the 5th and 14th Amendments, under the cover of which the Supreme Court of U.S.A., has struck down congressional laws unjust, unreasonable and valuative of the spirit of the Supreme law of the land.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A controversy has arisen on the question as to the meaning of the expression \"where he has reason to believe\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It may be stated that none of the above mentioned decisions of the Supreme Court dealt with the rights and obligations of a person proposing to construct a building in a Municipal area where such an activity is regulated either by a statute or statutory rules.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 80,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It would be in accordance with sound rules of construction to put the same meaning on the words \"in the course of\" occurring both in Article 286(1)(b) and in Article 286(2).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 133,
"end": 150,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 172,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He refers to a Full Bench decision of the Supreme Court in Rajvi Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, , wherein the following pertinent observations occur in para 16 of the judgment at p. 230.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 55,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 97,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The complainant, K. Ratnakar confessed to have sent the e-mails.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 28,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Nagappa Dondiba Kalal V. State of Karnataka [AIR 1980 SC 1753], it was held that it was for the prosecution to prove its case affirmatively and it can not gain any strength from the conduct of the accused in remaining silent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 65,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the circumstances on perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses, the delay in filing the FIR cannot be termed to fatal to the case of the prosecution.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "c) Sand : Rs. 1-25 including cess per Cu.m. (Gross)\n \n\n(d) Murram: Rs. 0-43 including cess per Cu.m.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This letter was put up before the Chief Minister, who was then called as 'Prime Minister', by his Secretariat suggesting \"to readily agree with the Govt. of India's present proposal\" as corruption cases were difficult to handle and, therefore, \"Government may agree with the proposed procedure and give its consent to action under Entry 39 of List I of Schedule VII of the Government of India Act.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 148,
"end": 162,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 365,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 396,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As regards Accused No.1 Sherbahadur, it is submitted that he has merely exhorted and not assaulted anyone.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Assailants thereafter started brandishing their weapons to terrorrise people, who started running hither and thither.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 17-1-1958, the three appellants before us were committed to jail by an order of N. K. Sen, J., to be detained in simple imprisonment for six months for contempt of this Court and also, it would appear, contempt of the Court of a Magistrate of Barrackpore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 92,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 257,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A. K. Sen, Dinesh Vyas, Manulal, P. H. Parekh, C. B. Singh, M. Mudgal, and N. Mundal for the Respondent No. 1",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 11,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 31,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 45,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Placing reliance on the case of Dev Sharan and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2011) 4 SCC 769, it is contended that in view of the law laid-down by the Apex Court, the slow process of action taken by the respondents itself was enough to show that there was no urgency for acquiring the land so as to warrant invoking Section 17(4) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 109,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 178,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 346,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel submitted that this is also not consistent with normal business transactions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The case law The Punjab National Bank Ltd. Vs. Its workmen (supra.) relied upon by ld. counsel for management has no application in the totality of facts and circumstances of this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 58,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision of Munikanniah J, in Abid Hussain v. R. K. Apul, also related to a case where third parties have acquired rights and hence amendment was not ordered under Section 152 C. P. C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 27,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 60,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 179,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 188,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Various complaints were filed against the appellant-wife and one such complaint under Sections 496/452/ 419/365/340/295-A/182/34 IPC filed on 24.4.2012 is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Moga.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 128,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 132,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 151,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 204,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now the language of sub-s. (2) seems to us to be perfectly plain and to admit of no doubt or confusion.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "B) whether the service of a valid legal notice within the meaning of proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act upon the accused has been proved by the complainant?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 95,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 129,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter challan was filed on 06.01.2017 under Sections 304-B and 34 of IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 42,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 70,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 77,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent No.1 filed First Appeal before the Division Bench in FAO (OS) No. 35/2000 31.01.2000",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 84,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 95,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sri Ashok Sen appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition NO. 268 of 1987 supported the reasoning of Sri P.P. Rao and submitted that the prosecution against the petitioner, Ranjan Dwivedi, pending since more than 15 years ought to be quashed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 75,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 115,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 189,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Considering the facts and circumstances and the law laid down by the Gwalior Bench in the case of Bal Ram Tailor (supra), we are of the view that Writ Court has rightly allowed the petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 112,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He placed no reliance upon entry 36 of List II or entry 42 of List III.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 70,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other, hand, the learned JM has justified the additions on the ground that Shri Bhawani Singh J. Champawat, managing director of one of the companies and the controlling person of other companies, had admitted part of the share capital and some deposits having been introduced in Benami names.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 113,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Those proceedings, however, failed and the Punjab Government referred those disputes, being industrial reference Nos. 12, 16 and 26 of 1965, by notifications dated 17th July, 25th August and 27th September, 1965 respectively, to the Labour Court, Jullundur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 60,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 211,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 256,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In writ appeals, a Division Bench quashed Crime No.268/1997 as against the Additional Superintendent of Police, but it directed a fresh investigation by the State Police headed by one of the three senior officers named in the judgment instead of a fresh investigation by the CBI, as directed by the learned Single Judge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 59,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 278,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[7] Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned 10 th Additional District Judge, Ujjain on 20.12.2016.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 131,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 145,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "some\tdefined constitutionally recognised Public purpose,\t one such being to achieve the goals set out in Part IV of the 543 Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 113,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 137,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned senior counsel has pointed out that P.W.1 Karumbachalam, in his cross-examination, had admitted that the Sanarpatti Police Station was located just at the distance of 8 Kms. from Kanavai Karuppu Temple.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 67,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 142,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On their conviction, accused/appellants Shew Kumar Rai, Khokan Konar and Debasis Khan Were sentenced to death.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 54,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 68,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 85,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears from exhibit 8 that on February 6, 1956, the Corporation issued cheque No. 08995 for Rs. 25,00,000 on the State Bank of India, Kanpur, for credit to the account of the company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 144,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In C.S. No. 343 of1992 in the Application Nos. 226 & 227 of 1992, the plaintiffs prayed for aninterim injunction to restrain the respondents (defendants) from using, distributing, printing or causing to be printed the work as contained in Document Nos. (1) receipt and instruction manual, (2) guarantee card and (3) outer carton and the work as found in Document Nos. 4, 5 and 6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 22,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Madon, J summarised the position of law on this point and observed as follows:\n \"So far as the audi alteram partern rule is concerned, both in England and in India, it is well established that where a right to a prior notice and an opportunity to be heard before an order is passed would obstruct the taking of prompt action such a right can be excluded.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 150,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 163,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have highlighted this particular aspect of the matter because in the instant case, we shall show that there are statements made by some of the Founding Fathers when the Constitution was being framed and the reasons given by the speakers formed the basis and foundation of the constitutional provisions inserted in the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 172,
"end": 184,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 333,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The foreign agencies do beam their programmes over Indian territory too, but for receiving these programmes you require - period - a dish antenna, which costs quite a bit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 57,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Vijai Pratap Singh v. Dukh Haran Nath Singh67 this Court held: (AIR pp. 943-44, para 9) \u0013By the express terms of Rule 5 clause (d), the court is concerned to ascertain whether the allegations made in the petition show a cause of action.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 48,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 133,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first defendant Bank also disowned any liability to its letter dated 6-9-1968.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 81,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After having come to this conclusion in the first part of the impugned order dated 30th August 1989, the learned trial Judge went on to consider the merits of the claim of the wife under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and came to the conclusion that the husband was possessing substantial means in the nature of some business concern and properties in Bombay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 99,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 192,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 218,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 359,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Another subsidiary question is, what is the nature of the services which makes a levy in respect of them, a fee ?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Some propositions could be formulated but whether a general formula applicable to all circumstances could be hit on we rather doubt.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On April 21, 1972 the Governor of Haryana, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and all other powers enabling him in that behalf, amended the 1963 Rules by the Haryana First Amendment Rules, 1972, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1970.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 17,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 41,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 108,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 128,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 244,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 290,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 18-4-1958 the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, respondent 2, replied to this letter pointing out that a revision petition be made with proper court-fees same and that it should be accompanied by copy of relevant extracts pertaining to the petitioner's property from register 'A' maintained by the assessing authority, Patiala.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 329,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The gist of the father's power to effect a partition without the consent of his sons has been summarised in Gupte's Hindu Law, 2nd Edn., at page 259, as follows : \n \"The power of the father to sever the sons inter se is a survival of the patria potestas and may be exercised by him without the consent of his sons.\"......\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 113,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 18.10.2011 it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 that the sons Suit No. 17/14 Veena Solanki vs. Gopi Page No. 9 of 96 of the deceased from the wedlock of the respondent No.6 namely Surya Pratap and Shri Dev Singh had not been impleaded and the petitioner was directed to implead them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 146,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 222,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 241,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though the majority judgment delivered by Venkatachaliah, J. also struck down the offending provision, the reasoning employed was different.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 56,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively triable by the Court of CRA No. D-1026-DB of 2011 and CRA No. D-1046-DB of 2011 and -10- Murder Reference No. 6 of 2011 Sessions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 29,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 33,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 99,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 129,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She further argued that the matter was fully covered in favour of the revenue as per the Special Bench decision in the case of Aztec Software & Technology Services Ltd. (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 168,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above discussion makes it clear that the Turban had moderate blood stains of the blood of accused himself.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The last elections to constitute the Committee of Management of L.B.S. College were held on 21.7.1996 and Dr. Balram Bhatt--Petitioner No. 2 is alleged to have been elected as its President/Manager.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 78,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 101,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 122,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The blood-stained clothes of the deceased and the injured persons were also seized and sealed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He brought several facts to our notice.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The suit was based on the facts that the plaintiff was a Guzaredar of the defendant who held a jagir known as Mangalgarh jagir.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "R.K.GAUBA, J (ORAL):\n1. Amarjeet Singh, aged 37 years, a driver by profession, died as a result of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 02-05- 2009 in the area of Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 178,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 218,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The National Forest Policy, 1988 stood enunciated pursuant to Resolution No. 13/52-F, dated 12th May 1952 of GOI to be followed in the management of State Forests in India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 32,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 105,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 112,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 171,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As far as clause (d) is concerned, the post is filled in accordance to a election procedure as laid down by the State Government in the Recruitment Rules of 1967 and 1990.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 170,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He relies on the words \"as expressly provided by this Constitution\" and urges that it is open to the legisla- ture to cut down the pleasure tenure by law or to provide for its being affected by statutory rules.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Additional District Magistrate by his two orders, rejected the contention that s. 195, Cr. P.C., barred this particular complaint which had been filed against the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 89,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 99,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 36A(1)(d) allows the Special Court, upon perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under the NDPS Act or upon complaint made by any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorized in this behalf, to take cognizance of offence without the accused being committed to it for a trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 17,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 129,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 193,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further submitted that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Sh. M.K. Gupta, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn because no declaration was sought in that suit, hence the plaintiff withdrew the suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 111,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The parcels were sealed with seal bearing impression \"HS\", which were taken in possession vide memos Ex.PP and Ex.PR.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The case file in this case has been marked as Exhibit No.P-14 on 8.7.1997 through Mr.Abdul Kader (PW5).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 73,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 96,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "respect of manufacture of sale of goods in question",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Babu Ram Upadhya (respondent) was a sub-inspector of police who was appointed in December, 1948.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "2. The first respondent company is a Private Limited Company stated to have been promoted by the appellants having substantial stack as on 13.12.2006.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 149,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 8th Respondent claimed that the Policy was only an Act Policy (Third Party Policy) and, therefore, it did not cover liability towards passengers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "'Extreme positions\t may boomerang in law as in politics.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The decisions of the Privy Council, Federal Court and the Supreme Court in which the words 'judgment' or 'final order' have been interpreted either with reference to the C. P. C,, or with the provisions of the Constitution appear to support the view I am taking.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 71,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 177,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 222,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, it has been submitted that these instructions cannot be regarded as clarificatory of earlier instructions issued on 2.7.1997.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 135,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Government of Tamil Nadu then intimated the said decision to the Central Government on 22.5.80, so that the appellant's appeal dated 10.2.78 against supercession in 1977 could be finally disposed of.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 28,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 87,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 98,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that social backwardness which results from poverty is likely to be aggravated by considerations of caste to which the poor citizens may belong, but that only shows The relevance of both caste and poverty in determining the backwardness of citizens.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The present case has been instituted on the complaint of Smt. Anju Arora, Proprietor of M/s. Fashion Link, U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (as amended up to date) against the accused company M/s. Knit & Fit Fashions (India) Pvt. Ltd and its Directors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 72,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 105,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 114,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 145,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 239,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The star / the material witness of the prosecution i.e. Food Inspector CC No. 35/10 DA Vs. Sachin Kumar Page 9 of 45",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 107,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 125,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On August 22, 1968, the appellants filed their writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 100,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In these circumstances, Mr. Mridul submitted that no indulgence should be granted to the State of Rajastnan and the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay alone.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 107,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Babu Lal SI (PW-13) took Chhote Lal complainant with him and as also Sudesh and official members of the parties and reached Uhlawas `pahar'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 131,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Supreme Court in Deepak Rai Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2013) 10 SCC 421 from para 62 onwards considered the earlier cases of the Supreme Court in which the death sentence is affirmed, which are as under :-\n \"62.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 76,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 147,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At the outset, it should be remembered that the 1st defendant's case was that besides himself & his sons, there were no other relations of Ramalingam, near or distant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 149,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These principles were reiterated in N. Nagendra Rao & Co. vs. State of A.P. AIR 1994 SC 2663 = (1994) 6 SCC 205 and again in State of Maharashtra vs. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke, 1995 ACJ 1021 (SC) = (1995) 5 SCC 659 = JT 1995 (6) SC 155.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 111,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 238,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In answering the above question Mudholkar J., who along with Bachawat J. spoke for the majority, held that when any act done to or in the presence of a woman is clearly suggestive of sex according to the common notions of mankind that must fall within the mischief of Section 354 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 69,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 279,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 283,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1094 of 1990 arises out of the decision dated June 29, 1989 of the Tribunal; Bombay Bench.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 43,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 90,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We do not intend to enter into this controversy, fortunately as it is not contended that the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply, but we cannot refrain from expressing that even if it were so, the Delhi High Court is not absolved of its obligation to write a judgment as understood in common parlance.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 116,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 216,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 namely Nanasaheb Annasaheb Magar and Nagnath Baburao Magar are convicted under sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. and on each of the said counts, are directed to pay a separate fine of Rs. 100/- and in the event in default, of its payment, they shall undergo a separate sentence of one months R.I. under each of the two counts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 56,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 82,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 123,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 130,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To do so would be tantamount to saying that Order 22 does not apply to cases envisaged in Rule 4 of Order 41, which, without any further indication that the Legislature had intended otherwise, is unsupportable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 52,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 108,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This statement clearly supports the deposition of Atma Ram (P. W. 1).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 58,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Full Bench case of Maqbulunnissa (A)', the learned Judges have mentioned at more than one place that the mere fact that the Government of the Union of India is situate in Delhi and that the capital of India is at Delhi does not mean that the Government of the Union is not subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 163,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 183,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 213,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 225,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 272,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is very significant that Schedule V provides that matches, non-safety, must not be stored in any of the railways enclosed sheds or warehouses, but there is no such prohibition in the case of matches safety.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 38,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "B.L.Avasya (PW/17) has also stated in para-33, 34, 35, 36 & 37 that Anita (PW/5) has not told him in her statement (Ex.D/5) that Sharda, Pramod and Anju came from post office gali and Sunil, Rajesh, Sanjay, Narendra and Ramesh came from Rajwada side.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 73,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 135,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 143,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 152,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 189,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 197,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 205,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 215,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 226,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 244,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears that after the investigation charge sheet was filed against the prosecution witnesses, including Dinesh Chhovala and Nareshkumar Vasantlal Chhovala which culminated in the Sessions Case No.224 of 1993.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 123,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 158,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 211,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.1983 of the Bombay High Court in A. No. 644 of 1982 and O.S.W.P. No. 2412 of 1982.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 44,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 69,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 91,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 121,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is another head under which the accused has pointed out that certain items of silver were sold to Sadanand Madkholkar (D.W. 18).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 123,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Courts have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel for the respondents No.6 to 8 had argued that the said judgment relied upon the over ruled case of Daddo Atmaram Patil v. Raghunath Atma Ram, AIR 1979 Bombay 179 and was per in curiam the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of amended Section 16 (3) of The Hindu Marriage Act, and therefore was not applicable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 181,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 250,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 284,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 292,
"end": 310,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per this letter Ex.49, original of statement in connection with C.R.No.126/95 of Chotila Police Station recorded by Mamlatdar was not available in the office of Mamlatdar and, therefore, that original of statement Ex.46 is not produced in the case, as it was missing on the date on which P.W.15 Dhirajlal, Executive Magistrate gave his evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 80,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 106,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 307,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As we are inclined to take a view different from the view taken in Durga Madira Sangh's case [1985] 153 ITR 226, it would be proper that the case should be decided by a larger Bench.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 111,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So, except the fact that H.No. A\u00ad129, Sector\u00ad55, Noida, was taken on rent by accused Aman Bhardwaj, prosecution has not been able to prove any other fact from the deposition of this witness. \n\n PW11 Bhisam Singh, who is brother of PW10 Sant Ram Yadav, has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner about the disclosure of accused persons regarding committing murder of Sanjay Gupta.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 98,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 211,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 250,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 383,
"end": 395,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is submitted that in various countries, such as Australia and USA, loss of sexual organs is described as a disability and the percentage of disability has been given for assessing the compensation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 60,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 68,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "See also London County Council v. Attorney- General (3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 55,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Except the oral testimony of the wife and her father, which is in itself contradictory, there is no material on the record to show as to whether the wife visited the husband's or his parents' house between August 1969 to the year 1976 or that she was turned out of the house by the husband or his father in the year 1975 or 1976.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Criminal appeal No. 4624 of 2004 has also been filed by Indrajit Mallah against his conviction under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 32,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 71,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 113,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 129,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reliance was placed on the following decisions :\n(i) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra)\n \n\n(ii) Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. (supra)\n \n\n(iii) CIT v. Mogul Lines Ltd. (1962) 46 ITR 590 (Bom)\n \n\n(iv) Suitej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 116 ITR 1 (SC)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 80,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 127,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 192,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 254,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Apex Court observed that the language of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act clearly shows that it inhibits institution of prosecution for an offence under the Act except on fulfillment of one or the other of the two conditions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 21,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 81,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company, has submitted that the law laid down in the case of Satpal Singh (supra) has been over-ruled by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 161,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 238,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 291,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But it appears vital to me that no \"undue strain on the words used in the section\" is permissible \"in order that a construction favourable\" to the landlord \"may be deduced\" (with respect I have borrowed the quoted words from Kanai Lal v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan, (S) AIR 1957 SC 907).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 225,
"end": 280,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears, however, that when the Kerala High Court took the view that the State Government was obliged to follow the panel of names recommended by the High Court, the State Government moved the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 209,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Judgment dated 26/08/1981, the then Ld. Sub\u00adJudge had also accepted the testimony of defendant no. 2 Sh. Umrao Singh that the thoroughfare was used by the predecessor in interest of the present plaintiffs.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 32,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 123,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dattu, J. \n 1. Petitioner is a registered dealer both under Karnataka and Central Sales Tax Act, 1957, carrying on, among other activities the business of sale of imported sugar in the State of Karnataka",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 102,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 204,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In pursuance of the powder conferred upon it by Clause (1) of Article 323A of the Constitution, Parliament enacted the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (Act 13 of 1985) [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\"].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 74,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 94,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 106,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 170,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Doctor also denied the suggestion that it could be torn only Crl.(A) No. 5 of 2000 & connected matters Page No.36 of 56 when injury is received during play.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 82,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However that may be, we have to see whether the probate granted in this case would be in England called a probate granted in common form, for otherwise there would be no justification whatever in applying the English rule to the probate granted in this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 96,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This application was granted by the Family Court with the condition that the mother, after her return from Europe tour as on 10-6-2000, should entrust the custody of the child to the father till the end of December 2000.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 113,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 134,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Challenging the validity of the collection of the sales tax on the aforesaid basis the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Mysore at Bangalore being writ petition No. 644 of 1966.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 159,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 195,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in NAVNIT R.KAMANI V. R.R.KAMANI wherein in para 12 it has been held that \"The Act itself has been enacted in order to evolve a speedy and efficient machinery so that a sick industry could be revived with utmost expedition, production could be started, locked up funds could be utilised for furthering socio-economic development.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 78,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 111,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, Standard 12 th passed Manikrao (PW/1) admitted that from his village to P.S. Saikheda and from village to Multai- Saikheda road are 12 kms and 2 km away, respectively.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 49,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 104,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 141,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(viii) On the proposal which had earlier been made, the Chief Secretary had directed that the views of the Stage Performances Scrutiny Board should be duly ascertained.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. Accountant Member is right in upholding the order of ld. CIT(A) in the two assessment years under consideration.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Even otherwise, from the material on record, it is evident that suit filed by the original plaintiff Sh. Gauri Shankar before the Ld. Trial Court was instituted within the statutory period prescribed by law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 118,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Laxman Ramji and his brother had seen the appellant with Lila w/o. of Laxman Ramji moving in the fair and, therefore, at about 21.00 hours on 03.09.1995, a quarrel took place in between Laxman Ramji and Mansukh Ramji on one side and appellant on another side.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 152,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 198,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 216,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Apparently, it may seem to create anomalous results.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Civil Suit No. 81 of 1950 'Subhedar' Ram Chand maintained that the orders passed by the Director of Ordnance Services, Army Headquarters, the G. O. C-in-Chief, Southern Command, and the Central Government were void, illegal and inoperative.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 28,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 179,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 207,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is in this background that the provisions of the Act have to be understood. \n\n Section-2 of the Act inter alia defines the \"scheduled offences\" and Section-3 provides for constitution of the N.I.A. Chapter 2, comprising Sections 3 to 5, provides for constitution and other aspects of the N.I.A. Section-6 happens to be the fulcrum of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 91,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 160,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 200,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 210,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 238,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 291,
"end": 297,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 315,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi (supra), which was a case of custodial death, the Supreme Court considering the mitigating factors and long lapse of time and interest of the heirs of the victim, respondent No.1 Shyam Sunder was sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.50,000/- i.d., RI for further two years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 51,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 243,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(ii) if the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with:\n (a) the agreement of the parties, or (b) failing such agreement, the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with Part I of the Act.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There was no immediate motive for the murder of the deceased.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Respondent No.3 United India Insurance Company Limited",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 54,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There appears to be however no chemistry of justice when in the context of the Judicial Reforms in England, Bentham posed the question: \"Does justice require less precision than chemistry?\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 106,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 115,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have noted that these memoranda have been signed only by two police officers Faqir Chand and Virsa Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 91,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 107,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Aggrieved by the said acquisition he filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the validity of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 on various grounds one of the grounds being that the said Act empowered the acquisition of the land at prices lower than those payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 100,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 168,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 340,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By the principal notification, the age of superannuation was reduced from 58 years to 55 years.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He then went on duty to another place, and on his return, recorded the confession of the appellant, which is as follows:\n \" I, having gone to his Wadi, have killed him.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In case no such notice is given, the partner will continue to be liable as such to the Department for any act done by any of the partners which would have been an act of the firm, if done before the dissolution.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "At the time of inquest he preserved the clothes on the corpus viz., the bathing towel (M.O.2), churidar top (M.O.5), churidar bottom (M.O.1), sheddy (M.O.3) and brassier (M.O.4)",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Firstly, no notice of the lunacy application was served on anybody except the respondent No. 4 Subodh Chandra Bose who is alleged to have accepted service on behalf of his brothers Sudhir Bose who ordinarily resides in England and Sirish, Bose.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 114,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 192,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 226,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 243,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Secondly the nature of the directions which the Upa Lok Ayukta would be called upon to issue could have been relevant only at a later W.P.(C).No.33916 of 2008 & con. Cases.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 158,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "22.In the present case, from the scrutiny of the record of the committing court, it transpires that in execution of the warrant of arrest issued by the committing Magistrate on 28- 7-1988, the Air Force Authorities had themselves delivered Nachhattar Singh, appellant, to the custody of ASI Daljit Singh PW 15 who had carried the said warrant issued by the competent Magistrate, for execution on 10-8-1988.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 177,
"end": 187,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 256,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 291,
"end": 303,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 396,
"end": 405,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Exhibit 65 is the copy of specimen writing taken from appellant Madhukar Smarth and none of the papers in the specimen writing have anything to remotely do with the entry in the RTR relating to appellant Sunilkumar's marks in the paper of Law of Torts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 79,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 214,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such stray acts may bear more than F one explanation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This application has been moved on behalf of appellant Arun Kumar Parikh, Deputy Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Mumbai, under section 482 Cr.P.C. with prayer to quash proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 3948 of 2004 (M/s. Prashant Glass Works Vs. Bank of Baroda), under section 420 IPC, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, II, Varanasi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 72,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 121,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 140,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 272,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 291,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 292,
"end": 295,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 354,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Violation of such rights often described as constitutional torts.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The answer to the question like the one that has arisen in the present case is whether the court would be justified in exercising its power under Section 540 is found in Kewalji's case (albeit).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 157,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 177,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Delhi High Court, while dealing with the matter, examined the competent officer of the United India Insurance Company, so also the Deputy Manager of Insurance Regulatory & Development Authority (`IRDA') on oath.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 20,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 121,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 206,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(d) That Satnam Raj, petitioner No.8 was also accused of misappropriation vide communication No. 10360 dt. 3.10.1980.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 19,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 116,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Separate written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 (IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.) taking the preliminary objections that the alleged accident had taken place due to the sole carelessness and negligence of the deceased Shri Arvind Kumar Shukla who was driving the vehicle No.DL\u00ad9CG\u00ad4280.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 109,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 271,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the Supreme Court held in Gammon India Ltd (supra) \"the question is not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them\"23.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 20,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 45,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words the mere passing of an order for filing the complaint was not taken to be sufficient for the purposes of commencement of the period of limitation and the order itself was not considered to be effective for the purposes of limitation unless it was followed by the actual complaint itself.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Nothing therefore turns on the statement of PW 21 with regard to the presence of PW 5 Gajraj Singh yadav in view of the other convincing evidence on the issue.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 104,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Tribunal has clearly found as a fact that the dealers have purchased hides and skins of animals to comply with the orders entered into with the foreign buyers for supply of leather of various specifications and after purchasing the raw hides and skins they tanned them and exported them in pursuance of the orders already entered into with the foreign buyer.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Similar is the view expressed by Lord Esher in In re Grosvenor and West-End Railway Terminus Hotel Co., (1897) 76 L.T. 337, while interpreting sections 56 and 59 of the English Companies Act, 1862, largely in pari materia with the provisions of Section 237 of our Companies Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 161,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 196,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 256,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 277,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is well settled that the principle that the fiscal statute should\tbe construed strictly is applicable only to taxing\tprovisions such as a charging provision or a provision imposing penalty and\t not to\t those parts of the statute which contain machinery provisions and by no stretch could s. 33B be regarded as charging provision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 304,
"end": 310,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is an aspect of the question which was discussed in a Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, in Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Nag-pur Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 98,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 180,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He candidly stated to have not entered the house of Karan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 57,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There was an order against Carltona Ltd. by the Commissioner of Works requisitioning the factory.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 40,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Merely on the basis of the averments made in the revocation petition, the respondents/plaintiffs cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Madras High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 148,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whether the judgment should be YES reported in the Digest?\n\nMOOL CHAND GARG, J.\n\n\n1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 95,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "52. Section 32 of the SEBI Act states that the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law or the time being in force.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 30,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before the Amending Act\t of 1978 was\tpassed,\t ex- municipal employees who had been allocated to the panchayat service as Secretaries, officers and servants\t of Gram and Nagar panchayats had achieved\t the status of Government servants.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In his evidence, Nehar Ranjan Deb (PW-4) admitted that Tapan Chakraborty was known to him and he was his maternal uncle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 33,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Civil Appeal No. 85 of 1961, Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, respondent No. 1, executed a first mortgage in favour of one Provash Chandra Mukherjee, since deceased, for a sum of Rs. 12,000/-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 30,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 52,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 140,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the very same day, i.e., April 25, 1949, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the order of the Income-tax Officer dated March 31, 1949, being I. T. A. No. 130 of 1949-50.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 42,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 182,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 217,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There were no injuries on the chest, stomach and other parts of the body of the deceased.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Moreover, as far as Section 9A which deals with controlled substance is concerned, there is no categorisation of small quantity or commercial quantity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such establishments were to fall in Section 1(3)(c) and the Act was to become applicable only if a notification was to be issued by the Central Government as envisaged by Section 1(3)(c) of the Act would not conclusively indicate that such establishments as are being now covered could not have been covered already by the provisions of Section 1(3)(b) of the Act.\" \n 15.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 51,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 154,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 186,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 352,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Judges were unable to agree with the decision given by another Bench of this Court consisting of Kumarayya, C.J., and Kondaiah, J., in T.R.C. No. 65 of 1966 on 18th June, 1969.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 118,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 138,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 168,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 187,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been held clearly and categorically by the Supreme Court that the default sentence imposed is only a mode of enforcement of the amount due and it is not punishment in the sense in which the term is ordinarily understood.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In pursuance of the interim order dated 6.12.2013, passed in Writ Petition No.11289 (M/B) of 2013, the respondent No.4 i.e., Ford Hospital, Lucknow, has provided copy of the medical record.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 49,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 97,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 147,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She took away with her all the Jewellery items which formed part of shridhana on his mother and which were gifted to her by his parents at the time of marriage (as already mentioned in the Petition in O.P.No.805 of 1998).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 201,
"end": 219,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Civil Appeals 739 to 742 of 1982 will stand disposed of in the light of the dismissal of the writ petition, out of which they arise.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 32,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Any authority or tribunal having the trappings of a court would be a \"court\" within the meaning of this section.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He brought an action for damages against the respondent company and, in the alternative, against the appellant board which was tried at Liverpool Assizes by Croom-Johnson J,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 145,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 170,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Police went to the hospital where the injured/complainant Ajeet s/o Vijay Pratap was though conscious and declared fit to give statement, but he did not give statement claiming that he was in pain.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 63,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to him, the prayer in the writ petition and the averments made in the course of the writ petition (W.P. No. 28799 of 1999) scandalise the Court and cast aspersions on one of the learned Judges of this Court, thereby attacking the majesty and dignity of this Court. \n20.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 131,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While he was doing so, one bus came and the complainant left away in that bus.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "These history sheets of the articles manufactured by it, most of which have been sold or still to be sold are stated to be required by the petitioner now and then in particular to attend to complaints by customers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The assessee is a registered firm which carries on business as a dealer in radio and radio accessories.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "An object or movement might emboss its image on one person's mind whereas it might go unnoticed on the part\tof another;",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Counsel for the plaintiff in considerable measures and there is another witness Smt -: 11 :-\n Kunti, who is DW\u00ad2, in the matter and her evidenciary affidavit dated 14.07.2015, has been tendered in evidence and she has proved the same as Ex DW\u00ad2/A and her signatures at point A and B thereon, however, these three witnesses have not proved any documents in their testimonies, which are available on record. \n\n11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 101,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 176,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No legal notice was served by the workmen against the M2.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A learned Judge of the Calcu'ta High Court also had an occasion to consider the validity of Section 34(1A) in Lakri Prasad Shah v. Income-tax Officer, Central Circle in matter No. 14 of 1955 which was decided by the learned Judge on 12-8-1955.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 106,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 165,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 190,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 242,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(3)(b) If the Convention is incorporated in England making available the principle of proportionality, then the English Courts will render primary judgment on the validity of the administrative action and find out if the restriction is disproportionate or excessive or is not based upon a fair balancing of the fundamental freedom and the need for the restriction thereupon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 51,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 4th respondent, Thirunavaya Grama Panchayat in its counter affidavit, has produced the resolution of the Committee as Ext.R4(a), opposing the unscientific move to delete it from Tirur Block Panchayat and include in Kuttippuram Block Panchayat. \n\n \n 22.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 47,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 203,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 246,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The principles reiterated by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Paul Manickam and another (AIR 2003 SC 4622) are relevant herein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 109,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner (W.N. Chadha) who was getting 1 lakh SEK per month for administrative services e.g. transportation, forwarding of letters, telex etc. cannot be called a middleman as he never represented on behalf of Bofors for the finalisation of the contract as explained hereinabove.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 221,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri Soli Sorabji also elaborately supported that view of the High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, Section 138 is applicable in the present case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 18,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even the accused were not asked any question regarding section 394 IPC and the circumstances appearing against them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 66,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 70,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears from annexure 'C being a communication from Government of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Industrial Development, Secretariat for Industrial Approvals, Foreign Collaboration-II Section dated 14.10.93 that the Government of India communicated its approval in.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 74,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 221,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 250,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, the decisions in Satpal Singh and Tobu Enterprise case were brought to the notice of this Division Bench.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 58,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Next morning all the arrested persons were taken to Mathura and there produced before Sri U. S. Narain, Addl. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, at about 1 p.m., i.e., within 24 hours of their arrest.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 59,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 102,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sabyasachi Mukharji,J., in his opinion, discussed all the relevant cases on the subject including Morvi Industries Limited and Birla Gwalior (P) Ltd. as well as the derision of this Court in Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. and stated the proposition emerging therefrom in the following words:\n \"(1) It is the income which has really accrued or arisen to the assessee that is taxable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 19,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 122,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 149,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 215,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the contrary, when presumption arises in the above said circumstances that accused No.1 and accused Nos. 2 and 3 by willful and intentional act, had driven the deceased towards suicide, it becomes the burden of the accused to dislodge this presumption.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That affidavit of original Appellant No.3 namely father of appellant No.1 is filed which reads as under:\n \"That, I Ramakanti Devnarayan Shukla [original appellant No.3] aged about 62 years residing at 526/3222, Gujarat Housing Board, New Bapunagar, Ahmedabad; do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath; 1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 142,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 258,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Para 16 provides that as per orders of Army Headquarters, Military Farms contracts are to be concluded through a panel of officers which may hold negotiations with the contractor where necessary and recommend the reasonable rates to the higher authorities.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This was so held by the Supreme Court in British Indian General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Maya Banerjee, 1986 Ace CJ 946 : (AIR 1986 SC 2110.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 37,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 136,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned Advocate General mainly placed reliance on a recent decision of a two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Supriyo Basu Vs. W.B.Housing Board, (2005) 6 SCC 289 where Arijit Pasayat, J. speaking for the Bench observed as follows (SCC p. 291):-",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 166,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 187,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the prosecution, the accused was arrested on 05.12.1997 and when he was so arrested he had injuries on his person.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 68,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as the testimony of RW-1 is concerned, what has been stated by her in her cross examination is that her brother -in-law Sanjeev Kumar (respondent no.2) used to sit in the suit premises during the year 1994-95.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 140,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At the risk of repetition, it is also noted that the defendant No.2 Sant Lal Kaushik, who is the brother of the appellant, has admitted the case of plaintiff in toto.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 84,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Despite numerous opportunities having been granted, Prof. Sidhu-respondent No. 3 has not controverted the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 63,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After deducting the said amounts, Rs. 8,988/- only is payable to her.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Setalvad, on the other hand, relied on the majority decision in in re. Delhi Laws Act, 1912, etc. case (1) and in particular on the summary by Bose J. in Raj Narain Singh's case(2) of the diverse views expressed by the learned Judges in that decision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 95,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 151,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 174,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly by the Income-tax and Business Profits Tax (Amendment) Act, 1948, the section was re",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 76,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No suggestion was put to Constable Shiv Nath Singh (PW.6), who was examined much later than Subedar (PW.1) in this regard.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 50,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 99,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the complainant, if the allegations are sufficient for consideration of charges, at that stage, this Court should not intervene by way of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 151,
"end": 162,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 177,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even otherwise, CW1 Ms. Meenu has deposed the facts mentioned in the complaint in her evidence affidavit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 29,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Likewise an appointment to a temporary post in a Government service may be substantive or on probation or on an officiating basis.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Sarkar contended that while some documentary evidence remained on record to show the need for increase, but the statement as recorded in the letter dated 16-7-1981, to wit, by capitalisation of our reserves and surplus runs counter to the case of increase of share capital since, as noted above, the company has had at the relevant time sufficient reserves for doing the needful in the matter.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 167,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, no such argument appears to have been advanced in the Minerva Mills case and we find no discussion and no reference whatsoever, separately to any of the distinct principles enunciated in the individual Articles of Part IV of the Constitution decision in Minerva Mills.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 76,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 230,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 250,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 276,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Merely because'\t the Government\t rejects a request for a reference or declines to make a reference, it cannot be said that the dispute has ceased to exist.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Parties to the present suit are related to each other in as much as plaintiff is the real brother of the defendant no. 3 and s/o deceased defendant No. 1 & 2.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Anil Singh, the common respondent in the appeals was tried for the PG NO 613 murder of Keshav Kumar (`K-K') by the Court of Session (Non- Metropolitan area), Kanpur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 99,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 164,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that from the GURBACHAN SINGH 2015.03.10 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh evidence on record, it was made out that the respondent had treated the appellant with cruelty but the trial court had held to the contrary.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 73,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 84,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 171,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is, thus, evident from the aforementioned table that petitioner No. 1 fails to satisfy the condition of transacting business of sale and purchase of agricultural produce worth Rs. Five lacs per annum during the last three years.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Section 62(5) a person lodged in prison is barred from casting his vote.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 45,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 59,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Not once but twice, the respondents sought and received a certified information that against Serial Nos. 1015and 1016, House No. 73, in reference to Polling Station 130 at Kherakura Sector 2, Tehsil Kashipur, District Nainital, the names of Daljogendra Singh and Kulwant Kaur are recorded.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 199,
"end": 207,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 226,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 258,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 275,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The order of reference dated 20th March 2014, which has occasioned the constitution of this Full Bench, has been passed by a Division Bench, in Hassan Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Limited and others vs. State of Karnataka and Others, W.A.No.734/2014 in Writ Petition No.10005/2014.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 44,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 267,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 295,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The words \"bodily injury... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death\" mean that death will be the \"most probable\" result of the injury having regard to the ordinary course of nature.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "*(N.B.-'Appellant' in High Court was Gurumukh Das Saluja and respondent nos. 8 and 9 were Sanjay Chawla and Ajay Arora; Hence Group \"A\")",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 118,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Our learned brother Chinnappa Reddy, J,(as he then was)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "J.B.KOSHY, A.K.BASHEER & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 11,
"end": 22,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Beaumont, C. J., also observed in Chandu Lal Vadilal v. Government of Bombay ILR 1943 Bom 128: (AIR 1943 Bom 138): \n 'One must construe Section 80 with some regard to common sense and to the object with which it appears to have been passed. ..... .'\" \n 40.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 114,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 146,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner had received from the respondent an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/\u00ad at the time of creation of the tenancy of the said shop, but the petitioner has not specified this material fact under any paragraph of his petition despite the fact that he has filed some receipt signed by him regarding payment of Rs. 45,000/\u00ad and balance payment of Rs. 1,80,000/\u00ad made on 07.05.1993. \n\n16.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 367,
"end": 377,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Clause (iv) of the 1952 Rule is almost a reproduction of the proviso to clause (iii) of the rule framed in 1950 and clause (iii) has been recast in somewhat different language, though in substance it contains what the main body of clause (iii) of the Rule of 1950 stated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 84,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 128,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 243,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It would be seen the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Gulabchand Chhotalal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1965 SC 1153 declared that a decision in an earlier writ petition under Article 226 on merits will operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit involving same question and for same reliefs.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 34,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 126,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 197,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "My learned brother Tuli, J., however, has proceeded to hold that even if the assertion of the petitioners that their services have been terminated at the command and direction of the Chairman of the Board was correct, still the orders passed by the punishing authority in its quasi-judicial capacity would not be tainted with any infirmity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 23,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision on these disputed questions and mode of deciding the said questions cannot be at any stretch of imagination said to be an administrative act, because it cannot be decided except issuing notice to the other party and providing him an opportunity of being heard.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "So to sell merchandise or carry on business under such a name, mark, description or otherwise in such a manner as to mislead the public into believing that the merchandise or business is that of another person is a wrong actionable at the suit of that other person.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The two conditions are cumulative, and. must both be established, and the burden of establishing them is on the person who seeks to have the election set aside.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In support of his contention Sri Shetty has strongly relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in K. C. Gajapati Narayan Deo v. State of Orissa .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 94,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 143,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The A. P. P. has moved an application requesting that this case may be taken up as enquiry case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He stated that regarding return of the written objections he made a complaint to the Election Commission but was not in possession of the copy of complaint The complaint sent by him to the Election Commission was made on 8-1-94 and was produced by him as Annexure-P-9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 104,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 208,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 227,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The dead body of Mahendra Pal was lying in a drain situated in the south of the Kothari.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 29,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 87,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As a sequel, the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC of the defendant is hereby dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 52,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 56,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He told her that Santhan (A-2) would take charge of her.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first respondent is the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and the 2nd respondent is the Debt Recovery Tribunal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 113,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Furthermore in all the subsequent correspondences between him and the FI or the SDM/LHA he nowhere claimed/it was not his stand that the sample/cream was taken out from the refrigerator.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There were confessions also of two other accused persons in that case, which were recorded by two other Dy. \n Commissioners of Police - Milind Bharambe and Dilip Sawant (witnesses at Serial Nos.65 and 66 respectively).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 151,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 168,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said police personnels who were posted at Police Chowki, Tripolia Gate, PS Ganj, Ajmer, are said to have received an information in the evening of 14.4.92 by wireless, through the control room, that some quarrel had taken place at Jhalre which falls within the jurisdiction of the said Police Chowki.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 83,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 90,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 158,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 241,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PQ is the statement of Anil Kumar, whereas Ex.PR is the statement of Raj Kumar, but as per disclosure statements, dead body was not recovered.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, it has been contended by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the testimony of PW 6 Dr. Shashank Punia who conducted the postmortem on the dead body was not corroborating the version of the prosecution case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 103,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even the earlier judgments of this Court reported in 13 and 14 G.L.R. though of learned single Judges do not appear to have been placed for consideration of the Division Bench.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He was relying on the Apex Court judgment reported in Sardul Singh v. Pritam Singh {(1999) 3 SCC 522} in support of this proposition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 32,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 101,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "October 27, 2010 V.B.GUPTA, J. mw",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 26,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the instant case, neither the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and 223 Intermediate Colleges (Reserve\t Pool Teachers) Ordinance,\n1978 (U.P. No. Ordinance 10 of 1978), nor the Uttar Pradesh High Schools\tand Intermediate Colleges (Reserve\tPool Teachers) (Second) Ordinance, 1978 (U.P. Ordinance No. 22 of 1978),\tinfringed Article 14\t or Article 16(1) of\t the Constitution or was unconstitutional or void.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 170,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 318,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 363,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 385,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "CW\u00ad1 has deposed in his examination in chief that despite service of legal notice of demand accused has failed to pay the cheques amount to the complainant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The trial Court by its judgment dated 1- 12-2005 held in favour of the landlords and decreed the suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 49,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Parminder Kaur Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2010 SC 840 it has been held that where the allegation in the First Information Report or complaint taken on its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute offence alleged, the inherent powers should be exercised to quash the proceedings. \n\n10.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 52,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having failed in their attempt to take the deceased with them, P.W.1 and others simply returned to Woraiyur empty handed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 107,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner will get right over the property subject to the charge created pursuant to the attachment made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in I.A.No.831 of 2008 in O.A.No.100 of 2008.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 140,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 162,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 184,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled ''National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pushpa Rana'' reported as 2009 ACJ 287 has held that whenever criminal proceedings are placed on record on completion of investigation by the police, then that in itself is sufficient proof of the negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident. \n\n 11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 27,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 122,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was held in that case that British Courts have got jurisdiction against non-resident foreigners with regard to whom the cause of action has arisen wholly or partly in British India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 170,
"end": 183,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Som Nath, F. D. Damania and B. R. Agarwala, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 10,
"end": 23,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh which, though, was a case under the old Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 86,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 138,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 183,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Again in Queen-Empress vs. Gobardhan [ILR (1887) 9 All 528], Sir John Edge, Chief justice withut laying (APPA-1087.11) down any inflexible rule, emphasised that it is not desirable that, pending the appeal against acquittal in a capital case, the prisoner should remain at large while his fate is being discussed by the High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also the admitted case of the petitioners that the lands cultivated by them under temporary leases are comprised in the Rajasthan Canal Project area and the villages, in which such lands are situated have been declared as colonies under Section 2 (ii) of the Act by notifications published by the State Government in the Rajasthan Gazette.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 243,
"end": 257,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In furtherance of investigation, Officer recorded statement of Chandrakala and other witnesses, arrested appellant and after completion of investigation, a challan was submitted by Police A.J.K., Betul as the prosecutrix belongs to schedule caste in the learned trial Court. \n\n03.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 74,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 201,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Calcutta cases and the case of Fry v. Salisbury House Estate Ltd.(,) illustrate the contrary Proposition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 69,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Gurvinder Singh (PW-3), as has already been pointed out, has not definitely stated that as to whether Satinderpal Singh fired had caused injuries to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 119,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "x x x x x (viii) In case of any loss or damage to the tops or goods in transit or in godowns, the same will be debited to the account of the Worsted Plant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This request of the petitioner-respondent Laxmichand has been accepted by the learned single Judge vide his order dated April 5, 1990.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 52,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 133,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The entire reliance of the Prosecution, therefore, is on the evidence of the solitary eye witness PW-12 Lalitkumar and the evidence relating to recovery of the weapons and blood stained clothes at the instance of the various Accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 114,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The relatives of late Pintu after following the necessary Crl.Appeals.2137 & 2223/2005. 34 procedures had the body exhumed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 86,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The works, in which the Mission is engaged, are beyond doubt \"some work\", and that Clause (b) in any event, makes Section 40 of the Act applicable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 124,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The oath of office which a Judge has to take before assuming office is also the same for both.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, when the Selection Committee\ttook into consideration the requisite qualifications as on\t the date of selection",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to Pappu (PW 1) he went to Puthupally in a bus on the following morning and passed through the spot where the dead body of Kunju was lying.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 138,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first respondent-Government of Kerala has filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 41,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On behalf of the claimants, three witnesses have been examined namely, Vijaysinh Harisinh Zala, son of the deceased, Prakashbhai Jagjivanbhai Patel and Dr. Ranjit Acharya.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 94,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 147,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 170,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "8. With a view to encourage the film industry, the State Government have decided to offer a subsidy of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) to each film produced in Andhra Pradesh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 182,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I would like to adopt the following sentence from the judgment oi the Court in Post Pub. Co. v. Hallam, (1893) 59 Fed 530 at p. 540: 'We think that not only is such a sacrifice not required of every one who consents to become a candidate for office, but that to sanction such a doctrine would do the public more harm than good.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 121,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.05(Asr)/2004 is dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 54,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"And as the Fifties give way to the Sixties the question that India faces is: Can these poor people, multiplying at the rate of 9 million a year be kept alive under a system of free parliamentary Government?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 67,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for the respondents placed before us the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in 1960 All LJ 94 on which reliance had also been placed by the learned Magistrate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 117,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plea taken by Mr. Nandlal Untwallia for the respondents was, in my opinion, a sound one.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The statutory liability under Sections 146 and 147 of the Act has to be read with the terms of the insurance policy issued under Section 146 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 140,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This again illustrates as to how these detention orders came to be passed to prevent the likelihood of such acts prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies essential to the community. \n\nThe petitions are therefore dismissed. \n\nS. B. W.\t Petitions dismissed",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "5. The assessee did not show any income from ice plant during the year, although an income of Rs. 9,000 was shown in the preceding year.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is clear that the entire reprocessing gimmick was a conspiracy to cause unlawful gain to the said Rajasthan Multi-Fertiliser Pvt. Ltd. and unlawful personal gain to the persons involved by consuming spurious fertiliser supplied by them thereby also causing wrongful loss to Biscomanun and the farmers of the State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 137,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The shelling charge was fixed at Rs.2/20\t p. per quintal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was contended that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) constituted in terms of the said Rules would hold its meeting at an early date.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The telegram by Shri Bagai from Calcutta indicated that on inquiries he had found that the shares of the said company were not regularly quoted in the stock exchange.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 40,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In regard to respondent No. 1 under column 4, the report shows that he was maintaining a workshop as per Government Order at Cuddalore, and column 5 speaks about the location of his residence or place of business as Cuddalore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 134,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 225,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was noted down within a reasonable time, that too before proceeding to the spot, and its copy was sent to the ACP through Inspector, which is sufficient and complete compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act. \n\n13.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 183,
"end": 193,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 205,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Cement Board differentiated wages by prescribing two separate Wage rates - one for Gujarat and Saurashtra region and another for factories in centres outside Gujarat and Saurashtra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 90,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 105,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 165,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 180,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 4th respondents thereafter executed and handed over to the Ist respondent an agreement in the form attached to the tender on 1st May, 1977.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 142,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An order of forfeiture had been passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 99-A in respect of two books published in Hindi entitled \"Sikh Mat Khandan Part I\" and \"Bhoomika Niazam Sikh Mat Khandan\" on the ground that the publication of those books was punishable under sections 153-A and 295-A of the Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 73,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 92,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 305,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 323,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Applicant Pradeep Kumar Sharma @ Ravi Singh, non-applicant no. 2 Ram Singh and non-applicant no. 3 Vishnu Gupta are present before this Court in person.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 74,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 111,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 10.7.1991, deceased Sukhna Devi wife of the appellant Jagdish Prasad and daughter in law of the appellant Rukmini Devi was brought by the appellant Jagdish Prasad to Safdarjung Hospital in burnt condition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 71,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 121,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 165,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 188,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 165 of the new Code corresponds to Section 165 of the old Code and substantially reproduces reproduces the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 54,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The alleged imputations in the article made by the granddaughter were in good faith and for her own protection.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Division Bench did not accept the said contention and held that a family settlement dividing the holding and which family settlement was part of a judicial record and had not been denied could form the basis of not only mutation but also application for separation of Khata.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired together to do away with Shyla.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner was informed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the time and place of the enquiry into these charges, but, he absented himself when evidence in support of the charges was recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this connection he invited our attention to some observations to be found in the decision of this Court in Keshavan Madhava Menon v. The State of Bombay (2) already referred to.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 159,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W. 2 Uma Shankar Singh and his relation Kailash Singh were also at the pumping set.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 24,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After insertion of Section 12 (1B), no person was competent to raise any fund through CIS unless it obtains a certificate of registration from SEBI.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 34,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 89,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 147,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The second personal allegation is that at some stage, Shri Joglekar was transferred to a station at a short distance from Indore and later on to Gandhi Sagar about 200 miles away.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 67,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 128,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 157,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Moreover aforesaid restriction intended to safeguard the health of the millions of peoples.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The circumstances, mentioned above, have been put to the two appellants Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and have been denied by them but the charges Under Section 120-B of the Code stands fully proved in this case and the two appellants have been rightly convicted for the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 89,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 123,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 188,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, the impugned notice issued by the Engineer Officer, Land & Development Office dated March 10, 1980 purporting to act on behalf of the lessor i.e. the Union of India was factually and legally not a notice of re-entry upon forfeiture of the lease as contemplated by cl. 5 and 6 of the lease-deed, based as it was on non-existent ground.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 107,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 173,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was contended on behalf of the applicant for probate that the company had no locus standi in opposing the grant of the probate inasmuch as it had no interest in the estate of the deceased as contemplated by Section 69 of the Probate and Administration Act (Act V of 1881).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 210,
"end": 220,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 273,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the Inspector has to be promoted from the post of Sub-Inspector whereas the Prosecuting Inspector is directly recruited through the Service Commission.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Even a trespasser in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without recourse of law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The power is wide and, if judiciously and consciously exercised, can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary on account of delay in proceedings or for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The case was that the deceased had two wives, namely Appellant No. 1 Smt. Shakun Bai and respondent No. 1 Smt. Siya Bai and from appellant No. 1, Smt. Shakun Bai, the children born were three daughters and one son who are appellants 2 to 4 and respondent No. 4 and from respondent No. 1, one daughter respondent No. 2 and one son respondent No. 3 were born.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 119,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 161,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words, on the delaying of payment of compensation on unjustifiable ground, the employer does not earn any penalty, if the claimant is being compensated with higher rate of interest.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "By consent, heard finally at this stage. \n\n\n\n\n \n 2.\n \n Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia, Plaintiff (Appellant herein), \n \n filed a Suit for declaration that 33,24,400 shares of M/s. Mukat Pipes Limited, Defendant No.4, Respondent No.4 herein, are the \n\n property of M/s.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 148,
"end": 177,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 352,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "- (1) The Bench shall as far as possible pronounce the order immediately after the hearing is concluded.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The traffic at Panch Batti is usually heavy and crowded.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel for the accused have argued that registration of a fresh information in respect of the very same incident as an FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is not valid, therefore all the steps taken pursuant thereto including investigation are illegal and liable to be quashed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 153,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 164,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Production of the signed copy of the award was sufficient compliance of the requirements of Section 14(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act to enable the Court to take action under Section 17 of that Act,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 105,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 135,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 187,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Issacs, J. observed as follows:-\n \"There can be no question that the Commonwealth Navigation Act, by its own direct provisions and the Regulations made under its authority, applies upon construction to the circumstances of the case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 96,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In clash of competing claims between general category employees on the one hand and Dalits and Tribes on the other, what the authorities need to take into consideration is the aforesaid factors and their service record with an objective and dispassionate assessment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In cases of those claimants who are still minors, the amount specified to them shall be deposited in some scheduled bank in the joint names of the minors concerned and the natural guardian, till the minor(s) attain(s) majority.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The assessee had agreed to the amount being brought to tax if its action of unilateral increase was upheld by the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The allegations made in the plaint are denied specifically that any amount, much less an amount of Rs. 20,24,000/- is due on account of principal and interest.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That arises, when the owner of the soil dedicates it to the use of the Public; but, at the time of the dedication, reserves to himself toll from those who pass over it.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In view of the foregoing reasons, I hereby withdraw the show cause notice under section 86-A Delhi Land Reforms Act and accordingly drop the proceedings against the respondents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 92,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 115,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Tarit Bhusan v. Sridhar Salagram there is an observation of Nasim All, J. that when a suit is dismissed under Order 9 Rule 8 of the Code, the suit can be restored under Order 9 Rule 9 if there was a sufficient cause for non-appearance of the plaintiff.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 35,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 72,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 127,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 186,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The scale of pay is no doubt an important criterion; but there are other factors which are equally important.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff Fatehchand son of Champalal of Churu instituted a suit in the court of the Civil Judge, Chum on 1-3-1955 against defendant Joharimal and 10 others for recovery of Rs. 32,500/-: Rs. 27,780/11/6 as principal and Rs. 4,719/4/6 as interest.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 41,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 50,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 118,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 146,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All documents were prepared in CBI office after the raid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 34,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Then, how this anomaly can be ascertained or analyzed by the Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Hence, it is, prayed that to set aside the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2012 passed by Sh. Gopal Singh Chauhan, ld. Civil Judge, Delhi and the decree dated 23.03.2012 passed by Sh. Rohit Gulia, ld. Civil Judge, Delhi in suit no. 503/06 and to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 77,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 111,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 135,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 167,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 193,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 217,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 236,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While giving the background relating to various Constitutional Amendments, it was contended that while the Supreme Court looked into the matter initially in Shankari Prasad's case AIR 1951 SC 458 and decided the issue relating to Constitutional Amendment, the matter was finally set at rest in Keshvanda Bharti's case AIR 1973 SC 1461.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 120,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 172,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 195,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 312,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 334,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also the admitted case of this Meenakshi Achi, and in fact it is on that footing that she filed her suit on the two deposit letters, O. S. No. 22 of 1950, that she became a partner in the Kha-jang firm and had an eight anna share therein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 207,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On this subject as well as on the subject of regulations as described by Fullagar, J., in McCarter v. Brodie (1), the law for the time being seems settled. \n\nHaving dealt with the historical background of the Constitution, the possible models which were considered in the drafting of Part XIIL we proceed to consider the three views expressed in the Atiabari Tea Company case (1).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 81,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 112,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 221,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 293,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 370,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the wedlock with the applicant, a daughter was born, aged 11 years as on today.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "What we have to decide is whether the impugned Act has the effect of taking away any vested right of the appellants whose appeals were pending in the High Court at the time when this Act came into force.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We are remind of what Douglas, J. Observed in Hicks:(1) \"The wanderer, the pauper, the unemployed-all were deemed to be potential criminals..........",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What is done or omitted to be done in the \"agony of the moment cannot fairly be treated as negligence unless the plaintiff's trade or calling is such that a certain degree of aptitude for dealing with dangerous situations may be expected of him.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The connected suit, O. S. No. 44 of 1950, was filed by Venkatanarasayyamma, Rajamani alias Mahalakshamma and Lachamma, who are defendants 2, 3 and 1 respectively in the other suit, for a declaration of their title to and possession of the plaint scheduled property which was attached under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in M. C. No. 2/1941 on the file of the Joint Magistrate, Bhadrachalam.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 40,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 74,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 104,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 117,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 301,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 335,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 355,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 405,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Zahira was the main eye-witness who lost family members including helpless women and innocent children in the gruesome incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 3.5.2014, the internal committee examined possibility of roll number tampering in PMT 2011.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Page No. 14 of 27 both the vehicles.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the explanation to section 377 IPC , it is also provided that \" \n\nPenetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 33,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 37,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the fourth question relating to electrical machinery, batteries, transmission lines, grinding machinery, etc., and motorcars and lorries and how far they can be treated as \"tools and implements , I agree with what has been said already on this point by my learned Brother.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Monthly returns were also furnished vide letter dated 9th April, 2009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 69,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rupaben Savjibhai Sonderva, aged 16 years was examined at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad on 30th July 2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 83,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 101,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that the question was sought to be raised as a fresh piece of evidence before Debabrata Mookerjee, J. and it was not considered by him but it was not stated before him when the then complainant came to know of this fact.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 108,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "DW5 Sh. Pradeep Srivastava, IPS, DCP South had been closely monitoring the investigation of the case and he submitted the report Ex.DW5/A to the Additional Commissioner of Police and also to the Press, wherein it is reported that the Grandmother suspected that one Bobby a Stone Cutter working nearby, who was friendly with the prosecutrix might have taken her away.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 26,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 270,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The last sentence of the above passage is of great significance.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A joint affidavit of the petitioner and the second respondent as per exhibit P-2 was sworn to on February 11, 1976, for the purpose of securing the seed money from the Government of Karnataka.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 114,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 191,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "and contended that the assertions of the respondent No. 3 that she was having the vehicle No. RJX-554 with her, which was lying idle and was available for plying immediately on the route, was entirely false to her knowledge.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, while adjudicating the dispute between the parties, it is necessary to lay emphasis in the form of Marriage and the intention of the parties to be governed by the personal law of domicile",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This fact is mentioned by none else but by the complainant Ashaben herself in her report.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 66,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If it were held that the provisions of Article 320 (3) (c) are mandatory in terms, the other clauses or sub-clauses of that article, will have to be equally held to be mandatory.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 58,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To support the above observation, the Supreme Court relied on various decisions quoting passages therefrom.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendant satisfied himself by an enquiry and the best enquiry which, in the circumstances, could be, was to ascertain the facts not only from plaintiff Etwari Sahu, himself, but also from his four clerics, who were there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 157,
"end": 168,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question raised was C.M.No.15703 of 2012 In CWP No.14585 of 2011 that \"when a statute confers a power on an authority and imposes a duty on it to be a Judge of its own cause or to decide a dispute in which it has an official bias, the doctrine of bias is qualified to the extent of the statutory authorization\". \n\n40.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 68,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "^\n HELD: (per Krishna Iyer & Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.)\n 1. Reservation of 70% is too high at the post-graduate level.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 48,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Labour Relations Board of Saskatchewan v. John East Iron Works Ltd. (3), the question arose under s. 96 of the British North America Act, 1867, under which the Governor- General of the Dominion had power to appoint judges of the superior district and county courts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 78,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 110,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 149,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The present position in law with regard to damages in a libel action is stated by Lord Justice Pearson in (1964) 3 All ER 947, as follows: \n \"If I may summarise shortly in my own words what I think is to be derived from that case, it is this, that from henceforth a clear distinction should be drawn between compensatory damages' and punitive damages.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 102,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Four other decisions of the learned single judges of this court were cited before Kirpal J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 88,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was primarily examined by the appellant in order to contradict the report of Rajan [P.W.48], wherein it is stated that a Self loading weapon was received from the Court by the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Department.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 85,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 218,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though this Court is unable to interfere in the impugned order, this Court cannot but highlight some of the disturbing features noticed in this case relating to the conduct of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 180,
"end": 213,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The rest will, right now, be exposed to the actinic light of legal scrutiny.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Disinvestment stood ruled out of consideration, a fact which was within the special knowledge of the Holding Company, since whether to disinvest or not was a matter of their volition.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. A.B. Dewan, appearing for the Contractor, submits that the umpire made a non-speaking award.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To the same effect is the decision of the Patna High Court in Siai Sinha v. Shivadhari Sinha, AIR 1972 Pat. \n\n81.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 106,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The wife, therefore, took a plea that in view of the above breach in relationship between the families she cannot for ever give up her service and be dependent on the husband for all times who has no sufficient source of income to maintain all members of the family in his parental house at Rajnandgaon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 291,
"end": 302,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri Pagaria, who appeared in T.C. No. 162/88 in the matter of Shri Radheyshyam Goyal v. Union of India & Ors., where the petitioner was a Chartered Accountant, prefaced his submission by submitting that ours is a sovereign, social- ist, secular democratic republic governed by the Constitu- tion of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 45,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 109,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 305,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further urged that petitioners having submitted their application forms for selection are now challenging the jurisdiction of RUHS.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 136,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The witnesses have narrated the entire prosecution case and they stated that when the would be dacoits had arrived and assembled at a place near Behta Bridge and had discussed the whole plan for committing dacoity at the house of Rameshwar Dayal a very light pistol was fired by P. W. 2 Rajendra Prasad Singh, station officer, police station Atrauli.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 230,
"end": 245,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 308,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 349,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The judgement which the Id. AR for the assessee relied upon is 40 ITR 618 (SC) in case Bhopal Sugar Mills v. ITO.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 112,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the order dated 21-7-1989 of the Metropolitan Magistrate, V Court, Bangalore, in P.C.R.No. 39/89 referring the complaint of the first respondent under Section 156(3) of the Code to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bangalore for investigation is quashed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 95,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 146,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 166,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 235,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 295,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In order to extort a confession from Udayakumar, accused Nos. 1 to 3, W.P.C. NO. 24258 of 2007 in furtherance of the common intention to voluntarily cause grievous hurt to Udayakumar, subjected him to corporal torture which was forbidden by law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 94,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 182,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be invested in fixed deposit with a Nationalized Bank in the name of original applicant No.3 - Rudabhai Ravabhai Solanki (Harijan) initially for a period of five years and he was permitted to withdraw the quarterly periodical interest accrued on the said fixed deposit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 138,
"end": 163,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The further case set up by SI Trivedi, respondent No. 1, incharge of the police station was that after making a Roznamcha entry at 7.00 a.m. about his departure from the police station he (respondent No. 1- Shyamsunder Trivedi) and Constable Rajaram respondent proceeded to the spot where the dead body was stated to be lying for conducting investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 37,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 226,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 249,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 372,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 380,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The claim or right of the plaintiff as an owner and that he was in possession of the property or whether after passing of the interim order by the Court on 23rd June, 1997 he was forcibly dispossessed is subject matter of the Civil Suit No.300/1997 filed by the plaintiff before the Addl. District Judge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 156,
"end": 171,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 248,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "None of these cases go to the length of holding that the hand of this Court is frozen on the confirmation of the statement of proposals.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "One Jogendra Singh objected to the grant of renewal to the Company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The law B.A.No. 7311 of 2007 here also is well settled and it is unnecessary to advert specifically to the precedents cited.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 28,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In CIT v. Punjab Bone Mills (1998) 232 ITR 795 (P&H), the Hon'ble High Court has held that the right to receive cash incentive accrues to the assessee on filing the claim and that export by itself would not give rise to the income by way of cash incentive.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 52,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In case there was such contravention of any of the provisions of the two Control Orders, then there was undoubtedly the power of search and seizure.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As it has been established that the negligent act of Gurubachan Singh and respondent Rajinder pal Singh was \"in the course of employment\" the appellant shall be liable for the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 103,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also relevant to refer to the observations made in judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1602 of 2012 (Sahabuddin & Anr vs. State of Assam) dated 5.10.2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 174,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 190,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To find fault with law is not to demonstrate its invalidity.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "When the accused directly applies to the Court, the Court must first refer the request of the accused to the prosecuting agency and ask for a statement from the prosecution on the request of the accused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The appellant Trimbak was prosecuted under Section 395 I. P. C. for having participated in that dacoity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 21,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 54,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 63,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the reasons I have stated above regarding the law applying to Gherao, 1 am clearly of the view that Gherao as practised in this case is unlawful to the extent that thereby several offences like unlawful restraint (Section 341), unlawful confinement (Section 342) and criminal trespass (Section 448) have been committed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 218,
"end": 229,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 266,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 302,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I may usefully refer to the observations Of Lord Watson in Salomon v. Salomon & Co Ltd., 1897 AC 22 (F): \n \" 'Intention of the Legislature' is a common but very slippery phrase, which, popularly understood, may signify anything from intention embodied In positive enactment to speculative opinion as to what the Legislature probably would have meant, although there has been an omission to enact it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further stated that the petitioner is making this application for grant of Letter of Administration with the Will annexed in order to administer the estate of her deceased father Sh. Sant Singh in the capacity of the Class I legal heir of her mother late Smt. Karmo Bai, who was the sole legatee of late Sh. Sant Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 189,
"end": 199,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 275,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 324,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He relied on the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Swaran Kanta vs. CIT (1989) 176 ITR 291 (P&H). \n6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 109,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 12th November, 1964 respondent No. 1 Renusagar Power Company Ltd. was granted sanction under section 28 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, to engage in the business of supply of electricity to respondent No. 2 Hindalco.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 22,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 68,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 106,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 142,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 223,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Their Lordships agreed with the appellant that a portion of the money received in Saskatchewan which repre- sents net profit should be sub-divided and part of it should be treated as a manufacturing profit' arising from the manufacturing business of the appellant outside Saskatchewan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 94,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 284,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further submitted that the observations made by the Hon ble Apex Court by order dated 26.7.2013 passed in e writ petition being Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 6084 of 2013 filed by the applicant accused",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 98,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 182,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, by legislation under the head 'Banking' the Reserve Bank Act has been enacted and the Reserve, Bank created with sufficient powers conferred upon it necessary to regulate (1)[1930] A.C. 111, 121. \n\nthe functioning of the Banking system in the country.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 71,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, it abandoned the whole process and adopted a resolution of extension only at its meeting on 8.2.1997 which would not relate back to the date of circulation as 'mere circulation' is not \"action\" and that too, based on majority opinion, within the meaning of Rule 6 which was required to be confirmed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 109,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 272,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While, however, deciding Hopkins and another v. Smethwick Local Board of Health L.R.[1890] 24 Q.B.D. 712,716, Lord Esher, M.R., instead of using the definition given earlier by him in Vionet and another v. Barret and another chose to define natural justice as \"fundamental justice\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 120,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Their revision application to the High Court was dismissed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was a very wide power to condone delay caused in filing application within the prescribed time.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He must accept or reject the terms in the A/T dated 13-11-1952 in toto.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Their Lordships observed that there was considerable force in this argument and they were of opinion that the respondent adopted an attitude unbecoming an employee of the appellant and that he adopted a truculent attitude in the course of the correspondence and resorted to the theory of his dual personality refusing to answer the queries addressed to him by the General Manager.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Accused No. 2 Liyakatali has given evidence on oath at Exhibit 65, while accused No. 3 Abdullamiya Usmanmiya has given evidence on oath at Exhibit 64.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 108,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Every tax tends for a time; to \"stick to where it falls\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The facts of the case are found by the authorities are that M/s A.W. Pereira and Ors., were the owners of certain plots of land in village Kandivali, Borivali Taluka, Mumbai.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 76,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 148,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 165,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 173,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(ii) In Criminal Appeal No.143/2004, conviction and sentence of appellant Abhishek @ Lallu under section 302/34 I.P.C. is set aside, instead he is convicted under section 304 Part I I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 35,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 90,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 111,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 118,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 181,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 188,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Assessing Officer has applied his mind and has stated in the reasons 1 W.P.No.79 of 2013 with other connected petitions decided on 20.2.2013.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 92,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similar view is taken by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Patel Ramjibhai Danabhai reported in (1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 347.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 147,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But then it has been argued that the Supreme Court itself subsequently modified its own views in AIR 1964 SC 600 and that termination of service even when the post itself is abolished will attract the operation of Article 311(2).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 112,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 228,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The main reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner is upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab, (1986)13 Cr.LT. 126 (F.B.): AIR 1987 Punjab & Haryana 19. \n\n19.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 191,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "2) If Point No.1 is held in affirmative, whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or excessive?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Delhi Administration v. Gurdip Singh Uban & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 296, this court again dealt with the same acquisition proceedings and observed that if a tenure holder had not filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act 1894, he cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings on the ground that objections had not been disposed of in accordance with law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 69,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 211,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They, however, pleaded that all these notices were void ab initio since the Jodhpur ITO had no jurisdiction to issue them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 83,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the meantime, the Central Government announced a Housing Policy on 19th June, 1998 which was Delhi specific.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 39,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 101,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The order for delivery or the bus was an order made by the Government as the same was signed by the Secretary to the Government of Bengal who was also the Provincial Transport Commissioner (see Ex. 6 (2).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 137,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Joshi further pointed out that the aforesaid decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. N. T. Patwardhan [1961] 41 ITR 313 (Bom) has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of A. K. T. K. M. Vishnudatta Antharjanam v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 145,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 184,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 281,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 31st December, 1952 Bharat Airways Ltd. filed a petition to the Deputy Com. missioner of Police, Detective Department alleging that Mr. Shukla committed offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating in respect of a sum of Rs. 4,881/18/3p. under Section 408 and also under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 22,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 145,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 262,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 289,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 314,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(8) I have considered the rival contentions and also the relevant authorities placed on record by both the parties which are as under:\n\n 1. Muhammed Kassim Abdul Sathar Sait Vs. Hajee Bahiman Hajee Ismail reported in AIR (37) 1950 Travancore Chochin 2. Dalip Singh Vs. State of UP reported in 2010 (2) SCC 144. \n\nSheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 249,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 312,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 365,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This document records that \"the period of validity of this Cover Note will expire on 4.2.1984\". \n\n 7.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 93,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It may not be out of place to refer to the report given by three member Committee head by Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan appointed by the Honourable Supreme Court, by order dated 22.04.2014, to scrutinize and monitor the enforcement of statutory provisions including the Motor Vehicles Act for making the road safer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 116,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 158,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 185,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 285,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court has relied on judicial confession made by accused Pooran Singh against the present appellants/accused as a corroborative evidence to the eye-witness account of the child Arvind Kumar (PW-19).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 197,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh. K.L. Srivastava has proved a public notice Ex. DW3/1 published at the instance of the deceased in his newspaper 'Daily Vishwamitra' on 4.4.1972.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 147,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On an anxious consideration of the various provisions of the M.V.Act and the Rules enacted by both the Union and the State as also the facts and circumstances existing, we are inclined to approve the decision of the learned single Judge rendered in W.P.(C).No.29946 of 2006.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 68,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 273,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To The District Magistrate & Collector, Hooghly And Chairman, RTA, Hooghly Sub: Registration of auto-rickshaw in favour of OBC loanees under NBCFDC credit linked programme.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 47,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 74,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 147,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This harmony and balance between fundamental rights and Directive Principles is an essential feature of the basic structure of the Constitution\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 143,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Constitution Bench further held that where the arbitration agreement itself stipulated reasons for the award the Arbitrator is under a legal obligation to give reasons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 22,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The observation of the Tribunal in Bajaj Auto Ltd. is not supported by reasons as to why it was felt that the earlier order of the Tribunal in RIL referred only to the form of the Schemes and not their substance.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 50,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 146,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He contended that since TISCO was not. a party before the Rao Committee, its report was not binding for the purposes of considering TISCO's lease.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 29,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 137,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had to consider the mode of valuation of the goods manufactured by the petitioner-company (in that case, electric lamps and flourescent lamps) for the purpose of levy of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 44,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 271,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 8th October, 1980 the basic minimum cane price, for the season 1980-81 was fixed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Food, Government of India, New Delhi, under Notification No. G.S.R. 576-B (Ess. Com./Sugarcane), at Rs. 13 per quintal linked to a recovery of 8.6 per cent. or below with a premium of Rs. 15.2941 paise per quintal for every 0.1 per cent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 20,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 166,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Out of these 492 employees, only 13 persons are not the members of the recognised union whose services were brought to an end and out those 13 persons only one person, namely, the respondent in Letters Patent Appeal No. 213 of 2002 has challenged the said settlement to the extent of termination of his services.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 194,
"end": 231,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the first writ petition an order dated 29th May, 2006 was passed by the Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 56,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When an entity has an independent legal existence, before it is held to be the State, the person alleging it to be so must satisfy the Court of brooding presence of government or deep and pervasive control of the government so as to hold it to be an instrumentality or agency of the State.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Ravinder PW-10, deposed that he knew the appellant as he was working with him since last two years prior to the incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have been referred to the endorsements already mentioned earlier by us in this order on the back of the warrants issued on 9-7-1957.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 134,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This classification has been followed in almost all the cases in England since Lord Macnaghten's judgment, though there has been some difference of opinion as to what purposes can be considered to be beneficial to the community. \n 35.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 72,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel for the respondent-claimants further relied upon the Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered in the case of Susheela and Ors. v. Ahmad Bi and Ors. (6), wherein High Court even refused to deduct any amount from the income of the deceased on account of his income tax liability or professional tax liability.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 129,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 197,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It also directed that the helmet laws be made applicable all over the country, both for main and pillion riders and suggested two wheeler owners to carry an extra helmet with them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The present order will dispose of one of the issues relating to decision of the Uttar Pradesh Government not to take disciplinary action against Smt. Neera Yadav-respondent No.7.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 104,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 161,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This issue is taken up first since the discussion on this issue is pivotal for determining whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief or not.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The respondent was therefore, under no obligation to appear on the 14th December when the petition wag dismissed for default, and, therefore, the petition could not be dismissed for default it was held further that the order of dismissal for default being patently Illegal, the illegality may well be regarded as mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, could be reviewed",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was rightly pointed out by the learned Advocate for the State of Orissa that there are only some of the roads on which vehicles heavier than what is indicated in the notification cannot be permitted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 74,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since a question of law had arisen about the constitutionality of that section on the ground of Article 14, I had referred it to a Bench of two Judges.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 106,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When Chandrakala (PW/2) examined on 23.06.2006 in the trial Court she admitted that Kumma is also came with us up to the Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 16,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 46,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 89,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The number of students registered at the Poona University was 2450 and the number of students registered at the Shivaji University was 2039 and as a result of applying the proportion between the said number in the year 1970 - 71, 59 seats were allocated out of the seats available in the B. J. Medical College for the students passing pre - professional examination from the Shivaji University.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 57,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 130,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 309,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 393,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the management-petitioner each colliery has an independent Accounts Section which is under the charge of a clerk known as accounts-in-charge.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is further stated so far as recovery of possession is concerned the cause of action arose after expiry of 15 days of the service of the notice dt. 23.08.2007 did not vacate premises.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 160,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below, while acquitting accused Nos.2 and 3 of all the offences punishable under Section-341 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., however, convicted accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 145,
"end": 156,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 177,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 184,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 200,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 221,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 228,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 306,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 313,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the safeguard Itself is removed by the order of the Governor under Clause (c) of the proviso to Clause (2) the rules which only prescribe the mode of giving that opportunity to a particular class of officers, can no longer govern the rights of the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 82,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 111,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Judges of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. C.I.T.(2) observed, while considering the import of s. 2(15) of the 1961 Act:\n \"It is one of the fundamental principles in legislation and the drafting of statutes that the provisions contained therein should be clear and cogent and, more so, with regard to the fiscal statutes which impose a burden on the public.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 98,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 149,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before examining the rival contention, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of s. 271(2) of the Act, which, in fact, gave rise to this controversy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Act has been in force from the year 1938 and all along almost all the High Courts in India have taken the view that a mere nomination effected under section 39 does not deprive the heirs of their rights in the amount payable under a life insurance policy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 94,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 163,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That was a case wherein the dismissed official was a civil servant engaged in the affairs of the Union of India and therefore he was entitled to the protection and benefit of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 111,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 186,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 215,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Later, however, one D'souza a broker who was sitting with D.W. 3 at the time informed him that he could supply the instrument wanted by the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petition for setting aside the award is therefore dismissed with costs.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Due to this interim order, agenda Item No.16 for the Board Meeting dated 20-9-2017 relating to the third rights issue, could not proceed further.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 82,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The substantive provision contained in clause (c) abovesaid spelling out the disqualification is explicit and specific.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The petitioner has thus invoked those bank guarantees.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Addl. District Magistrate (Rev.) Delhi Admn. v. Siri Ram, (2000) 5 SCC 451 Supreme Court has observed that the mere conferment of rulemaking power by an Act does not mean that the subordinate legislation will go beyond/exceed the scope of the enabling Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 77,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was also mentioned therein that they were taking such action under the Act and the laws to get their father\u0012s interest transferred to one out of all brothers and sisters, and since, some of them were outside Calcutta and even outside India, it was likely to take time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 211,
"end": 219,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 242,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, the point is answered against the petitioner. \n\nPOINT Nos.2 and 4: \n2) Whether the writ petition is maintainable when effective statutory remedy is available to litigant public? \n\n4) Whether the principle of res judicata is applicable in subsequent proceedings? \n18.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mukherjea, J. took the view that it cannot be said that an unlimited right of delegation is inherent in the legislative power itself and the legislature must retain in its own hands the essential legislative functions which consist in declaring the legislative policy and laying down the standard which is to be enacted into a rule of law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Smt. Damyanthi Naranga's case, supra, is a case filed by the petitioner against the State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No doubt, in the law dealing with the sales tax, the taxable event is the sale and not the manufacture of goods.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It would seem that as the petitioner had complained that he was not given any personal hearing, Mr, Noor by his letter, dated the 15th of May, 1959, presumably ex major cautela offered a personal hearing to the petitioner on the u8th of May 1959.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 104,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 147,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 245,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He had been such member for over three years at the time of writing this article.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However, Desai, J. added a note saying \"that the contention about locus standi is now of academic interest and I do not propose to deal with it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 14,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Advocate and his 'Role' In Administration of Justice",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the above discussions, we hold that the District Collector is the only competent authority to exercise the power under Section 4 (1) of the Act for issue of notification, and such power cannot be delegated to any other officer including the Additional Collector in whose name the notification has been issued.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 122,
"end": 135,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Certain notices were issued against the petitioners by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ahmedabad, on 31st January, 1962, under section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1922.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 104,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 127,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 151,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 179,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After the proceedings of the case were over, Chanan Singh (PW 8) came back with Lakha Singh deceased to his house in village Longowal Khurd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 57,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 91,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 139,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An employer needs to maintain records only if he has headload workers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The notification of the Government of India dated the 6th November 1967 under which a Commission of Inquiry was appointed to inquire into the communal disturbances which occurred in the country also shows that such disturbances occurred in different parts of the country from August till October, 1967.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 43,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner has further levelled allegations against Prof. Sidhu-respondent No. 3 that he was annoyed by a note appended by her in her capacity as Senior Legal Adviser inviting the attention of the Chairman to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1, 1 in a bid to apprise the legal position.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 254,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 342,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Prasanth Dhanaka, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3126/2000 and the respondent No.1 in C.A. No.4119/1999 has supported the finding of the Commission on the question of negligence, but has, in addition, challenged the observation of the Commission that the implied consent of the complainant and his parents had been taken for the excision of the tumour.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 65,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 110,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His wife, PW 5 Laila Khatun, who was in the room, however, prevented him from going out for fear that he may be done to death by the accused persons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 27,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, in the absence of any documentary proof of occupation and income, the learned Tribunal took the deceased to be a housewife and the value of her services was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month and the multiplier of 16 was applied to compute the loss of dependency at Rs.5,76,000/-.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In that case, the editor of the daily newspaper \"Globe & Mail\" wrote an editorial on 27th May 1957 containing allegations defamatory of the plaintiff Boland who was a candidate for election to the Federal Assembly from Parkdale constituency in the City of Toronto.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 61,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 98,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 156,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 240,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 263,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In St. Xaviers College case (AIR 1974 SC 1389) (supra), the validity of S. 51A of Gujarat University Act came to be considered by a Constitutional Bench consisting of 9 judges.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 46,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 78,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 104,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Until the year 1977 the view generally taken was that the State being the only authority competent to initiate a criminal prosecution on behalf of the injured, did also possess the power to terminate such prosecution through the process of withdrawal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the present case, the deceased was 39 years of age.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Our attention was drawn to the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in K. B. Sipahimalant v. Fidahussein Vallibhoy, 58 Bom LR 344.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 87,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 149,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The police officials, respondents Nos. 3 to 5 herein, namely, the Superintendent of Police Hissar Shri Anil Davra, Addl. Superintendent of Police Hissar Shri Sham Lal Goel and SHO Hissar Shri Rajendra Singh, totally misdirected themselves by not allowing the truth to come out before this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 113,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 171,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 206,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the Second Schedule provides for a structured formula, the question of determination of payment of compensation by application of judicial mind which is otherwise necessary for a proceeding arising out of a claim petition filed under Section 166 would not arise.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 237,
"end": 248,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 17-6-1983 this Court as an interim measure directed the Respondents to release the vehicle to the petitioner with which they have complied.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Income can be said to have been earned from a 'source of income' outside India if the source from which the income is derived is situated outside India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 78,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 151,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For example, in the case of Gunaram B. Chowdhury, Shri B.J. Champawat admitted investment of Rs. 36,000 in Benami name notwithstanding the fact that affidavits/confirmations were filed before the Revenue authorities.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The reasoning given by the Ld.Trial Court in not believing the affidavit Ex.PW1/F is also sound.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the night between December 20-21, 1968 the Sub Inspector surrounded a hotel wherein the accused was stated to be present in village Minus.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 41,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 140,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(iii) Again in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramanbhai Fulabhai Bhoi 1983 ACJ 779 (Gujarat) (R.C. Mankad and D.H. Shukla, JJ.)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 109,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 121,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We also see no logic in denying exemption in case of detention for non-payment of tax alone when exemption from tax is available for vehicles which is under custody for involvement in very seniour crimes, even heinous crimes like murder, going by Clause 27 of SRO No. 878/75 issued under Section 22.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 247,
"end": 256,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 298,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the affidavit it was specifically averred that after arrest, Saidu Muhammed (A1) was questioned and he admitted that he handed over the weapon to Balaji (A 14) and left for Nagalasseri.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 78,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 155,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 187,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was stated that Smt. Munni Bai, widow of deceased Girja Prasad had filed an application under proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as \u0011the Code\u0012) to allow her to continue the appeal by seeking leave of this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 65,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 138,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 178,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After the incorporation, the directors adopted the transaction by a Resolution dated 29.3.1946.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 94,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As a\t licensee governed by\t the statute\t its \"clear profit\" was ascertained in terms of\t the statute\t and the schedule annexed thereto.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the case of Messrs. Sasa Musa Sugar (1) [1956] S.C.R. 916.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 60,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that defendant No.3 Thamanappa has two wives.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 41,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The claim petitions filed by the petitioners in MVC Nos.217/2015 to 219/2015 u/s 166 of the M.V. Act are hereby allowed in part with costs.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 76,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 84,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 100,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That way, he attempted to commit suicide.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The agreement shows that the Sassoons had separately evaluated the Managing Agency and the shares held in the Apollo Mills Co.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 126,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It would be pertinent to point out that insofar as the present case is concerned, this view of ours becomes more formidable when we peruse the nature of challenge that was laid by the appellant C.S. Agarwal in the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 194,
"end": 206,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appeal by special leave from the order dated July 10, 1964 of the Industrial Tribunal Delhi in O.P. No. 79 of 1962.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 58,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 114,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Without any hesitation I include Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in that category of offences.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 78,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "HC Sukhpal Singh (PW-3) attested the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is submitted that this Court may direct investigation to be carried out in the affairs of Mr.Ashish Patel, Radhe Associates and all the companies, who are promoters and/or controlled by Mr.Ashish Patel, his friends, relatives and associates.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 108,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 126,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 204,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter IO went to Burn Ward, Safdarjung Hospital and it was informed that Kiran Tiwari was got married with accused about one year back.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 52,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During his cross examination, he stated that the name of the accused is Sanjay Kumar S/o Daya Nand as mentioned in his reply to the notice U/s 133 M.V. Act Ex.PW2/B.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 146,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 155,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The meaning of Panchayat Raj is akin to a territorial kingdom, however within the democratic intent and subject to the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and the Constitution.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 154,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 175,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A temporary injunction was granted against defendants under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2. Civil P. C., by the trial Court against winch the defendants preferred appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 78,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 91,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By Government Order dated 12.9.1991 when sanction was accorded to start Higher Secondary Course in 55 High Schools, the names of the schools were stated as Higher Secondary Schools and post of Headmaster was redesignated as Principal and they were given a special allowance of Rs. 250/-, considering their additional work.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 35,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(2) That the amount received against wrongful possession of the property amounts to mesne profits whether determined by the court or under a consent decree within the ambit of Section 2(12) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 176,
"end": 189,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 226,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has merely restrained the petitioner from interfering with the management of the Gurdwaras, and has vested the management in a third person who also happens to be a member of the Committee.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "With great respect, it seems to us that the decision of the Supreme Court in Jyoti Pershad's case should be sufficient to enable us to construe Section 19(4) as being mandatory and exhaustive even though such construction may prevent the landlord from evicting his tenant except on one of the grounds expressly mentioned therein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 157,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In case of Balraj Taneja (supra) at Serial No. 5, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that whether the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract can be decreed U/o 8 Rule 10 CPC as the defendant has failed to file the written statement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 95,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 204,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 208,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 95 of the Act is very important and that specifies the requirements of policies and limits of liabil- ity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As pointed out earlier since PWs 1 and 4 were occupying the ground floor of the building of which Ashok and his wife were occupying the first floor, their presence at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the production of waste and scrap is an integral part and an inevitable incident or the manufacturing process, Parliament has the legislative competence to make 'waste and scrap' excisable under Entry 84 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which relates to 'Duties of excise on Tobacco and other goods manufactured or produced in India\", except certain intoxicants and narcotics.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 127,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 243,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 263,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 360,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 18-11-2012 it was holiday as it was Sunday.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I have already held above whether the Public Prosecutor or the accused comes to the court first is not a criterion for seeking the relief under Section 167 CrPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 155,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 160,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts of this case are similar to the facts of the present case; and the learned Judge applied to these facts the rule in Mehr Khan's case, ILR 2 Lah 282 = (AIR 1922 Lah 300).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 135,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 178,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said case was entrusted to Sh. Mehar Singh Inspector, CBI (PW6).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 46,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 61,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Judge has referred to a decision of the Gujarat High Court , Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel v. Maniben where it has been held that where the husband's denial was found to be evasive and the documents regarding his income were specially within his knowledge, their non-disclosure would justify raising of an adverse inference in the facts of a given case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 110,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We need no longer search for English authorities as to whether the Interpretation Act of 1889 applies to the repeal of temporary statutes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 93,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The connected matters involve the same point.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting pertaining to the petitioner are as under:-\n \"Meeting of the Committee on Disputes was held at 1030 hours on 08.05.2005 in the Committee Room, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 170,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 244,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No reply to the Solicitor's letter of demand was given by the petitioners.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Parliament was anxious that inter-State trade should be canalised through registered dealers over whom the appropriate government has a great deal of control.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Ministry of Defence issued Army Instruction No. 241 of 1950 styled as 'Seniority of civilian employees in lower formations', which provides that in accordance with the orders contained in para 2 of Ministry of Defence O.M.No. 0240/6362/D-12 dated September 1,1949 published as Annexure 'A' to this instruction, seniority of persons employed in a particular grade is to be determined as indicated herein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 23,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 221,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 267,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent no.2 has not asked for copy of deliberations or the discussion and comments of the members of the council.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(iv) Six candidates viz., Mr.K.R.R.Aiyappa Mani, Mr.N.Marappan, Mr.K.Kathiravan, Mr.P.Paramasivam, Mr.V.N.Subramaniam and Mr.S.K.Vel shall not exercise any rights or discharge any functions as elected members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 79,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 97,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 117,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 132,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 241,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW 6 Bhanwarlal has stated that he was at the Sudharashana College Polling Station.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 66,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While P.W. I says that Pitchayya lived for one month after the adoption, P. W. 2 says that he lived for about 3 months thereafter.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 32,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "fine more case referred to by Mr. Chari remains to be noted, and, that is Webb v. Times Publishing Co. Ltd., (1960) 3 WLR 352.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 125,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He urged that this argument has no basis as there is no amendment restricting any of the rights of secured creditors under the NPA Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 134,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to Mr. Joshi the words \"end of that year\" in Section 41 of the Act has reference to the previous year and in the present case, for the previous year 1964-65 which ended on 31st March, 1965, notice under Section 41 of the Act could be issued on or before 31st March, 1973.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 198,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 223,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 280,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been further argued on behalf of the appellant that whenever any objection in an execution petition is filed by any intervenor or third party under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC then such objections should be decided separately and should be considered in the nature of suit and an opportunity should be given to such objector to prove his contentions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 155,
"end": 171,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 175,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words, the High Court relied on the \"Original Package Doctrine\" as enunciated by the American Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He further testified that he was in possession of suit shop as on date and was doing the business of transport on commission basis under the name & style of Sharma Transport.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 175,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, the plaintiff, defendant and their wives only formed M/s. Rudreswara Enterprises unregistered Partnership.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 99,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel relied upon G.J. Fernandez v. State of Mysore & Ors., [1967] 3 SCR 636 and other decisions taking the same view.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 90,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further held that once the rebutal evidence is adduced and accepted by the court the evidential burden shifts back upon the complainant and thereafter, the presumptions U/s 118 and 139 of CC No. 858/01/2012 Prashant Kumar Vs Ashish Batra page no. 8 of Pages13 the Act will not again come to the complainant's rescue. \n\n 28.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 178,
"end": 191,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 213,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 244,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further stated that he was referred from Civil Hospital, Sonipat to PGI, Rohtak, but he was got admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi, where the Sonipat police reached on 1.9.2002 and remained there throughout his stay in the hospital.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 67,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 82,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 144,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 170,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 190,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears that wisdom has dawned of late upon the Corporation and by its Resolution dated 29.06.2011, it has now decided to undo the injustice that it has perpetrated upon the petitioners all through and is now seeking to promote them/ appoint them afresh as Senior Marketing Officers by creating supernumerary posts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 101,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that in the case of Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar it was held:\n We now come to the question as to whether or not a clear allegation of entrustment and misappropriation of properties was made by the appellant in her complaint and, if so, was the High Court justified in quashing the Complaint at that stage.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Again in respect of the petitioners in W.P.No.966 to 969 of 2005, the third respondent has issued the impugned charge memo dated 09.02.2005 against the petitioners why they should not be removed from service.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 139,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are not entitled to read words into an Act of Parliament unless clear reason for it is to be found within the four corners of the Act itself.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The concerned Doctor advised PW-1 to carry him to another hospital.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The effect of interim arrangement made by Hon'ble Supreme Court is to be seen at the time of decision of application for stay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our recent decision in Babu Mansa v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, First Appeal No. 1030 of 1973 decided on April 5, 1978 : (reported in AIR 1978 Guj 134), we had an occasion to consider this question in some detail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 102,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 127,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 160,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, it cannot be said that present suit is barred U/o 8 Rule 6A CPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 66,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 70,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His Lordship has observed as follows:\n\"The amount received by the claimant on the Life Insurance of the deceased is not deductible from the compensation computed under the Motor Vehicles Act.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 172,
"end": 190,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The argument is that the Bihar Legislature could only make a law imposing a tax on the sale of goods, that is to say, on a concluded sale involving the transfer of property in the goods sold from the seller to the buyer as contemplated by the Sale of Goods Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 42,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 260,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All the same, the question of granting anticipatory ball to any person who is allegedly connected with the offences in question must for all practical purposes be considered bv the High Court of Guwahati within whose territorial jurisdiction such activities should have been perpetrated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 203,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In C.I.T. v. G. Hyatt , Hegde, J. speaking for the Court made the following observations : (SCC p. 468, para 6) In our opinion the meaning of Section 17(3)(ii) is plain and unambiguous.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 21,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 159,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Doctor at Rajindra Hospital, Patiala on 01.12.2000 informed the police and her statement Ex.PC was recorded.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 36,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioners have also filed evidence by way of affidavit of eyewitness Sh. Satish which has been tendered as PW2/1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 85,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The originals of this document, forming part of file No. 222, were brought from the Central Record Office, Bhopal and were produced before the trial Court at the time of evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 113,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is, doubtless, true that certain exceptions have been engrafted upon this principle under the doctrine of lifting the veil of incoproration.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The decision in S.M. DATTA v. STATE OF GUJARAI considered the decision in CH. BHAJANLALs case (5 supra) and the proposition laid down therein are reiterated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 46,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, on or about 18th Sept.. 1971 there was an agreement between S. T. C. and the Braithwaite and Co. whereby Braithwaite agreed to manufacture and supply 425 EAS wagons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 40,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 80,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 108,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 128,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of his submission, Shri Nariman has relied upon many a case to show that issues of mala fides and abuse of fiduciary powers are almost always decided not on the basis of affidavits but on oral evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After initial treatment, she was shifted to Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences (for short 'KIMS') Hospital at Hubli.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 83,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 120,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have a Judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court Mr. Justice Swami (as he then was) in WP.637/85 decided on 6.6.1985, Veeramadhu v. Deputy Commissioner who has taken this very view.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 74,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 104,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 124,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 159,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "12) Let us first deal with a minor issue canvassed by Mr. Raval, learned ASG.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 63,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that in case of circumstantial evidence, existence of motive for the commission of alleged offence assumes greater importance and absence of motive means absence of a link in the entire chain of circumstantial evidence and if that is so, then entire chain goes and it cannot be read against the accused and its benefit must be given to the accused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Now in the present case we are clearly of the opinion that welfare and liberty of the minor girl are and will better be attended to and protected in the institution in which she has been staying under the orders passed by this court from time to time during the last more than a month.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Shri Awasthi submits that the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case reported in 2002 (1) MPLJ 458 (Dharamraj Singh vs. Vaidya Nath & Ors.) and 2002 (1) MPLJ 489 (Shabbir Hussain & Ors. vs. Naade Ali & Ors.) opined that for seeking relief of declaration and injunction, the suit is to be valued \"according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 145,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 213,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dealing with the last case of Hyco Products Pvt. Ltd. Bombay (Tax Reference Case No. 5 of 1978), where the question pertaining to dividend but in a different form arises for consideration",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 60,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 94,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant has examined himself (P. W. 7), the two attesting witnesses (P. W. 1 and P.W. 2), the scribe (P. W. 3) and Junior Kalbagal (P. W.4) in support of his case that the will was duly and validly executed by Lakshmamma.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 136,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 226,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Some very drastic provisions are contained in Sections 9 and 10, but Mr. Mukherjee rightly pointed out they involved no discrimination, since exactly similar provisions had been incorporated in the General Law by Ordinance VI of 1946, promulgated on the same date as Ordinance 7 of 1946 and since, for reasons already explained, that Ordinance, being subject to no time-limit, remains valid and effective to this day.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 63,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 233,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 286,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At the outset, we point out that the appellant-Cooper Kamgar Sangh is a recognised union under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 66,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 128,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 158,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that Varma was not examined though, if examined, he would have been the principal witness.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 21,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant-accused as well as learned A.P.P.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "For this proposition, he placed reliance on the following decisions:-\n\n 1) Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal and Another:\n\n 2) Rakesh Bisht v. Central Bureau of Investigation: 2007 Cri LJ 1530; and DEATH SENTENCE REF.2/08&CRLA Nos.768/08 & 90/09 Page No. 31 of 51",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 123,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 195,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The response of Dalmia Resorts through A3 by email dated 22.12.2012 is that they received the email supra seeking extension upto 31.12.2012, that is thereby accorded as a last and final date with no any further extension, failing which as per clause 7 of the agreement reproduced and point No.9 of his email dated 30.11.2012 the complainant/vendee has to forego whatever advance he paid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 30,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 67,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 139,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 251,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 324,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The mark is not identical and so the question is whether the appellant's mark is deceptively similar to the respondent's.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this last case it was urged before this Court that the summary mode of recovery of amounts due to the Government for which provision was made by the Rajasthan Public Recovery Act there impugned--a mode of recovery which was not available to the private citizen--contravened the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by Article 14 and this contention was repelled.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 152,
"end": 181,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 334,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the assessment proceeding, Jhari Ram Bhadani as karta of the Hindu undivided family contended that the dividends of Hirjee Mills Ltd., Bombay, were the assets of Jhari Ram Bhadani as \"individual\", since the shares stood in his individual name and, therefore, the Hindu undivided family was not liable to that extent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 136,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 144,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 182,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The jurisdiction granted to\t the Tribunal by the Industrial\tDisputes Act is not\t the jurisdiction of merely administering\t existing laws\t and enforcing existing contracts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 80,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The erring students were allowed to prosecute their studies.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the said case, Kailasm, J., while dealing with the concept of applicability of natural justice, referred to the decision in Union of India v/s. J.N. Sinha, AIR 1971 SC 40 and held as follows:\n\".... \n\nRules of natural justice cannot be equated with the fundamental rights.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 25,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 173,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Bhinka v. Charan Singh, (AIR 1959 SC 960), while dealing with the provisions under Section 145 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure their Lordships observed that the life of the order passed under Section 145 is conterminous with the passing of decree by a Civil Court and the moment a Civil Court makes an order of eviction, it displaces the order of the Criminal Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 44,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 101,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 135,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 212,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, he shouted and his aunt Gauriben and other persons gathered and Sureshbhai was taken to a hospital at Vinchhiya in auto-rickshaw.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 44,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 86,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 123,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The results obtained from each of the impugned tests bear a `testimonial' character and they cannot be categorised as material evidence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Bennion in his \"Statutory Interpretation\" (at page 644) refers such a composite legislation, though the observations must be under-stood in the context of the supremacy of the British Parliament and one of unlimited powers and which is, under no inhibitions unlike a federal polity, of PG NO 801 distribution of legislative powers.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 194,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If there is no other evidence, the jury will probably consider, with reason, that the prisoner stole the property; but if there is other evidence, which is consistent either with his having stolen the property, or with his having received it from some one else, it will be for the jury to say which appears to them the more probable solution.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Clause (1) of Article 154 read with Clause (1) of Article 163, Mr. Sen argued, made it amply clear that the Governor could act only on the advice of the Council of Ministers.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 25,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 61,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It could not have stopped growing between 1979 and 1984,",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "To fortify his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner Sonika has placed reliance on the pronouncement of Division Bench of 2013.10.07 16:47",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 79,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 152,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Clause 18(1), (2) and (3)\n(a) & (b) were transposed in Article 23 of the Draft Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 35,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 100,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shankar Bidri (PW-71 denied the allegations rnczde against him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The absence of any avoiding action makes that vehicle also to blame.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court referred to the decision in Salem Bar Association (I) Vs. Union of India (2005) 6 SCC 344 (para 10) that held that \"if the parties agreed to arbitration then the provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act will apply and the case Crl. Misc. No.22148-M of 2002 (O&M) -28- would go outside the stream of Court......",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 117,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 225,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 279,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As a matter of fact, the aforesaid proposition of law making registration of fresh FIR impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution is reiterated, re-affirmed in the following subsequent decisions of this Court:\n 1. Upkar Singh vs. Ved Prakash (2004) 13 SCC 292 2. Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. \n\n (2010) 12 SCC 254",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 128,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 278,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 340,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri Chandrachud also has considered the income of the husbands of those housewives, who are employees of the company and then on that basis, has tried to determine the loss on the death of the wife and after applying the multiplier and determining the total amount of compensation, an addition of Rs.25,000/- has been made as a conventional figure and the total amount of compensation has been arrived at.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The following two decisions relied on the said two provisions of law respectively.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "I have devoted my most anxious and serious thought to this argument but I regret my inability to sustain it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Such an order is not an order passed under Rule 1 or Rule. 2, and no appeal can lie from it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 60,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A proviso was appended to sub-section (1) saying that \"in respect of any amount refunded on a provisional assessment under Section 141A, no interest shall be paid for any period after the date of such provisional assessment\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 41,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 135,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Other dailies which do not need increase in pages are permitted quota for increase but they are denied the right of circulation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He relies on the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (2003) 7 SCC 285 (Union of India vs. Rajesh P.U.,Puthuvalnikathu), and 1999(2) SCC 573 (Asha Kaul vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir)(Para 7).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 125,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 195,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "MR PK JANI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER WITH MS MONALI BHATT, AGP for Respondent No.2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 12,
"end": 30,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ram Kumar (respondent) has stated that the complainant was working in a private bank and she used to go to her parental home many times and give her salary to her father.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "With effect\tfrom 1st April 1948\tthe former terminated\t the services of four selling agents in India and in their place appointed the respondent company (another subsidiary of\t the Imperial Chemical Industries, London) as their sole selling agents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 34,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 104,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 222,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The firm was assessed according to best judgment for the period from 1st April, 1956, to 31st March, 1957, by the Sales Tax Officer, Godhra, by his order dated 30th June, 1962.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 84,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 105,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 139,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 175,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Judge held that the Supreme Court was not dealing with a situation where a show cause notice under Order 21 Rule 22 was mandatory and to be given to the judgment-debtors before passing an order of execution of the decree against the judgment-debtors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 127,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "competent to impose a tax on lands & buildings the Central Legislature is empowered under entry 55 of List I to impose a tax not on lands and buildings as such but on the capitalised value of lands and buildings\" and that \"Therefore, the power of the Provincial Legislature is restricted to tax on lands and buildings without taking into consideration the capital value of lands and buildings.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 108,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The acquisition proceedings have been challenged on the ground that notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act is after expiry of one year of the notification published under Section 4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 96,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 124,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 198,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the contrary, it is their case that the said policy still holds the field.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to him under s. 205(1) of the Companies Act, 1956 dividend can be paid from out of the current year's profits or profits of any previous financial year or years and there is no presumption in law or in commercial accounting that a dividend has to be paid either from the current year's profits or from the past year' s profits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 32,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 59,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not an ingredient of any medicines formulation or any medicine but, only a pharmaceutical aid.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Amarjit Singh, appellant, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., then did not state a word that his statement (Ex.PZ) dated 8.8.2001 was not recorded by the police to register cross case against the complainant party.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 57,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 65,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 134,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There one Bennett, a builder, had entered into an agreement with certain trustees to build a hotel.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now one of the two conditions for entertaining a revision is that the decision should be in a case in which no appeal lies to the High Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the present age where the State is endeavouring its best to provide amenities to all as far as possible and raise the general standard of living, construction of swimming pool etc., cannot but also be held to be for public purpose.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The affidavit accompanying the application at I.A.No.VI unmistakably goes to show that the jurisdiction challenged is the jurisdiction in relation to the delivery of possession as also in relation to the award of damages.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It must involve the consideration of the question as to when it was known to the party concerned either actually or constructively.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this context it will be relevant to note the observations made in the Book \"Principles of Statutory Interpretation\" 11th Edition 2008 by Justice G.P. Singh, which read as under:-\n \"(a) Its real nature",
"entities": [
{
"start": 148,
"end": 158,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The State Government as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Suraj Prakash Kapur, could not give instructions to the consolidation officer functioning under the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 as there was no provision in the Act empowered the State Government to give any such instructions to reconsolidation officer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 49,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 103,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 262,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(2) On the constitution of the Special Committee and until the State Bar Council is constituted- (a) all properties and assets vesting in the State Bar Council shall vest in the Special Committee; (b) all rights, liabilities and obligations of the State Bar Council, whether arising out of any contract or otherwise, shall be the rights, liabilities and obligations of the Special Committee.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Bye-law 4(2) of the Municipal Corporation Building Bye-laws, 1981 enjoins that every application for building permission shall be accompanied by the following as proof of ownership: \n (a) attested copy of the original sale/lease deed; and \n\n (b) attested copy of the Revenue Survey Sheet/Municipal Survey Sheet with mutation record number; or \n\n (c) affidavit or other documents acceptable to the Commissioner, MCH.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 65,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 417,
"end": 420,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "And Nandarani did mortgage just that on November 29, following, Dalim Kumar Sain, the first plaintiff and the only witness of the plaintiffs, seeks to escape from such an Inconvenient position, by trying not to admit his father Moti Lall's signature on this letter dated May 12, 1946.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 80,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 237,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 283,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Venkatachalaiah, J. (as he then was) said (at p. 110 of AIR) :\n \"The doctrine of implied repeal is based on the postulate the legislature which is presumed to know the existing state of the law did not intend to create any confusion by retaining conflicting provisions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is denied by counsel that important facts or circumstances were deliberately suppressed from the Holding Company or that the letter of offer and the notice of the Board's meeting of May 2 were deliberately posted late on April 27.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "CWP No.6780 of 1999 has been allowed by the Division Bench on 20.12.2001 again on the basis of Full Bench judgment in Vijay Sharma's case (supra), but the said judgment has been set aside on 04.08.2009 in a judgment reported as State of Punjab and another Vs. Surjit Singh and others (2009) 9 SCC 514.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 19,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 72,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 130,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 201,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 300,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC), the ITO in his report referred to some communications received from the Commissioner from which it appeared that certain creditors of the assessee were mere name-lenders and the loan transactions were bogus and, therefore, proper investigation regarding the loans was necessary.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The mere fact that an eviction petition jointly filed in 1982 by Petitioners 1 and 2 under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA or that an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) DRCA was filed in 1976 by Shri Devi Dayal Mehra and Petitioner No. 2 Shri Jai Dayal Mehra both of which ended in dismissal will not preclude the present Petitioners from again seeking eviction on the same ground.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 119,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 171,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 176,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 219,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 261,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These questions have been considered by various High Courts as well as by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [hereinafter referred to as 'the National Commission'].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 125,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Copy of the said legal notice and a postal endorsement marked were as Ex.R3 to Ex.R5.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "appears that even the courts in England have been wary of granting a Mareva injunction in certain circumstances.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 39,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "whether the transaction amount ted to a joint venture in the garb of a contract of agency.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Based on the findings recorded in MFA Nm5399/2008 regarding act of negligence, supra, the grounds urged in MEA 5400/2008 by the insurance company fails and consequently the finding of the Tribunal regarding negligence agaisnt the driver of the Tractor and saddling the liability on the insurance company in MVC No818/2006 is confirmed and appeal is accordingly, dismissed,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 49,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 321,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are only concerned with the decision -- making process undertaken by the U.P.S.C. in terms of the Judgment of the apex Court in PRAKASH SINGITs case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 84,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 146,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Amar Chandra Chakraborty v. Collector of Excise, Govern- ment of Tripura & Ors.,(2) a Constitution Bench of this Court had to consider the question whether section 43 of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 under which the licence of a liquor contractor was withdrawn, violated Articles 14 and 19 (1)\n(g) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 86,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 107,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 169,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 200,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 295,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 318,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as charge under Section 307, IPC is concerined, while discussing the evidence of Bhaniram and Kashirarn, we have indicated that we do not propose lb place any reliance on them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 34,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 39,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 96,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 110,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Indeed, even under the Common Law, as administered in U.K. prior to the introduction of sec.32A of the Supreme Court Act 1981, Lord Denning thought that such special awards were not impermissible.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 58,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 125,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 139,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The matter is therefore before the Civil Court in this respect.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court further held that the said principles govern not only the finding of inferior Courts stricto sensu but also the findings of administrative bodies which are held to be acting in a judicial capacity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This led to the filing of the Writ Petition No. 194 by BALCO in this Court, inter alia, challenging the validity of the said notices.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 51,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 60,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused No. 5 Jinda pleaded not guilty to the charge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having said that, the Government, however, acknowledges that it has already passed an Ordinance by name 'Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (Passenger Group Personal Accident Insurance, Improved Passenger Amenities, Employees Social Security and Cess on WPC 2644/14 & con. cases 25 Passenger Ticket) Ordinance, 2014'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 320,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In W.P.No.25351 of 2007, the Parents Association of Students studying under Government Quota in Self Financing Private Medical Colleges of Tamil Nadu seek for a similar direction as claimed in W.P.No.25284 of 2007 in respect of the petitioner in W.P.No.20666 of 2007.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 23,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 213,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 266,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This question was squarely answered by this Court in Union of India v.H. C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718:(AIR 1964 SC 364).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 115,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Article 20(3) of the Constitution provides that: \n \"No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself,\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before going to dwell on the question whether or not judicial review is available, it is necessary to examine: is it a fit case to undertake this judicial exercise ?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Respondent No.3-G. Sambiah shall pay an exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Bank in addition to its advocate fee fixed at Rs.5,000/-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 26,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In para 10 of the judgment, the court held as follows:-\n \"10.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Section 319 Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where the evidence adduced by the prosecution not only implicates a person other than the named accused but is sufficient for the purpose of convicting the person to whom summons is issued.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 12,
"end": 19,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The ethos of the rural area where the episode occurred does not appear to have been too strict or inhibitive in matters of sex, for the deceased and the accused were both married and still philandered out of wedlock with P.W. 16, a middle-aged widower who made no bones about playing the freelance romancer simultaneously with them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 20th June 1984 , the father and the son while in custody and undergoing treatment in Medical College Hospital were served with the detention orders under the said Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 17,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was a shocking occasion for Ram Kishan, PW5 when he came to deliver some customary presents to her sister on the occasion of Karva Chauth, a fast observed by married women for the safety and long life of their husbands, when he found the dead body of his sister Sunita lying at the entrance room and the respondents were making preparations for her cremation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 41,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 271,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court of Canada reversed the decision of the Court of appeal for Ontario which had held that the defense of contributory negligence failed because \"if one gives to a child an explosive substance, and the child.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 56,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 113,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The P.W.4 has produced Ex.P.27 Case Sheet and Ex.P.28 X-ray Films 3 in numbers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(L) In (2003)7 SCC-750 at Para 35 it was held by the Apex Court that Justice has no favorite, except the truth.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 25,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In W.P.(C) No.18167/2010 the challenge is against the addition of Elathur, Cheruvannur-Nallalam and Bepur Grama Panchayats to Kozhikode Corporation, in W.P.(C) No.18543/2010 the challenge is against the addition of Cheruvannur-Nallalam Grama Panchayat to Kozhikode Corporation and in W.P.(C) No.19508/2010 the petitioner challenges the addition of Bepur Grama Panchayat to Kozhikode Corporation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 24,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 75,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 97,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 124,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 149,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 175,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 253,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 278,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 307,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 371,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 396,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is indisputable that mala fide action is no action in the eye of law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer has arrayed the petitioner/Mallesha as accused No.3. \n\n 9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 93,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the 1st August, 1960, two General Diary entries, in the nature of missing reports must be noticed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 23,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to such inquiry report, the management and subordinate superior officers were found to be guilty for such accident.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "P.W.7 would depose that they use to dissolve alum in the water let out from the Mettur dam in order to purify the said water and every day about 50 to 60 kgs of alum will be dissolved for the said purpose in the water and that he along with Marappan used to dissolve the said alum in the water for the purpose of cleaning the water.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 241,
"end": 249,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Para 30 of the judgment in the case of Sabita Prasad is quoted hereunder -",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 52,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Let me assume for a minute a hypothetical situation where the Trial Court had granted an ad interim ex parte injunction and the defendant in the suit files one application for vacating the interim injunction and another under Section 45.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 226,
"end": 236,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Again Excise duty is computed as a ratio of the assessable value where duty is ad valorem.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "No circumstances were elicited in the cross-examination of the witness to throw any doubt or to raise any suspicions regarding the soundness of the mental condition of Chennamma, Gubbi Shetty (P.W. 3) is a neighbour who has attested the will.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 177,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 191,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that Act 34 of 2007 has been enacted by the Kerala Legislature in exercise of its legislative competence as per Entry 3 of List III of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, and WP(Crl).195/15 contented that the Act will fall foul if it travels out of the limitations prescribed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 69,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 112,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 195,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 224,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 244,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Director in turn forwarded all these to the State Government on 17-7-2009, and the State Government finally issued the Section 6 declaration on 10-8-2009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 77,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 132,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 157,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He, therefore, submitted that non-examination of this injured witness Shailun Hasankhan, has resulted into failure of justice,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 87,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Article 243(d) defines 'panchayat' as an institution of the self-government constituted under Article 243B for the rural areas.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 106,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "How the 4th accused was identified as one of the assailants is not borne out by the record.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has already been held by the Board of Revenue, by this Court and by the Supreme Court that for deciding whe-ther a person has become an adhivasi we should look only to the entry in the khasra or khatauni of 1356 F. and that we cannot go behind that entry to find out whether the person so entered was in actual possession in 1356 F.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(3) In Criminal Appeal No.34/2006, the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23/08/2006 suspended the execution of jail sentence of appellant- accused Ashok during pendency of appeal and granted bail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 33,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 95,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 164,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "27.In the additional pleas, it was contended that there was no property attached to any temple in Naiwara.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 105,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "very recently, by this Court in the case of Serajuddin and Co. \n\nv. Michael Golodetz, .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 84,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The dispute in the instant case is in relation to a refund claim filed by SAIL in respect of the coin blanks supplied by Salem Steel Plant to the Government Mint during the period 1.1.1994 to 12.10.1994.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 78,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 138,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 188,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 202,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The land of his maternal uncles Nathuram and Prem is just adjacent to the field of the informant and his father Hariram.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 119,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They are not in the interest of the institution or the minority community or in the national interest.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n 13.In Statutory Interpretation Rupert Cross (p.116) says:\n \"The draftsman must be taken to have inserted the general words in case something which ought to have been included among the specifically enumerated items had been omitted...\" \n\n 14.The",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nAND S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5569/2012 Ganesh Kumar Sharma & Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 43,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 63,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, the contention of learned counsel that persons similarly situated have been dissimilarly treated by accepting only the audit report made by an accountant is ultra vires article 14 is not correct.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Importance and primacy is required to be given to the orality of the trial process and where the evidence of eye-witness is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Suresh Chandra v. State of U.P., the brutal murder of one of the accused's brother and his family members including minor children at night when they were fast asleep with axe and chopper by cutting their skulls and necks for a piece of land was considered to be a grotesque and diabolical act, where any other punishment than the death penalty was unjustified.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 34,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I have already given my reasons for holding that Nyaya Panchayats are courts which are established by the Panchayat Act for administering justice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 119,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 39,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 59,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was observed that in fact it is the responsibility of a father to provide accommodation to his sons and daughter so that they can stand on their legs and earn their livelihood.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RSA no. 61/2009 decided on 24.05.2011 titled as Sh Ghansyam Dass Gupta & Anr Vs. Sh Prem Chand.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 108,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 130,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 187,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Referring to various legal precedents it was held that the State has no power to make appointment in contravention of the statutory rules.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The respondent (petitioner in the petition under Article 226) Kashi Prasad Gupta is the owner of a passenger motor bus operating on a certain route in Gorakhpur district known as the Gorakhpur-Gola route.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 60,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 169,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 192,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellants had claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/-.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The fourth respondent is only a formal party for proper adjudication.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Only recently in the case of Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2010) 9 SCC 368], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the settled principle of law with regard to the exercise of the said powers.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 96,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 123,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But even if he were exclusively dealing with export business and no other business of the assessee, the expenditure incurred for payment of his salary would qualify for weighted deduction only if it falls under one or more of the sub-clauses of clause (b) of section 35B(1).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 230,
"end": 273,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The modernisation of the tort of passing off lies in this that what was previously a misrepresentation of goods has now become a misappropriation of another man's property in the business or goodwill, or misappropriation of another's personality.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This court may not grant prayer contrary to the Rules as while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can declare any provision of law to be unconstitutional if its validity is challenged however, if validity of the rules is not under challenge then directions can be in conformity to the provisions and cannot be sought contrary to it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 104,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 133,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 66,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Gopalakrishnayya v. Hanumayya (Decision of this Court dated 2-12-55 in S. A. No. 675 of 1952 and the Memorandum of Cross Objections), my learned brother had to consider these two sub-rules and expressed : \n \"The rule docs not prohibit the licensee from entering into a partnership as under the provisions of the Abkari Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 32,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 70,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 95,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 326,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Police Station Goraya, it is stated, is on G.T. Road at Goraya.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 21,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 62,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, petitioner No. 2 and 3, Rajesh Kumar Saxena and Abhmanyu Kumar Mishra passed their Law Examination in the year 1980 and were appointed as APP on 19.1.1985.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 54,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 80,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 165,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the same year 1978 he encroached upon acres of gair mazrua land belonging to the State of Bihar in village Bagra in the district of Gopalganj,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 115,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 144,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If such an interpretation is accepted it would make light of the finality accorded to an assessment order which cannot be reopened unless due adherence is made to the conditionalities incorporated in the provisions of the Act in respect of such powers vested in the Revenue.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However, the said prescription was not an absolute one as it further provided that in case the Highways Department was not in a position to sponsor candidates within two months from the date of such request made by the Director, Rural Development Department, it would be the prerogative of the Director, Rural Development Department to fill up the said post by bringing personnel from other departments.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (supra) highlighted the deleterious effect of the non provision in the rent legislation for reasonable increase in the rentals.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 69,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "apart, suit for eviction was filed on 25/4/1989, decreed on 9/11/2000, still the decree-holder/plaintiff has not been able to reap the fruits of decree.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 47,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 69,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the daughter does not consent to the disposition, she is entitled to claim a third of the property as her share of the inheritance: see Fatima Bibee v. Ariff Ismailjee (1881) 9 CLR 66.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 186,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But even if it be held that this Court has jurisdiction to examine whether the fundamental rights of members of a Co-operative Society guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (c) are even indirectly infringed by the impugned provision, in my opinion the decision of the Supreme Court in All India Bank Employees' Association v. The National Industrial Tribunal (Bank Deputies), Bombay, AIR 1962 S. C. 171, is a complete answer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 149,
"end": 167,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 272,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 393,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is no basis for any such apprehension.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is very unnatural and improbable that two persons Suresh and Raj Kumar were detained and beaten before PW-1 and PW-2, who were also detained, but after their release these two persons have not taken any immediate steps to save life of those two victims.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 73,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The validity of the Government Notification W.P (C) Nos. 38400/2010, 5546 & 9142 of 2011, 2544 of 2012, & Crl.M.C Nos.6531, 6562, 6569 of 2013 & connected cases under challenge, and the amendment made to Rule 9 (2) was upheld by this Court in Muraleedharan v. State of Kerala[2011 (1) KLT 886].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 102,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 142,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 214,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 293,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned Public Prosecutor relies on paragraph-11 of Bhaskar Industries case, which is to the following effect:- \"At any rate, the objection regarding maintainability of the revision petition have been raised before the Court which invoked such a revisional jurisdiction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 70,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, he was acquitted by the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Kukatpally, at Miyapur on 13.01.2015.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 117,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the above view of the matter, this Court could well entertain the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution as a revision petition under the proviso to Section 25 B (8) of the DRCA.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 123,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 184,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 196,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case, appellant and Iqbal must be held to have known that it was so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the same assessment years in the case of Quality Chemicals Suppliers, the assessee also is in appeal against the said treatment of receipt by the CIT(A). \n\n",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In such a case, there is no question of the owner or the driver of the vehicle receiving any hire or fare from the owner or hirer or their employees travelling in such vehicles.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The legislative authorities were anxious that the right given to a tenant under Ordinance No. VI of 1967 and the proceedings commenced thereunder should not die with the expiry of the Ordinance, And they never intended to give to the tenant a higher or a larger or greater right.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 104,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This legal position is fortified by the circumstance that the shareholder is not entitled to any deduction in respect of the amount which has been charged to tax under sub-section (1) or the tax thereon; \n -(xi) Additional income-tax liability on the profits declared, distributed or paid as dividend by a domestic company, cannot be considered as tax on dividend, because, VBC 54 ITXA626.10 \n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 376,
"end": 393,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was also averred in plaint that firm M/s Lakhi Ram Mahi Lal was inducted on 02.09.1970, one other tenant Samman Oil & General Mills was inducted on 20.03.1970 and M/s Indraprastha Finance Company was inducted on 16.09.1970 whereas the sale proclamation of property was ordered on 21.07.1970 and the date of auction was 25.09.1970.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 62,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 89,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 134,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 161,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 198,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 225,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 293,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 332,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It must also weigh the evidence keeping in view the fact that the burden is on the prosecution to prove each and every ingredient of the offence, absence of consent being one of them.\" \n\n 28.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "With regard to interpretation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, it has been laid down that in cases where there is a repeal of enactment followed by a fresh legislation, the line of inquiry would be not whether the new Act expressly keeps alive old rights and liabilities, but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 69,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be, are clothed with the jurisdiction to punish such person who failed or omitted to comply with the directions with imprisonment as well as fine.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on 21.04.2014.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 73,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The words used are \"enlarging\" and \"diversifying\" and the former signifies expansion, even going by what Mr. Tralshawala means.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 120,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They read as under :\n DELIMITATION COMMISSION Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi 110 001 ------------------------------------------------------\nThe Delimitation Act, 2002 has been enacted by the Government of India and published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 4th June 2002.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 61,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 85,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 176,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 220,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 292,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n14.Further, PW1 Smt. Prem Devi, widow of the plaintiff, has deposed that she was allowed to live by Smt. Santosh Mathur initially and then by Sh. Om Prakash.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 32,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 121,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 158,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In terms of Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act the following two questions were referred to the Hon'ble President of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on account of difference of opinion between the two Members of the Bench:\n1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 48,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 148,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "is hereby charged as applicable as per the provisions of the IT Act, 1961.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 73,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The applicant/husband has impugned the order dated 5-12-2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 20/2000, which was filed for seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the applicant/husband preferred a Criminal Revision Application before the Additional Sessions Judge, 19 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 152,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 218,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 240,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 345,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n The order in A. Mohammed Yunus vs. Food Corporation of India (supra) was passed in the particular facts of the case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 63,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": " \n On 4-9-1969 the appellant made the further deposit, and, on 18-9-1969, he obtained delivery.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 14,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 72,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was on foot of that information that the Central Government passed the order of suspension on the 31st July, 1964.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 62,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 116,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1987 SC 311, the Apex Court came to hold that oppression or exploitation of the teaching staff or treating them as ordinary labourers has to be eradicated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 109,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 125,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The administration of all these States was handed over to the Raj-pramukh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 73,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appellant Moola Ram declared that they were around to teach Omkar a lesson for not allowing the freight rate to be enhanced.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 19,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 65,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is clear from the aforesaid facts that the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant company for transportation of the drilling unit was more than the amount of mobilisation fee paid by ONGC by way of reimbursement of mobilisation expenses.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 192,
"end": 196,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection it is worth-mentioning as to what the Supreme Court has stated in 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 : (1973 Cri LJ 1783), Shivaji Sahabrao v. State of Maharashtra, \"The too sophisticated approaches familiar in courts based on unreal assumptions about human conduct cannot obviously be applied to those given to the lathergic ways of our village.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 167,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was argued (in reply to the prosecution rebuttal of the argument regarding Section 313, Cr. PC) that even if the court were to for a moment go by the prosecution suggestion, and question the Appellant, PW-45 cannot be cross examined, or confronted with any other evidence, since he has died during the pendency of these appeals.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 89,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 97,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We now consider the 'seat matrix prepared for 'non-State-wide seats' and the 'State-wide seats', from the 'seat matrix' compilation furnished by the Health University (2005-2006).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The applicant by this Application seeks to quash and dismiss the Regular Criminal Case No.325/2007 pending on the file of J.M.F.C., Court No.3, Malegaon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 98,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 152,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He seeks to rely on \"Vishin Vishin N. Khanchandani and another v. Vidya Lachmandas Khanchandani and another\" (AIR 2000 SC 2747).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 127,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Naturally, they turned to the description of employee in the earlier part of the section and applied it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The court held that no Writ Petition will lie to avoid the obligations voluntarily incurred under a contract.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Shri H.P. Shah, who appeared for the assessee M/s Abhishek Packaging Industries and others in ITA No. 3152/Ahd/04 and others, adopted the arguments advanced by Shri SN Soparkar, Senior Advocate and further relied upon the decisions in the cases of Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 71.-TTJ-328 (Mum) and Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. 68-TTJ-862 (Ahd).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 79,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 124,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 176,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 275,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 332,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of anybody, except a public servant, the personal attendance of the complainant is necessary.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thereupon the Sessions Judge brought the evidence of the approver given before the committing Magistrate upon record under Section 288, Code of Criminal Procedure, the effect being to make the evidence given before the committing Magistrate evidence in the case for all purposes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 134,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 162,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said Misc, Case was also dismissed for default on 24th Sept., 1981 and on Nov. 21, 1981, an application under Order 9, Rule 4, read with Section 141 of the Civil P.C. and also under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was made by the defendant petitioners for recalling the said order of dismissal dt. 24th Sept., 1981 passed in Misc. Case No. 4 of 1981.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 70,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 91,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 129,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 152,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 170,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 195,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 217,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 318,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 353,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner has filed the Annexure-JJ to substantiate these contentions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "19 Mutatis mutandis PW5 Ct. Rajesh has also deposed on SC No.13/2011 State Vs. Sandeep Chaudhary Page 15 of 36 the lines of PW12 Inspector Sajjan Singh and PW6 HC Suresh regarding arrival of accused on motorcycle No.DL 8S AG 5088, firing at HC Suresh by him, recovery of countrymade pistol and three live cartridges from accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 34,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 135,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 197,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 215,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 296,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by Chief Secretary, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 23,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 74,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A report was submitted holding therein that the appointments made were illegal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Despite rigorous treatment taken from Dr. Jayant Patel, E.N.T. Surgeon, there was not much improvement in the hearing impairment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further pointed out in that letter that Mineral Concession Rules under Section 5, Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1948, had since been issued in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary), dated 19-10-1949.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 87,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 146,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 227,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decision in the case of Brij Mohan Lal, the said excuse is no longer available to the State Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W. 10 Smt. Mina Sarkar was the Judicial Magistrate posted at Krishnagar in the district of Nadia at the relevant point of time and on 8-7-98 she hold the T.I. Parade in respect of appellants Shew Kumar Rai and Debasis Khan at the District Jail at Krishnagar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 24,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 73,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 98,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 142,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 207,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 224,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 259,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner, by the communication dated 19.05.2000, conveyed its unconditional acceptance of the terms and conditions stipulated in the letter dated 11.02.2000, except that in the said acceptance letter Page 50 of 74 C/SCA/160/2013 JUDGMENT also, it invited the attention of the Kandla Port Trust to clause (9) of the original lease deed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 53,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 162,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 290,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 346,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the Supreme Court has observed in Shankar Rama chandra Abhayankar's case , \"the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forums and, indeed, in any forum in which the legislature may choose to prosecute\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 20,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 68,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To reinforce the argument that, provisions of Arts. 323A and 323B to create a Tribunal, is not a bar on Parliament to create a Tribunal in other categories, reference was made to another decision of the Supreme Court in The Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 65,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 114,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 216,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 312,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is no doubt true, that the PW10 Dharmender Kumar did not report the threats of appellant to liquidate Manju @ Madhu (deceased) to the police, but that cannot be a ground for granting benefit of doubt to the appellant in this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 51,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 118,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The law Commission in its 154th Report has laid special emphasis in Chapter XV on the subject of Victimology and has observed that right from the ancient Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (about 1775 BC), it has been observed that victim of crime was left with no remedy except to sue for damages in the civil court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 78,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 182,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n(5) The suit is founded on the allegation that the plaintiff is the owner of the property, which is a single unit (duplex) Luxury residential house built on sub leasehold plot.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is stated that since the accident on 23.11.2012 and upto 16.05.2013 the claimant could not attend the office and exhausted all her leaves medical and earned leave approximately upto 7 months which is a monetary loss to the claimant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 70,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is an appeal against the order of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras dated 14th August, 1978, made in E.A. No. 1435 of 1977 in E.P. No. 391 of 1975 in O.S. No. 174 of 1975.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 86,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 110,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 141,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 165,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 189,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In re, reported in (1968) 1 Mad LJ 356.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 38,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If we may say so without any disrespect, we find it utterly impossible for ourselves to impute any such irrational intention to the Legislature as a clear indication thereof is to be found at any rate at this date in the new provision which has been made under Section 64-A of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 261,
"end": 273,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The expression 'date of conviction' in all the sub-sections of Section 8(2) must have the same meaning as they are used in the same context.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 75,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision whether or not to grant an interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the exercise of the legal right asserted by the plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and remain uncertain till they are established on evidence at the trial.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The petitioner in C. R. P. earlier filed W. P. No. 9164/86 questioning the validity of the provisions of the A. P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 1983), (hereinafter referred to as \"Act 5/83\") and the notification issued in G. O. Ms. 379 dated 9-8-1985 issued under S. 7 of that Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 58,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 225,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 327,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 345,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This rate of dearness allowance has been in existence ever since 1952 when the show room was opened.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Petitioners' counsel Shri Madhukar Rao has pressed mainly three contentions, complaining infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution by the respondents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 115,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 135,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This notification was later on followed by another Notification No. F 19(23) Jud/66 dated 17ih July, 1967, whereby the State Government was pleased to appoint Shri Gopal Sahai Sharma, Officiating Civil and Additional Sessions Judge as Special Judge with his headquarters at Jaipur for the whole of Rajasthan to try the offences specified in the said Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 105,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 182,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 280,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 307,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 378,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Recently, in the case of Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 502 , Supreme Court held as follows;\n \"19.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 75,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Saroj Devi PW-5, the sister of Sushila, deposed that on 25.06.2003 at about 08.00 AM when she called the appellant on his mobile phone having number 9810155414 to talk to him about building material, the appellant told her that he has murdered Sushila and Harshit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 66,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 251,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 263,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n PW21 SI B.R. Sankla has further deposed that on 28/08/2003, as per the directions of IO, Maruti Esteem Car No. MH\u00ad04Y\u00ad4077 was sent to FSL, Malviya Nagar, for examination vide RC No. 149/21.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 21,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 124,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 155,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 191,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On August 28, 1959, the petitioner produced two applications before the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 117,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs is awarded to the claimant, for the permanent loss of his leg.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This statement of Kavitha found in the inquest proceedings is not at all contraverted by the appellant in the cross-examination of PW.14.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 25,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the provisions of sub section 3 and 4 of section 25 of the Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940 the above contention of accused does not hold water.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 62,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 99,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both the accused were present in the Crl. Appeal No. 416-DB of 2004. 16 house with Raghubir Singh when accused made extra judicial confession before them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 107,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 144,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The consignment was booked under Railway Receipt No. 565484 -- Invoice No. 13.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As there was no response from the Board even after legal notice, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.39441 of 2002 seeking a direction to the respondent/Board for providing compassionate appointment to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 115,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reliance in this respect is placed on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prabhat @ Bhai Narayan Wagh and others vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2013(7) SRJ 238. \n\n 35.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 68,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 176,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case before us is one of 'self-induced frustration' to use the expression of Lord Sumner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 92,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Lastly, it is submitted that the Lower Appellate Court has failed to comply with the provisions of Rules 11, 14, 15 and 31 of Order 41 of the Code as well as Para No. 414 of the Bombay Civil Manual.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 134,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 197,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has come in evidence that cheque in question was presented for encashment thrice, twice on the counter and once through the bank of respondent and on all three occasions, the cheque was returned unpaid on the ground mentioned in cheque returning memo.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Union of India v. Paliwal Electricals (P) Limited reported in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., spelt out the object of the Notification thus :-\n \"The object of the notification is self-evident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 92,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 206,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A similar suggestion was thrown to Bhavanisingh P.W. 4, which he has denied.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 47,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 2(30) provides a guide as to the nature of the provisions of the MV Act and, nothing more.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 79,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While he was walking on the road which goes towards Sardharpur gate, he saw that his son Hareshbhai was walking ahead of him and at that time, at the corner of the road, near Gigabhai's 'deli', the accused No. 2-Kirangiri, the accused No. 3-LaIitgiri, the accused No. 4-Rameshgiri and the accused No. 5-Ashok attacked his son Hareshbhai.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 99,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 183,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 221,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 250,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 280,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 308,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 336,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In cross- examinations, complainant Joga Singh admitted that Parjinder Singh was the only son of accused Balwinder Singh in whose murder case, he (Joga Singh) was convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 76,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 120,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 157,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 197,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 201,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In awarding the compensation, the Claims Tribunal was guided by Schedule IV of the Workmen's Compensation Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 75,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 109,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The only law which is cited in support of the accused is Section 7 and the Schedule of the Extradition offences appearing in the Indian Extradition Act of 1903. \n 16.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 66,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 159,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On August 26, 1967, the Governor of West Bengal promulgated West Bengal Ordinance VI of 1967.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 47,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 92,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reference may be made, in this connection, to a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in -- 'State of Bombay v. United Motors (India) Ltd.', AIR 1953 SC 252 (A).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 96,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 171,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the document purports to create or extinguish in the present or in the future any right has to be registered compulsorily.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This being the position and negotiations between the parties held at two meetings convened on 14-12-1972 and 20-1-1973 having ended in a fiasco, the Management offered to have the disputes resolved by arbitration but that again was a course not acceptable to the Sabha which, however, accused the Management of flouting the settlement dated the 4th of August , 1972, by not coming to the negotiating table.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 104,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 118,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 365,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Elections of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council were held pursuant to the Presidential notification dated 7.11.2003.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 46,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 114,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Upon a perusal of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in Writ Petition No. 4994 of 1964 and No. 1951 of 1964, it will be clear that in those notifications the only particulars furnished were the names of the district Pargana and Mauza concerned and the approximate area intended to be acquired.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 58,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 103,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 124,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 240,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 250,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An intimation under section 143(1)(a) dated 2-8-1991 has been sent to the appellant company on the basis of the return filed on 20-12-1990.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 52,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 138,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These affidavits try to say - (a) that Simla cigarettes are popular, (b) that their sales are increasing, and (c) that they are known in the market as Simla cigarettes of the appellant",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "All cases from the specified Oudh areas are intended to be heard at Lucknow.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 33,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 75,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The jurisdiction of the court was questioned only on the ground that as the claim of tenancy put forward by the defendant can be decided only by the Land Tribunal the case can be proceeded with only after reference to and the decision of the Land Tribunal obtained under Section 125 (3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 271,
"end": 286,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 317,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appropriate section applicable to the facts alleged in this case would be Section 23, Sale of Goods Act.\" \n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 88,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 107,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The necessary facts are that a notification under Section 4 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act') was issued on 15.11.1996 vide notification No. F.10 (39) 96/LandB/LA for acquisition of lands measuring about 3604 bighas and 18 biswas situated in the revenue estate of village Bawana, Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 69,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 103,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 176,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 336,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 343,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, an application was made for renewal and accordingly, it was renewed by issuing endorsement dated 26th July 2007 renewing the validity from 26th July 2007 to 21st March 2008.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 123,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 165,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 184,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The construction of the first floor was in progress during the assessment year 1975-76.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Kumar Exports V. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:\n\n To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the CC No.5756/10 M/s NAVRNG DISTRIBUTORS Vs. MANAV ARORA page no. 9 of Pages 16 complainant in a criminal trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 51,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 280,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, Section 124A of the Railways Act 1989, Sections 140 and 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 etc.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 23,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 48,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 71,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 103,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 145,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 16-4-1984 the claimant amended the claim petition and claimed Rs. 35,00,000/-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The amendments made in Water Act, 1988 have not been adopted in Gujarat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 38,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 71,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A number of other articles were also seized at that time but Their Lordships were not concerned with them as they had no connection with the charges against the appellant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But it could be made without any prior permission as was required when S. 47 was there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 76,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner claims 23 years of standing in operating stage carriages and also experience along a major portion of the two routes in question which are two long distant routes in the Palghat district.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 201,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further averred that since no response was received from the defendants, plaintiff was constrained to intimate to them through defendant No. 2 to return the entire advance amount by demand draft.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "For the above reasons we answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Upholding the validity of the statutory provision, i.e. Section 47(16A), as also the circular issued under the said provision, this Court held:\n\n \"Further, advance tax is only a provisional deposit towards tax and nothing in the Act requires the appellant or any party to pay tax except on actual sale price.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 71,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore Courts have uniformly laid down as a rule of law that for seeking the remedy the limitation starts from the date on which the order was communicated to him or the date on which it was pronounced or published under such circumstances that the parties affected by it have a reasonable opportunity of knowing of passing of the order and what it contains.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "When the procedure is so laid down and is a part of the enactment and it comes within the definition of the term \"law\" as per the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 142,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There may be cases where even a delay of a shorter period may be considered to be sufficient to refuse relief in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 141,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 161,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now that fiction has been eliminated by the amended definition of decree.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Be it noted that the Supreme Court was considering the validity of the Rules 148(3) and 149(3) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 34,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 135,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n8. Arguments were addressed by Shri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the claimants and Shri Shyam Singh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 104,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, according to the Customs authorities, the goods prima facie appeared to be prohibited goods under Clause 3(3) of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 necessitating adjudication proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 116,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 152,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 244,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The effect of this judgment is thus that the proportionate management expenses are to be deducted from the gross dividend for the purpose of the relief Under Section 80M.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 158,
"end": 170,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was admitted on behalf of Opposite Party No. 1 Jitendra, that this complaint was justified and that the whole of Dag No. 772 was not the disputed property, as stated in the order of 22nd February 1951.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 203,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant failed to raise such objection in the earlier proceedings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He would further submit that in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner has more than 62 acres of land inclusive of the disputed fourteen and odd acres, even accepting the case of the petitioner, under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, there is a duty on the part of the petitioner to WPC.34707/09 & CNN. CASES 29 surrender the entire land.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 208,
"end": 214,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 250,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 329,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, Shri N.K.Sharma, Ld. counsel for accused CBI Vs. DPS Negi etc., pg 20 of 83 Special Judge, CBI\u00ad01, Central, Delhi M.L.Mahajan has argued that there are a large number of material discrepancies and contradictions in the depositions of the complainant and other witnesses, which makes the entire prosecution case, doubtful.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 76,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 132,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 144,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the 15th the Government of India announced its decision to pay the sum of rupees fifty-five crores immediately.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 26,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 35,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The express provision in Section 4(2) of the Protocol Act here permitting foreign award to be taken as a defence appears to indicate that a suit or an action on a foreign arbitral award governed by that Act is a possibility.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 57,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n (6) That the second resolution was bad as the notice for the hearing of the applications which was published in the Gazette dated 13th July 1964 and which is available at page 54 of the paper book in Special Appeal No. 49 of 1965 did not give sufficient notice to the existing operators.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 146,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 231,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Lord Halsbury L.C. speaking for the House Observed in Susannah Sharp v. Wake-field, (1891) AC 173 at p. 179: \n 'discretion' means when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities that that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion: Rooke's case'/according to law, and not humour.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 97,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 335,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Kuldip Singh (appellant No.2) in his defence stated that he had been falsely involved in the present case at the instance of Gurcharan Singh Sarpanch of village Panjmala.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 149,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 169,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Division Bench of this Court observed as under:\n The 'annual letting value' is the pivot on which rests the entire superstructure of property taxes.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is true that as laid down by the Supreme Court in Manmohandas v. Bishnu-das, while dealing with a matter under Rent Control Act, material alterations would mean important alterations such as those which substantially change the front or the structure of the premises; it was immaterial whether such alterations damaged the premises or diminished the value of the premises or not.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 49,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 78,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 130,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n Original Side Appeal No.213 of 2007 against the order of this Court dated 17.7.2007 in Appln.No.4145 of 2007 in C.S.No.517 of 2007",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 37,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 110,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 132,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From 1989 to-date, the defendant No. 1 has also invested Rs. 230 crores in the equity of two wholly owned subsidiaries in India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 122,
"end": 127,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has also submitted that the internal circular (Annexure P/5) has no force of law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The above provisions of the Constitution make it abundantly clear and beyond any shadow of doubt that the services under the Union or the State are held during the pleasure of the President or Governor or Rajpramukh, as the case may be.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 40,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 215,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now coming to the contention, as to why the services of a Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, were not requisitioned, it may be stated here, that when the injured (now deceased) was got admitted in the hospital, he was having 80 per cent burns.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The most important witness is certainly Keshar Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 52,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nAt the present moment there is no bill before Parliament seeking the Union of the States of West Bengal and Bihar; not even a bill intended or proposed to be moved, whereon the recommendation of the President has been sought for.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 58,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 105,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 115,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All that we can consider is whether there is ground which prima facie justifies the said reasonable belief\". \n",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Page 21 of 70 corresponding law of the reciprocating country) shall be liable to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree in the manner and to be the extent specified in sub-section (1), as if the judgment were given by a Court in India:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 200,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 251,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n If we accept the contention of Shri K. R. D. Karanth, not merely the plaintiff would be disentitled to claim a share on the death of Venkat Rao, but defendant Venkubai the widow of the 1st defendant also would not be entitled to claim share in the property of her husband, because both of them happen to be the heirs of Shankara Rao.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 145,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 169,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 334,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. (1987) 1 SCC 424 : (AIR 1987 SC 1023), observed as follows (at p. 1042 of AIR):--\n \"Interpretation must depend on the text and the context.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 131,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the petitioners, the Company's tractors and trailers have been registered under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and which are used for transport of goods.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 129,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If that is so, and if the position is that the section merely states that the liability to pay continues.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE JUDGE RJ/ W.P.No.7806/2015 14.03.2016 List after six weeks alongwith W.P.No.7698/2015",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 11,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 45,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 56,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 104,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under the terms of the bank guarantee it is upon STC's decision to claim the money notwithstanding any dispute between STC and Texmaco that the bank has obliged itself to discharge that liability.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The next ground taken up, in the memorandum of appeal, was to the effect that material contradictions appeared in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but the same were wrongly ignored by the trial Court, as a result whereof, the case of the prosecution, became doubtful.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The decision in Marudakonar v Veerammal, AIR 1936 Mad 985 was noticed by that court as striking a different note nevertheless the \"court expressed the view thus :--",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 57,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Their Lordships further observed in para 18 as under:-\n...",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In his examination\u00adin\u00adchief, PW2 ASI Satender deposed that on the day of incident i.e. 21.11.2012 while performing their duties near DC office M.B. Road, Saket.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 45,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 159,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter further investigation was carried out by P.W.9, N.K. Rathod, P.I. \n\n2.4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 70,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The last section of this Chapter, i.e., Section 63, deals with bar of suits and runs thus:--\n \"63.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He again found lithium in that blood to the extent of .75 m.e.q./L. \n\n12.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\" The right to present his case does notmean that a party has an unfettered right to make submissions or present evidence as and when he wishes.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He further deposed that on 11.3.96, he recorded the statement of Mahadev, Gulechhi, Misrilal, Chhoti and Smt Parwati.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 34,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 82,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 100,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By an order dated the 28th September, 1962 (annex. A) of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, this company was amalgamated with the assessee-company, the Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 42,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 187,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He deposed that he was the driver of the failed bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 4024 which was plied between Patancheruvu and Secunderabad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 112,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 129,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n (i) After the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974, the levy of toll cannot be continued and the toll can be collected only in respect of the actual expenditure involved in constructing any permanent bridge or approach road coming with the purview of the National Highways Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 50,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 276,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "More particularly in view of the note of caution sounded by the Supreme Court in the case of Samudarsingh (1987 Cri LJ 705) (Supra), which reads as under :--\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 77,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 123,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As a result of the same, the petitioners who were walking on the road, sustained grievous injuries.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the problem to which attention must be directed was whether the right to appeal under the Letters Patent is at all restricted by Section 39(1) and (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 192,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 221,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The advisory jurisdiction can be exercised on a proper reference being made and that cannot be done unless the Tribunal itself has passed proper order under Section 33(4).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 157,
"end": 170,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter the petitioners made an application dated 23rd January, 1979 to the Assistant Collector of Customs for refund of countervailing duty wrongly levied by classifying Naphthalene under Central Excise Tariff Item 11A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 223,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before we come to the contention of Mr. Narendra Mohan Kasliwal in respect of raising of upper age limit for admission to Medical Colleges from 21 years to 22 years we consider it proper to deal with the other two categories of reservations which have been challenged by Mr. Mridul in addition to those attacked by Mr. Narendra Mohan Kasliwal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 63,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 281,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 342,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She also said that four persons were having pistol in their hands.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi & Ors. [(1998) 1 SCC 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly observed that the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is really an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against the other person against whom action has not been taken. \n11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 92,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 173,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 181,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n KPP -88- WP Nos. 795 of 2002 & 789 of 2003",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 44,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first accused preferred Crl.A.No.2269 of 2008 from the jail, while undergoing imprisonment in pursuance of the impugned judgment, whereas the second accused preferred Crl.A.No.1663 of 2008 through an Advocate of his own choice and when the above appeal came up for admission, this Court, by order dated 8.8.2008 in Crl.M.A.No.1888 of 2008 suspended the execution of the sentence and bail was granted in favour of him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 49,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 192,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 315,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 342,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After incorporation and insertion of amendments in M.V.Act 1988 by section 1 to 64 of Act No.54 of 1994 this Act become redundant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 63,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 82,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 103,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She stated that the accident had taken place in the year 2009 in the month of Paush but she did not remember the date.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "P5(a) English translation of Complaint statement Ex.P6",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "To prove the third circumstance, the prosecution has examined PW 4 Ram Chandra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 78,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was held entitled not only to nominal damages on the footing that if the buyer had honoured his contract the supplier could have sold machinery to the buyer as also to any other person and hence, the price that he received from that other person was not deductible for computing the damages that he was entitled upon the breach of the buyer.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Accused Mohan Lal, who had a D.B.B.L. gun, fired a shot which hit on the back of Kaluram.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She filed a claim petition under Section 110A of the Act through her relation, Sri Amar Nath, claiming a sum of Rs. 83,000 as compensation for the injuries received by her.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 92,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, 17.52 hectares of land were acquired by notification dated 7-11-2007 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') in Revenue Case No. 30/A-82/06-07 but the remaining additional land could not be acquired because of objections of the land owners before issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 80,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 141,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 197,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 344,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The truck, it was stated, was being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, by respondent No.1, Shamsher Singh (now represented by his LRs).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 125,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At the time of arguments, learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that in the present case the statements of the witnesses have been recorded as Exs.DA to DC in inquest proceedings under Section 175 Cr.P.C. earlier to the registration of the FIR.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 196,
"end": 207,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 215,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(f) The importance of medical evidence is only in case where disablement in performing duties which the workman was performing earlier cannot be decided without the aid of medical evidence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Admittedly the 1st respondent had preferred a Criminal Application being Cr. R.No. 180/78 to the Sessions Court against the order passed by the Magistrate on 17th October, 1978 withdrawing the attachment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 89,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 176,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 28.7.1998 Alen Jack Routley son of Fransis Kisman Routley, resident of 56, Melanesiya Road, Kohimarama, Auckland, New Zealand, lodged a report in English at 2.45 P.M.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 13,
"end": 30,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 105,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 115,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 128,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is, in my judgment no reason to think that he will be biassed in favour of the income tax department.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The question of increase on account of inflation was not considered by the Supreme Court in Susamma Thomas(supra), Sarla Dixit(supra) Bijoy Kumar Dugar(supra) and Sarla Verma(supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 112,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 132,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 157,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 180,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Counsel for the respondent No.5 prays for analogous hearing with W.P.Nos.5584/14 & 5622/14.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 90,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the meanwhile in the year 1995, certain teachers who were appointed under the old scheme were regularized as per the directions of Central Government vide letter dated 18th August 1994.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 152,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 187,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears that the assessee's bank had given guarantee when tenders were submitted to parties outside India and, for that purpose, it had charged commission of Rs. 93,024.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 108,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court below in that case held that the word absence implied previous presence and some presence after the time that limitation began to run.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Secondly, a provision like Section 13 contained in the Bombay Act was not necessary in the Bal Adhiniyam of our State on account of the fact that by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Bal Adhiniyam the Magistrate First Class for the area was deemed to be the Juvenile Court till constitution of a Juvenile Court for the area.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 187,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent moved an application for anticipatory bail bearing Bail Appl. No.5677/12 which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Outer District, Rohini Courts, Delhi vide order dated 09.08.2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 185,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 213,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Presence of an alternative remedy by itself is not enough to debar the court from exercising Inherent powers \"for the ends of justice\",",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In my view, nothing need be said further on that, in view of the fact that the civil Court finding, as a matter of record, is in favour of the petitioners, holding them in possession of the land in question and restraining respondent No.5 from interfering in the said possession.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "OPD 1-6 iv) Whether the suit deserves dismissal in view of judgment dated 01.03.2000 by Ld. Addl. Rent Controller Delhi or by the judgment dated 08.10.2004 by the Addl. Rent Control Tribunal Delhi?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 120,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 156,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 197,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, the DBR Mills Employees Union came on record as the second defendant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 36,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Salem Advocate's Bar Assn. v. Union of India, 2002 (3) KLT 920 (SC) = (2003) 1 SCC 49, the Apex Court held as follows:-\n \"Section 100-A deals with two types of cases which are decided by a Single Judge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 88,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 104,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 138,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The correctness of the aforesaid decision, particularly in regard to the conclusion that the High Court at Allahabad was competent to hear cases arising in Oudh area, was doubted by one of the Judges sitting in the Full Bench in Umashanker v. The State (AIR 1971 All 96).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 116,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 160,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 270,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Till that time the industries will have to discharge the effluent with suspended solids as per G.P.C.B. norms. \n\nThe industry should not discharge any effluent with oil and grease more than 10 mg/lit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 103,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In his cross-examination, the witness admitted that he is a distant relation to PW.1.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He denied having any knowledge of throwing of a dead body in December, 2004.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On behalf of the Labour Union of the respondent workmen, Hiranmoy Samadder deposed and in his evidence he says: \n (a) \"I have been a senior clerk for the last five years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 74,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Board, however, conveniently ignored the fact that this Court in para 63 of the judgment directed it to consider and examine the feasibility of accommodating the petitioners in equivalent/similar posts in other Divisions including the posts filled up subsequent to the closure of the Agro Chemicals Division with deputationists or otherwise.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(V) In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India p. 618, para 17 the law was stated by Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) as under: \"As to the tests of the likelihood of bias what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 54,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 91,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The claim proceeded on the assertion that the deceased was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per annum from his readymade garments business.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After receiving the ruqa, SI Atma Singh reached the Hospital and sought opinion of the Doctor about the fitness of the injured to make statement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was found guilty and a fine of 100 was inflicted on him and in default it was ordered that a writ of attachment should issue against him unless he paid the fine within a certain period.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In 62 CLR 272 (X), a specific section in the Sales Tax Assessment Act provided that sales tax shall be levied and paid upon the sale value of goods manufactured in Australia by a tax payer and sold by him or applied to his own use.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 17,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 69,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 173,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While rejecting the aforementioned contention, Hon'ble Madras High Court held that \"the suit does not fall within the purview of any of the clause of explanation to Section 7 (1) of the Family Court Act as all these matters referred in said clauses relate purely to matrimonial relations between the parties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 72,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 178,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 202,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Outstanding liability of Dollar loan as on 31.3.1993 aggregated to Rs. 9,87,43,015/- (equivalent to US $ 30,15,402).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 52,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further argued that the trial Court and the appellate Court failed to consider oral evidence that was adduced on behalf of the appellant on the ground the same is not permissible as per Section 91 of Indian Evidence Act in view of available documentary evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 189,
"end": 199,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 222,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question whether the act purported to have been done in execution of duty or not must depend on the special circumstances of each case ...",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The witness has admitted that the eye witness Sarfaraz was the son of the deceased ( petitioner no. 6) .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 54,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Inside the kiosk dead body of Vijay Narayan Chaurasia was found lying.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 53,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (1st supra), where the age of deceased is between 46 to 50 years, multiplier 13 is to be applied for arriving compensation under the head of loss of dependency and future prospects and the same would come to Rs.30,35,136/-\n42.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 53,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 68,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Saiyed also submitted that accused No. 1 - Iqbal Moosa was brought from Mumbai to Bharuch under the coercion and threat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 82,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 93,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the 10th of September, 1980, the DDA issued the letter of acceptance, Ex.P-1 or Ex.D-4, in the following terms:- \n \"To, Shri C.L.Jhunjhnuwala, (Promoter of a proposed Pvt. Ltd. Co.) 7A, Rajpur Road, Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 30,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 39,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 144,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 207,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The police, on the basis of written report Exh. P/1 registered FIR No. 248 under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC on 16.7.1999 and a regular FIR Exh. P/27 was chalked out.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 108,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 121,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There are no prior incidents which constitute tendency or propensity for committing an offence which would justify the detention.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 06 of 2012 - 3- doctor, whereon, the latter declared the injured-Rekha fit to make statement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 168,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 235,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel further contends that a number of board meetings were held and as is evident from the board meeting dated 5th July, 2008 insistence was to procure from companies that had well established record.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 122,
"end": 136,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In these circumstances the Court observed that interest is available on any amount of refund that is given to the assessee Under Section 240. \n\n24.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 140,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At the same time Mahendra Pal came out of the Kothari from the south-east side and he was also shot at and he fell down in the drain and was assaulted by Banka.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 29,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 159,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Rules of 1975 never debar and there is no case of unequals.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Dera is situate in approximately one Bigha of land and a well is also installed there; free langar is provided to the travellers and Sadhus and he was only a Mohtmim.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The complainant and PW-3-Jagdsh Pagare were threatened by the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 38,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Debendra the petitioner, Dishendra and Dinendra the respondents Nos. 5 and 6 are the sons of the said Dhirenda Nath Singha by his third wife Smt. Nirmala Bala who is alive.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 34,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 47,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 122,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 158,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner has filed on record the certified copies of criminal record Ex. PW1/2(colly) which consist of FIR no. 74/08, under Section 279/337 IPC, PS Mandir Marg, copy of final report under Section 173 Cr. PC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 145,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 149,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 165,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 205,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 212,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Associated Cement Company Limited v. Keshvanand, this question is not strongly raised in that case before the Supreme Court and therefore, the decision has no bearing on the facts of this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 50,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 126,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As regards the decisions relied upon by the learned Central Government Pleader, we find that the Supreme Court had no occasion to consider the question arising for consideration before us in those cases.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution brings the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of \"murder\" contained in section 300.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 201,
"end": 212,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Ajit Singh (2) v. State of Punjab, the Constitution Bench was concerned with the issue whether the decisions in Virpal Singh Chauhan and Ajit Singh Januja case which were earlier decided to the effect upholding the \"catch- up rule\", that is, the seniority of general category candidates is to be confirmed or whether the later deviation made in Jagdish Lal case against the general category candidates.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 36,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 135,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 157,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 359,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The tariff reading indicates that it should have been \"principally designed\" where its criteria has not been fulfilled then the view held by the party, in the light of the technical evidence and the trade and commercial understanding is required to be accepted.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As regards Section 148, I.P.C., the necessary constituents for proving the offence are not made out.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 22,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 30,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is evident that that cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice CRL.A.Nos. 1455/2012 & conn. Matters Page 55 of 70 refused to construe this section, as reproduced in certain other Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 139,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 264,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question, therefore, one confronts is; Did the civil court examine the issue as regards the invalidity of registration of plaintiff's mark while granting the injunction prayed for?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Petitioner No.6 - Sharda Fulchand Tumsare resides at her own house at Aamatola, District - Balaghat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 41,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 99,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The seating capacity was already mentioned in the Certificate of Registration.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has been pointed out by Shri Poddar that from the perusal of different nature of liabilities and assets as mentioned therein in Schedule VI of Companies Act, it is apparent that all liabilities are specified and clearly mentioned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 142,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 159,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n It is wrong that our house no. is 21B Palam Vihar, Ambala Cantt.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 66,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Ex.PW5/A which is dt 20.06.1972, only the name of the applicant (Sh. Hazura Singh) is mentioned and the address is not mentioned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 34,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No action was taken by the Custodian under the Ordinance; no notice was published regarding any property of the alleged evacuees (Khatoon Bibi, Abdul Wahid and Abdul Majid) having vested in the Custodian nor did he issue any notice to the persons in possession to surrender possession to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 142,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 155,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 171,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Munagala Yadamma4; Yumman Ongbi Lembi Leima v. State of Manipur ).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 64,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Response to the same had been sent back on 01-08-2001 from the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Ahmednagar, pointing out various deficiencies and that the proposed construction will be required to be at a distance of 37 metres from the central line of highway and stating clearly that merely on the condition of obtaining no objection certificate, approval to plans cannot be recommended.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 53,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The conversation recorded between the complainant and accused Ramo Devi was recorded and sent to CFSL for examination.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 71,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 101,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A writ petition was filed and that the same was dismissed, as not maintainable, as the judgment passed by the Tribunal was rendered before the date, on which the Apex Court considered a case in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India reported in 1997 (3) SCC 261.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 162,
"end": 172,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 256,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He then returned to his house, which was situated in the village and took Nanda to the police station at about 8-00 A.M. and Nanda lodged the complaint.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 79,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 130,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not in dispute that the defendant is also a businessman.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The case upon which Mr. Das made much emphasis is the judgment delivered by His Lordship Mr. Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerji in C.R. No. 1409 (W) of 1983 between Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza (also the petitioner in this writ petition) v. Union of India reported in 1989(1) CLJ 214.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 125,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 154,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 186,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 248,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 276,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During this period, sufficient funds were collected from the Muslim community for the College and donations of 14 acres of land within the Gaya Municipality and 10 acres of bakasht land were made by the Muslims of the locality for the proposed College.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 156,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He knows the objector and belongs to the same State (Kerala).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 59,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, after considering the whole matter over again in the light of the opinion of my learned brother Verma, J. I am still of the view that the decision of the Full Bench in Shantabai v. Chokhelal (AIR 1976 Madh Pra 21) (FB) is correct \n\n 42.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 224,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Deputy Government Advocate has laid great emphasis on the aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court and has submitted that in view of the aforesaid observations, a person in unauthorised occupation of Government property cannot approach the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution if he is dispossessed from the said property without the authority of law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 113,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 278,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 298,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 9 of the Central Act requires the holder of a mining lease to pay royalties in accordance with the rates specified in Section Schedule in respect of the minerals won by the lessee pursuant to the lease, and the Central Government has been conferred bv Section 9 (3) the power to amend the Section Schedule so as to modify the rates of royalties specified in the Second Schedule.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 28,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 237,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 273,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts of the three Appeals would appear from the following paragraphs:\n This Appeal arises out of WP No. 1307 of 2004, in which the Petitioner (Biswanath Koley) had pleaded that he was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Bhanjipur High School in the District of Hooghly which was approved with effect from 1.1.1980.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 121,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 163,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 261,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 288,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 333,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The trial court framed the necessary issues and recorded the finding that Smt. Shanti Devi-defendant No. 3 even though is the mother and natural guardian of the plaintiffs, had no competence to transfer the share of the minors in the grove in question without obtaining the permission of the competent authority as is contemplated by Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 90,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 343,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 386,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There, pursuant to a written authority, the widow of the Zamindar of Chinnakimidy adopted a son and brought-in a suit on his behalf to recover the Zamindary against the undivided half-brother of the Zamindar and the Government that sought to nominate a successor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 81,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The documents which are sought to be produced vide Memo dated 11.01.2012 are the copies of Execution Petition No.692/2009 filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 72,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 121,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 173,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That C.M.A. was admitted on 28-7-1989 and on the same day in C.M.P. No. 10140 of 1989 this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the said ex parte decree dated 26-12-1988 subject to the condition of his depositing Rs. 10,000/- on or before 15-9-1989 in default of which the petition would stand dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 37,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 85,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 198,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 277,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One technical objection is taken by the learned Government Pleader on the maintainability of the petition, i.e., though the State Government has been made a party, the State Government is represented by Deputy Commissioner and not by the concerned Secretary to the Government.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Shri Vohra further argued that profit earned by the taxpayer was much more than profit of the associated concerns and, therefore, no diversion of funds or profit could be presumed in this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Town Planning Act - Act IV of 1108 was passed on 31.12.1932 with a view to regulate the development of Towns to secure their present and future inhabitants, sanitary conditions, amenity and convenience.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 38,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 63,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.Ws. 1 and 12 have been disbelieved by the trial court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He had also cross examined the witnesses in case nos. 456 of 2007 and 340 of 2008 with PW-1, but did not cross examine the PW-1 Constable Radhey Shyam in Case no. 482 of 2008. \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 81,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 150,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 174,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is ciear from Ex.D8, portions. of t'he:statement given by PW.1 that his .broti:e'ra-infiayw - Krishnegowda was a leader of and was working with his compahionihs and had made a good name and the peogplej who were envying him, had preplanned and in a group and assaulted them with choppers \"and caused the death. \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 109,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the result, it is held that the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC would not be applicable to the suits which are filed prior to the date on which the amendment to CPC was brought into effect i.e. 1.7.2002.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 72,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 79,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 180,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 218,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case of the applicant appears to be similar. \n\nLet the applicant Iqbal Hussain Khan involved in crime No. 355 of 1989 under Section 302, I.P.C., P.S. Ganj, Rampur be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Rampur.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 121,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 139,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 147,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 166,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 275,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We may record that the law down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Maharashtra Through Central Bureau of Investigation as well as in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (Supras) with regard to the sufficient material being not gone into by the High Court and further that there cannot be a direction to grant sanction for prosecution by the Court are well settled principles of law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 49,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 86,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 126,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 181,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If a motor vehicle was to carry all original documents and it is stolen, it goes with all original documents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A wrong decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle another party to claim the benefit on the basis of the wrong decision.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The award can be challenged only on the ground mentioned in Section 34(2) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The State of Bihar challenged the said judgment before the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and Ors. v. Harihar Prasad Debuka and Ors., reported in (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases 192 and the Apex Court set aside the judgment of this Court and upheld the notification.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 18,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 188,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 207,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(See E.K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala6.)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 42,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I do not find substance in the last argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff that issues No.3 and 4 were decided by the Ld.Trial Court in favour of defendants without considering the material on record.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Their disclosure statements were recorded by the IO and as per disclosure, accused Eva Jeniffer got recovered one bag of black colour from her house and one lap-top, mobile phone, credit-cards, DL etc, were found which were seized by the IO after preparing seizure memos.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts which gave rise to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:-",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Smt. Pallavi Agarwal, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue has relied heavily on the observation of AO while disallowing the above expenditures.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On November 3, 1962, Kanmal Nahta filed returns of income under protest for the assessment years 1946-47 to 1949-50, before the Jaipur ITO.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 19,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 138,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has further been alleged that the accused/ appellant had failed to execute the sale deed despite repeated requests and demands of the complainant and after calculating the amount with interest the accused/ appellant issued the two cheques both drawn on Punjab National Bank in favour of the complainant i.e. Cheque no. 905664 dated 24.03.11 of Rs.4,00,000 /\u00ad and Cheque no. 905665 dated 24.03.11 of Rs 3,00,00/\u00ad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 256,
"end": 276,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 343,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 390,
"end": 398,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The argument would not be wholly without force that immediately before the commencement of the Madhya Pra-desh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, all the Universities enumerated in Sch. I and Schedule II had been functioning within the same State of Madhya Pradesh so that a College for the purposes of the Act would be any College within the territorial limits of any of the Universities described in the Second Schedule.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 142,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 262,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused Kuldeep Singh was declared a proclaimed offender vide order dated Criminal Revision No.1651 of 2008 9.2.2001.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 21,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 109,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 118,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The position, here, is somewhat analogous to the one considered in State of Orissa v. Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 122,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, we could see that the deceased Manivelu and the 1st accused, his wife and the 2nd accused had indulged in wordy quarrel and after the locking of the house and subsequently when Manivelu was about to attack the 1st accused, A1 and A2 had attacked on the deceased, Manivelu and the deceased Manivelu had already caused injuries on the body of the 1st accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 196,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 282,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 308,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of what we have stated earlier the order is clearly bad in law and is set aside.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Claimant No. 1 Smt. Raj Kumari Mittal, the widow of Sri Mittal, has not entered the witness box.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That was also the view taken by the High Court of the new State of Kerala in Lakshmikutty Amma v. Madhavan Pillai MANU/KE/0044/1958 : AIR1958Ker111 . \n\n 22.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 149,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further stated that it takes 3 days to reach Dhantoli and another 3 days from Dhantoli to Tezpur and that on the date of occurrence he was not in the village.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 56,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 89,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 99,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Meharaj Sing's case (cited 1st supra), while speaking on behalf of the Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Dr.A.S.ANAND, J. has observed as under:\n\"FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 136,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The request of Gaon Sabha Through B.D.O. Shahdara for possession of Khasra No. 531, 532 and 533 in village Mandoli is allowed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 114,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Orissa High Court allowed the petition, but directed refund only of such amounts as were not barred under Section 14 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 21,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 120,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Going by the facts of the case and relying on the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court decision cited supra, we fairly feel that the receipt of non-compete fee is in view of the restrictive covenants as mentioned in Article 3 of the agreement and accordingly this non-compete fee is for not doing the business of similar nature in any manner as prescribed in Article 3 of the agreement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 213,
"end": 222,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 356,
"end": 365,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The aforesaid Clause VIII postulates the payability of additional tax at the highest appropriate rate on such vehicles which become taxable under more than one of the articles of Schedule IV.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 25,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 190,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He prepared the inquest report on 20.8.1995, sealed the dead body and handed over the papers and the dead body to Constable Hardeep and Constable Prabhu Dayal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 43,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 158,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sri Gandhi says that his clients, who are wholesale dealers in textiles, purchase goods from up-country manufacturers and in case their entry into the local area with intent to re-export them out of the local area there is, thus, no consumption, use or sale of the goods within the local area.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Government, after careful consideration of the recommendations of the Committee and the resolution of the Cabinet hereby issue the following orders:- \n(i) The Government of India has brought the NCTE on the Statute Book by Act No.73 of 1993 (Central Act) and published in the Gazette of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 113,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 178,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 199,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 254,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 292,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Justices;, for instance act judicially when administering the law in court, and they also act judicially when determining in their private room what is right and fair in some administrative matter brought before them, as, for instance, levying a rate.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": " The judgment and order dated 27.08.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Koppal, in S.C. No.6 of 2011 is the subject matter of these two appeals. \n\n 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 40,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 81,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 103,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Issue no. 2 Whether the present suit is bad for non joinder of Ministry of Rehabilitation?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 89,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the contrary, he made a report to the Additional Chief Secretary and asked for permission to proceed under the Act",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The use of words in the Section does not clearly so convey.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Such a provision, in our considered view, cannot be held arbitrary or unreasonable, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 127,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The vessel reached Cape Camorin at about 7 a.m. on 29-12-1945.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 31,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 61,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is alleged for the prosecution that tile parcel had been despatched by the appellant from Amritsar at the instance of Nand Lal Sehgal and that the approver Mohinder Singh had helped the appellant in preparing the parcel containing the bomb.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 101,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 136,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 173,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Perusal of the above shows that there is no mention of recording statement of accused under Sec. 313 Cr.PC. \n\n14.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 100,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 106,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In such a case, the question of other defences never arises under sub-section (2) of Section 96. \n\n71.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 95,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It does not record any custom so far as the Allhuwalias of the Hoshiarpur district are concerned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 82,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For this purpose, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) at pp. 51 and 52.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 131,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, at least so far as the Indian Law is concerned, the mere condition that for the purchase of goods, consideration should be paid, does not make the benefit under a contract non-assignable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The claimant was removed to Swaroop Rani Hospital, Allahabad where he remained under the treatment of an Orthopaedics, namely, Dr. A.N. Verma, who consequent upon the injuries caused to the claimant had to amputate right leg of the claimant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 60,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 141,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is nothing in the statement of PW2 ASI Ram Dhan from the office of ACP to suggest that any information regarding secret information was received at the office of ACP on 19.09.2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 53,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 185,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. N. V. Rao (respondent No. 2) \n \n\n 40.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Arbitrator Sri V.G. Krishna Murthy was examined as CW-1 and through him Exs.X-1 to X-7 were marked.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If, as in the present case, the Appellate Tribunal has held that respondent No. 1 did not own a workshop at Chidambaram, no consideration of public interests can arise at all, and it is with this question that the present writ proceedings are concerned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 119,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Urmil (deceased) and Appellant No.1 went to Shahdara (Delhi) to offer condolences.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 59,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was only thereafter, when he was brought to the NCB office at Delhi, that he named Rehmatullah.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 61,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 70,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 97,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"Access\" and \"non-access\" mean the existence or non-existence of opportunities for sexual intercourse; it does not mean actual cohabitation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Each individual's suicidability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(i) The documents of M/s Shiva Finance (Ex.PW1/D4) clearly show that Shri Gopi Ram/Smt.Rameshwari Devi has interpolated the word \"G\" in between \"RZ\u00ad9\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 38,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 102,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The relevant provisions of new Code regarding these steps have also been noticed above.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In support of these propositions Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee for the petitioner has first referred to (Tulsiram v. Sitaram).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 118,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the above discussion, it would be clear that the assessee had commenced the development and construction of the housing project after 1st day of October, 1998, and completed the same before the specified date.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 163,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The court below had convicted all the 3 accused under Section 302 r/w 120 B, 302 r/w 34 I.P.C, 450 r/w 34 I.P.C and 201 r/w 34 I.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 87,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 93,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 105,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 111,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 126,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 133,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similar notices were issued to other co-sharers in the Noori Sugar Works.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 72,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "is submitted that in the above referred case of BDA Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Member came to the conclusion that it was a works contract and not a contract for sale on the basis of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sarvodaya Printing Press v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 93 STC 387 (Bom) given under the provisions of the Sales-tax Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 56,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 217,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 305,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 353,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Aggarwal further submitted that as per the dictum of Sarla Verma v. DTC and Ors. 2009 (6) SCC 121 and multiplier of 16 has been wrongly applied by the ld. Tribunal, whereas keeping in view the age of the deceased, the multiplier should have been 15.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 101,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, the said view taken by the learned Single Judge is in consonance with the decision of the Madras High Court in In re Punya's case and Mohabab Alli's case which were specifically dissented from by the Division Bench in Suresh Babu's case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 116,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 157,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 240,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above amendments will take effect from 1.4.2007 and will, accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2007-2008 and subsequent years.\" \n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now, we take up appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.11(Asr)/2001 for the A.Y.1997-98.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The parties have agreed that the family settlement of 16th of July 1984 will not in any way affect the rights of Chamundi in this order and the same is recorded.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 121,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such persons must have been paid some amount by the management who employed them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Dr. V.K. Chopra, Chief Medical Officer, General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh mainly deposed regarding conducting of post-mortem examination on the dead body of Vijay Kumar Kundra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 79,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 181,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This narrower class, as indicated by the language of Section 34(1A) of the Act, consisted of assessees who had earned income during the war period and who had evaded payment of tax on incomes of one lakh of rupees or more, and the purpose of introducing this provision was to subject their escaped income to tax.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner's request was made by letter dated the 17th August, 1964.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, by virtue of the above decision, it cannot be said that the order issued by the Executive of the State cannot be amended.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As the decision reached by the domestic tribunal is held to be vitiated on the ground that the enquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice on the ground that the first respondent was not afford- ed a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, the High Court was justified in quashing the order of dismissal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "From our experience it has been found that if the unit is to stop making losses it has to continue manufacturing only the four types of Capacitors, namely : \n1. KVAR \n\n2. Lucus Ignition. \n3. Luminaries \n\n4. Motor Run (Seasonal). \nThus to operate economically we have to cater to the limited market of above four items only.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In any event, Mr. Balakrishnan would contend that each employee was individually entitled to be given an opportunity of being heard so as to enable the competent authority to come to the conclusion as to whether they had fulfilled the requirements contained in the aforementioned GOMs No. 86 dated 12.3.2001 or not.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 30,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 307,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There was a suit for partition filed by one Devaki Amma as plaintiff against the first defendant and others for partition and recovery of possession of their share in Puthenpeedikamala shown as having 600 acres.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 184,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At that stage, the first respondent herein filed an application I. A. 290 of 1968 before the tribunal for inspection of the ballot papers in order to find out whether and if so how man of the is disputed votes were cast in favour of the successful candidate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 81,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The: maximum value of this matter could only be the amount for which the properties were attached, because if that amount were paid to the petitioner the properties are bound to be released.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Accused Rashid has examined his wife Smt. Shama as DW2 who stated that on 07.02.2012, her husband Rashid was apprehended by police from the medical store near here house.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 84,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 104,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr. P.C. was recorded.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 64,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 73,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the deceased raised a hue and cry that he was stabbed, the accused ran away from the scene place and stood at the bunk of P.W. 10.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The next case, 'Vickery v. Martin', (1944) 1 K B 679, is a decision of the Court of Appeal and is interesting as only showing that in England there is in Section 3 Sub-section (3) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act of 1939 which repeats in practically the same words in Section 12.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 52,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 141,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 179,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 240,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 298,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court has rightly disbelieved Balak Ram (PW.5) on the basis of material contradictions in his deposition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 48,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The submission of the petitioner that the PG Tests were mandatory is also contrary to the minutes of the meetings dated 10.09.1993, 13.09.1993 and 28.09.1993, in which the petitioner had agreed that in case of non-conductance of PG Tests it would accept a rebate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 130,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 142,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 157,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondents to this petition were State of West Bengal (No. 1) Collector of Hooghly (No. 2), Land Acquisition Collector, Hooghly (No. 3), Acting Head Mistress and Secretary, Chinsurah Balika Mandir (No. 4) and Second Class Magistrate, Chinsurah (No. 5).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 58,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 87,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 132,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 201,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 248,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is trite to say that when there is service of notice by post on the correct address which admittedly has taken place in the present case refusal on the part of the accused would amount to proper service.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The other evidence of the driver and conductor of the offending vehicle, who are O.P.Ws. 2 and 3 respectively were also placed before us by Mr. Bose.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 148,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court repelling the challenge held that the Legislature had laid down the powers of the Municipality to tax various goods and had enumerated certain articles and animals and had further authorized the Municipality to impose tax on other articles and goods and that this power was more in the nature of conditional delegation as was held in the case of Baxter v. Ah Way ((1909) 8 CLR 626).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 399,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff was entertained in service by the Southern railway on 22-4-1921.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 64,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 77,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On merits of the case, it is pleaded that there was no agreement to sell the suit property as stated in the plaint and the earnest money paid was forfeited on expiry of stipulated period.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As per his reply, the charge under Section 420, 120-B and 411 of IPC was framed by him, however in the changed circumstances he has entertained the bail applications of these accused persons and enlarged them on bail in the light of the judgment of Manohar (Supra), as referred in his comments.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 61,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 68,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 256,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similar was the position in the other case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hukumchand Mohanlal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 95,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(3) SCALP VEIN SET GS 226 STERILE - READY FOR USE Short Bevel thin wall needle provides attraumatic insertion and better flow.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Earlier, some of the contractors filed a batch of writ petitions in this court challenging the action of the respondent-company in deducting seigniorage fee from their bills.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Here the legislature has used two words, namely the magistrate or court, whereas under Section 319 Cr.P.C., as indicated above, only the word \u201ccourt\u201d has been recited.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 106,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pw.53 Sub Inspector of Police Moovattupuzha conducted inquest on the body of Syamala and prepared Ext.P35 report.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 43,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Additional District Magistrate had been invested with all the powers of the District Magistrate under Section 10(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 119,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 153,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court of Calcutta awarded a sum of Rs. 48,000 as compensation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 26,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this context it was held that the post office was acting as the agent of the tenant and the remittances could not be held to be legal as the tender by the plaintiff's agent, namely, the post office, was made to the landlord beyond the period of one month.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The car, RC's own, jewellery and mutual funds/shares in the aggregate value held by self were disclosed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the basis of the observations of the learned ACMM, SI Vishal made an endorsement on the statement of Rajesh Sharma, made on 12.01.2011; and on 19.02.2011 first information report (FIR) No.82/11: copy Ex. PW4/B, under sections 323, 427 and 451 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at police station Mehrauli and investigation was taken up.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 63,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 117,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 137,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 156,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 245,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 270,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The other remedy is to invoke the power of revision by the Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, under section 20 : (see Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited v. Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Visakhapatnam [1978] 42 STC 372).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 109,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 247,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In State of U.P. Vs. Satish (supra), Supreme Court held \"As regards delayed examination of certain witnesses, this Court in several decisions has held that unless the Investigating Officer is categorically asked as to why there was delay in examination of the witnesses the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 27,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If it is not shown to be void, the application for relief must be rejected.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It noted that both in the case of refund of sales tax paid on raw materials and finished products, the Government was paying out of publice funds to the assessee for a definite purpose, viz., the expansion of its capacity.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Date of decision: 21.12.2012 Charanjit Kaur & ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 28,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We can only say that prima facie the ITO was not seeking to reassess on the mere change of opinion.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. P.P. Rao and Ms. Nalini Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the First Respondent, on the other hand, would contend that in terms of the Recruitment Rules, 'deputation' is a mode of recruitment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During cross-examination, the PW-1 stated that she was giving tuitions of all the subjects upto 5th class students and was earning Rs. 2500/- per month.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Respondents Om Prakash, R.D. Avasthi, Shri Gopal Sahi, Kanwal Nain Singh and Gym Chand.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 36,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 53,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 72,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 86,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision in 1899 AC 114 is only to the effect that when a previous decree of the court is based on an invalid agreement, the invalidity of the agreement not having been raised at the lime the decree was passed thereon, the decree can be set aside in a subsequent proceeding on the ground of the invalidity of the agreement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 27,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of this contention, strong reliance was placed by the assessee on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Vippy Solvex Product (P.) Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 175,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\u00a0\n (Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.17097/2012 19.12.2014 Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 prays for and is granted four weeks' time to file return.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 26,
"end": 53,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 64,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 86,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In their further statement under Section 313 of the Code, A-4, 5 and 6 have stated that they had not gone to Junagadh with A-1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 117,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the order impugned, the Managing Director, PSIEC, referring to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, concluded as under:\nVIMAL KUMAR 2014.12.03 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.18312 of 2013 7 \"20.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 51,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 112,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 145,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 156,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 289,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is his say that because of fear he went away.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n It is also directed that the applicant shall abide by all the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. \n\n Cc. as per rules.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 126,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She was treated at Allahabad and Lucknow.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 28,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 40,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was contended that the accused No. 5 was residing very near the house of the informant Geetaben and even on the suggestion made to the prosecution witness on behalf of me defence, he was staying since few years just a couple of houses away from the house in which the informant was staying at the time of incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 98,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dyamappa Battal,\n\n\n\nAged 79 years, Occ: Business, \"'\nR/0.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel cannot therefore be heard on a plea which has not been taken and for which there is no evidence whatsoever, \n \n\n 16.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Bavdekar J. was of the opinion that the amendments to the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act including the re-enactment of section 7 in Act No. LII of 1950 did not trench on the field covered by the Bombay Act No. XXXVI of 1947, which accordingly remained unaffected by them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 99,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 139,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 162,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 234,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent no.2 - N. Srinivasan is the President of respondent No.1 - The Board of Control for Cricket in India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 31,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 111,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "'(1931) 76 Law Ed 248 (B)' may not be of any direct assistance in deciding the limits of legislative authority conferred on the Indian Legislature by entry 54 9f the Federal Legislative List read with Section 100, Government of India Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 25,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 212,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 237,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In none of the decisions, their Lordships of the Supreme Court interpreted a rule like the one which is under consideration before us.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 62,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Nachhatar Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Bathinda Road Hindaiya District Sangrur. \n\n ... Petitioner Versus 1- Mukhtiar Kaur wife of Surjit Singh son of Harnam Singh, 2- Surjit Singh son of Harnam Singh, and 3- Karnail Singh son of Surjit Singh, residents of village Golewala.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 87,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 130,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 151,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 171,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 188,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 208,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 230,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 250,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 281,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Parsottim vs. Lal Mohar the Privy Council, while discussing whether additional evidence can be admitted under Order 41, R. 27 (1)(f) observed :- \n \"It may be required to enable the Court to pronounce judgment or for any other substantial cause, but in either case it must be the Court that requires it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 44,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Of remaining four, three other Special Appeals were filed viz. Special Appeal No.741/2002 (Writ Petition No.2692/2000) by Smt. Nandini Kumari, Special Appeal No.742/2002 (Writ Petition No.2694/2000) by Smt. Gita Kumari and Special Appeal No.749/2002 (Writ Petition No.2695/2000) by Smt. Shree Kumari.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 89,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 117,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 141,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 169,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 197,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 218,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 249,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 277,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 299,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Commenting upon the extent of immunity which the Judges of the superior courts must have for preserving independence of the judiciary, the authors of Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts, 21st Edn., 1996 in Chapter XIX observe:\nA Judge of one of the superior courts is absolutely exempt from all civil liability for acts done by him in the execution of his judicial functions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 157,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 169,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, in the circumstances, the act of the management to terminate the service of the workman cannot be said to be illegal or unjustify because the management cannot use the service of the workman as driver as it would amount to be violation of the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as Government of NCT of Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 283,
"end": 305,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 343,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has, however, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma etc. etc. vs. State of Rajasthan and others,1 and submitted that since the Government in its wisdom has decided to withdraw from the acquisition, this Court cannot interfere with the said order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 189,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 344,
"end": 355,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 384,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The applications of Purshottam Bhai Patel and Babulal for the route Burhanpur to Ujjain were dismissed by the Regional Transport Authority on 29th December, 1959.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 41,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 53,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 77,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 87,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 161,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PWs 1 and 3 went in search of PW 4 but on the way met two police constables PW 8--Chhotelal and PW 10-- Itratkhan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 91,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 113,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It annuls or replaces the report of the Public Analyst, it gains finality regarding the quality and standard of the food article involved in the case and it becomes irrefutable so far as the facts stated therein are concerned.\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "From the evidence of P.Ws.51 and 52, we conclude that one Lt.Col.Ramaraj had purchased a rifle .30 BA, Mechanical bearing registration no.329154 Springfield make and eight rounds of ammunition from the Government of India on 16.04.2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 221,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 235,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was laid WPC.25626/09 & 24875/09 down that the remedy under Section 28A(1) is not available when the compensation is enhanced under Section 54 of the Act, by the appellate court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 77,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 145,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of N.R. Paper & Boards Ltd. and Ors. v. Dy. (supra) relied upon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 38,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 93,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Candidate's name and Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong No. permanent residence obtained answers match match answers answers 01 Abhay Singh Yadav, Ujjain 843023 151.31 164 137 27",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 143,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 151,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Heard on IA No.8251/2015, an application for condonation of delay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 24,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Vide order dated 4.8.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kurukshetra, this case was committed to the learned Court of Session, Kurukshetra for trial. \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 28,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 164,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It will be revealed that they were paid gratuity, balance of wages /salary and other allowances, arrears of adhoc rise effective from 1.10.1987 under settlement dated 9.2.1986, earned/privilege leave salary, LTA for 1988.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 143,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 175,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 211,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Relying on the judgment in National Bell Co. v. Metal Goods AIR 1971 SC 878, it was submitted that it was incumbent on KRBL, in order to bring this case under Section 32 (c) of the TM Act, 1958, to prove that the mark used by it had become distinctive in relation to the goods of KRBL as of the date of the commencement of the rectification proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 75,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 123,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 173,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 193,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 284,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The judgments cited on behalf of the accused persons on this point have no bearing on the assessment of this court regarding the veracity of the testimonies of PW1 Vipin Kumar, PW6 Surender Kumar and PW7 Smt. Prakashi Devi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 164,
"end": 175,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 195,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 222,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further relied upon Ganesh Bhuwan Patil & Anr v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1979 SC 135 wherein it has been held as under:-\n \"18.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 88,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Against this order of the Hon'ble High Court the appellant company along with its Director, Shri Rajesh Narang, filed a Letters Patent Appeal No. 43 of 1994 praying for inter-alia, payment of arrears of commission and for mesne profits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 110,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 156,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Brief facts relating to the ground No. 3 are that the assessee has made a total claim of Rs. 40.91 crores under travelling expenditure and in tax audit report, a disallowance under Rule 6D stood at Rs. 64.56,704, the AO observed that out of total travelling expenses a sum of Rs. 7,18,72.457 only has been taken into consideration by the auditors to quantify disallowance under Rule 6D.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 188,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 378,
"end": 386,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The definition of Lord Esher M. B. is only a working definition and not, in my opinion, intended to exclude in all cases structures other than those made of brick or stone or covered by a roof whether in England or in India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 211,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 223,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has also contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as a public interest litigation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Such visits, however, by her to Sachindra here in Calcutta were very few, only three or four, and for short duration as well on each occasion.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 41,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 58,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n File be consigned to the Record Room. \n\nAnnounced in the open court ANJANI MAHAJAN On 11.08.2014 Civil Judge - 10 (Central) 11.08.2014 Suit No.1395/06 Smt. Parmeshwari Devi & Anr. Vs. R.S. Public Secondary School & Anr. 20/20",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 98,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 125,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 136,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 220,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is a tragedy frightening even to think of.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Roads of different widths, depending on the nature of the traffic, connected not only the towns and villages but also the country with its neighbours {2.4.1.5}.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This was of course subject to some provisos which it is not necessary to set out.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Announced in Open Court on 03.04.2014 (Narinder Kumar ) Additional Sessions Judge(Central) Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 37,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 53,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 96,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court had further directed that the advertising and hazardous boards should be removed in the light of the Apex Court's judgment in M.C. Mehta's case (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 146,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Criminal case was registered against the van driver in Crime No.292 of 2002 on the file of Annur Police Station.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 75,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 111,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the assessee company had filed a suit bearing No. 3578/94 before the Bombay High Court for specific performance of family settlement dated : 12.07.90, 03.07.91 & 30.01.92.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 68,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 160,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 161,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 170,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 181,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is more so, when such a view will also advance the legislative intent, behind enactment of this criminal liability.\"\n Section 139 NI Act is an example of reverse onus clause as observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangrappu vs. Sri Mohan 2010 3 MLJ(Cri) 547(SC).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 134,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 141,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 215,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 266,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further print outs of e\u00admails are sought to be proved contending that due to limited space in the e\u00ad Suit no. 106 of 2006 Page no. 19 of 19 mail box of the defendant, the originals had to be erased/obliterated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 121,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 2nd defendant (P.M.Kuriakose Kathanar) is the Vicar appointed by the then Metropolitan of Kandanad diocese.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 41,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 110,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Bhagat Singh Chawla, K. L. Mehta and S. K. Mehta, for the respondent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 32,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": ", such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860).\u2016 8.4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 76,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 127,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant continued to be the tenant of the shop during the years 1965 and 1966 as well but since he did not pay the rent the respondents on November 9, 1966 gave a combined notice demanding payment of arrears and seeking ejectment on termination of tenancy which was refused by him on November, 10, 1966.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 145,
"end": 161,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 308,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He told his son Bhausaheb to take his motor cycle to puncture repair shop of Badrimama.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 25,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 86,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Suffice it to say, it is not possible for us to agree with the view expressed in Kamlabai that the jurisdiction of Appellate Court is cribbed and cabined in terms of Rule 22 so far as it concerns the respondents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 89,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 173,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW6 SI Sunil Jain deposed that on 26.06.2013 at about 5.30 AM he was present at his office i.e. Narcotics Cell, Shakkar Pur when one informer came to the office and gave information against the accused and his sister.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 17,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 44,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 123,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His mother Laxmibai had been elected as member of Municipal Council, Beed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 73,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The findings on the issues which may be required to be dealt with while arriving at this decision are not made final.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Smt.Tensy Scaria has been transferred to Kollam District Co-operative Bank and Sri Joy Joseph has been transferred to her place in the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank by Ext.P12 proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 74,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 170,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Specific reference has been made to Krishena Kumar's case, supra, Indian Ex-Services League v Union of India, All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers' Association's case, supra, State of West Bengal v Ratan Behari Dey, Sasadhar Chakravarthy and Another v Union of India and Others, State of Rajasthan and Another v Amrit Lal Gandhi, State of Mysore and Another v K.N. Chandrasekhara.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 108,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 164,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 281,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 331,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 382,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The answer is simple, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 67,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not permissible under the section to split up the property into different intangible interest and say that bona fide possession and enjoyment of a particular interest was not immediately assumed by the donee and thenceforward rained to the entire exclusion of the donor and, therefore, that interest also is deemed to pass on the donor's death.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has been contended by Mr. Parchure, the learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1006 of 2000 that the enquiry under Section 5A was in breach of the principles of natural justice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 111,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 145,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This principle was laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Gordhandas Kessowji's case, AIR 1921 PC 137, where Section 11 of the Bombay Salt Act prohibited the licensee from \"alienating the interest\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 91,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 115,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 133,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 156,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner No. 2, Jai Narain Somani, is a shareholder of this company,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such suspension also in our opinion is clearly related to disciplinary matters.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The appellants by their reply dt. Nov. 19, 1993 replied to the show cause notice and spelt out in their reply various extracts of the judgments in support of their various contentions and ultimately stated that the show cause notice is based on serious misconception of law and prayed for withdrawal and dropping of the proceedings initiated against them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 47,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Gurjant Singh ASI Officiating SHO (PW-1) in his deposition also stated that after producing the case property before the learned SDJM, Malout, it was got photographed in the Court complex.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 141,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was submitted that the decision in State Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil & Anr., 2000 (1) SCC 748 is an authority on the point that there is no requirement either under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C., to obtain signature of independent witnesses on the record in which statement of an accused was written.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 99,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 181,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 201,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 222,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 238,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As regards the petitions of group A which had been heard in September, 1952, too, I do not think we can shut our eyes to the change of law which had taken place before those cases could be decided because if that amendment makes the cesses in question valid we would not be justified in holding them to be invalid in face of the clear provisions of law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-quoted decision to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that no special knowledge is needed for the appellant to know that he might cause death by setting fire to the clothes of the deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case of the revenue, however, is that since the commercial production of electricity commenced on September 16, 1967, the claim made by the petitioner-company as revenue expenditure was not admissible.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 120,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n 2. Lakshmi Sona, No.2. \n 1939 or so.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The consequence of such a substitution would be that Parliament could be deemed to not have the powers to enact laws with respect to extra- territorial aspects or causes, even though such aspects or causes may be expected to have an impact on or nexus with India, and laws with respect to such aspects or causes would be beneficial to India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 63,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 262,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 340,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are of the considered opinion that the plea of alibi taken by accused Joginder Singh @ Juggi is liable to be dis-believed in the facts and circumstances of the present case and fails to rebut the eye witness account qua the presence of accused Joginder Singh @ Juggi at the spot at the time of occurrence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 269,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "4. Then comes S.Y. 2007, corresponding assessment year being A.Y. 1952-53.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Ordinance read with the Rules, vest the right of manufacturing and sachetting the arrack, in MSIL and MYSUGAR (two alleged Government or Government controlled Companies) who have no expertise or experience in this line of business and no public interest is served by vesting the said right in these two Companies.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 101,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 113,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(9) APPLYING these principles to the facts of this case, we find that the property, the subject of the lease, was a house in the city of Jullundur suitable for a cinema theatre.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 146,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this context the Supreme Court distinguished between \"cause of action\" and \"applicability of law\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n P.W.22, the Inspector of Police, Rajahmundry Town Circle, spoke of the various steps taken by him during the investigation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 59,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No modification can be made by the court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 80,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 109,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure can also be pressed into service for the same purpose.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 19,
"end": 42,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the reasoning of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chairman, Railway Board v. C.R. Rangadhamaiah, , it could not have been possible for them to argue that their vested rights have been interfered with.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 53,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 102,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai (Supra) a question arose before their Lordships whether the relief of repayment has to be sought by the tax-payer by an action in a civil court or whether such an order can be made by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 51,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 300,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 320,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now, at the time of hearing of the appeal, it is found that the appellant Insurance Co. did not take any ground available to them in this appeal as mentioned in Section 96 (2) of the Motor Accidents Act and that the other appellant Kantilal and Brothers had no occasion to be aggrieved at the award and, therefore, they have no right to prefer this appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 161,
"end": 175,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 202,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 240,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Once it is held that the State Governments are also bound to ensure road safety and to that end are required to ensure the fitment of speed governors it follows that they are also bound to ensure that the speed governors fulfill their purpose and are of good quality.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The petitioner participated in the above proceeding.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "All the seized materials were sent to the forensic science laboratory for their analysis.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "P.W.8 would state that when he and P.Ws.6 and 7 were on their way from Pandanallur Village to the investigating police station, all of them were beaten.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 90,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He relied upon a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Pramatha Nath's case referred to above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Brief facts of this case are that on 18th July, 2004 at 1.20 P.M., deceased Mukesh Jain, was driving his two wheeler scooter No. DAI-1835 on which his son namely Master Shashank Jain was pillion rider.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 52,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 182,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti and Ors. , the Supreme Court described the shifting of the burden, relying on Halsbury's Laws of English, 2nd Ed., Vol. 23, as under:\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 56,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 77,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the Respondent-Committee, in view of the above necessity and urgency, applied on 11-2-1960, to get the lands acquired immediately by applying the urgency clause, under Sub-section (4) of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 101,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 208,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 236,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That Shri K.S. Khurana, Sub Judge, Delhi in the above suit passed preliminary Decree with costs on 30.1.1982 and also appointed Shri O.P. Saxena, Advocate, Delhi as Local Commissioner to suggest the mode of partition and take accounts from Must. Ashyia Begum and Rs. 500/- was fixed as his fee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 22,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 40,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 108,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 144,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 161,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 258,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An Explanation was added to section 9(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act by Finance Act, 1983 which was inserted with effect from 1-4-1979 as follows : \n10.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 66,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 87,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 132,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case of the prosecution,in this regard, has only remained on papers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The said notification reads as under:--\n\"A new statutory University, namely \"Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalay\", Jabalpur has been established by an Act of Madhya Pradesh State Legislature (Act No. 37 of 1995) and notified in the State Gazette vide No. 573 dated 29th November, 1995.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 119,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 130,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 217,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 291,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What is not an impediment to the making of the order, cannot become an impediment to the enforceability of the order and would tantamount to saying that the court order is violative of the rights of the litigant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Then it may be stated that a corporation resides where the principal direction of the corporate business is located.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "By this amendment Chapter V-B which was earlier made applicable to industries employing not less than 300 workmen was made applicable to industries employing not less than 100 workmen.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It must be noted that each of those cases relied upon by the plaintiff, though very instructive, are cases where fraudulent misrepresentation, etc. was established at the trial.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n 15.According to the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 promoted the Iridium system and made representation to various investors, including the Chairman, I.D.B.I., Chairman, V.S.N.L., Managing Director, I.C.I.C.I., Chairman of H.D.F.C., Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of IL & FS and made several misrepresentations about the Iridium system.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 151,
"end": 159,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 179,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 210,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 232,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 280,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 2-6-1951 the Regional Transport Authority granted these two permits to the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": " (PER DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.) :\n The First Respondent is the Plaintiff in a suit instituted against (i) the Appellant; (ii) the Airports Authority of India (the Second Respondent); and (iii) the State of Maharashtra (the Third Respondent).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 24,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 155,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 215,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court did not specifically consider the question of sufficiency of stamp duty and did not, while admitting the documents in evidence, specifically mention that they were duly stamped.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "By this assessment order, the Sales Tax Officer held that the total sales made by the petitioner during the assessment year 1959-60, the accounting year being 1-4-59 to 31-3-60 amounted to Rupees 1,97,212 as verified from the petitioner's account-books.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 165,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 176,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The person concerned (reasonable member of the public) is sometimes described as \"the man in the street,\" or \"the man in the Clapham omnibus\", or as I recently read in an American author, \"the man who takes the magazines at home, and in the evening pushes the lawnmower in his shirt sleeves.\" \n 60.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "She followed her and boarded a train and reached a place after crossing a bridge from where she took the Digha bound bus and reached at Contai. \n\nINVESTIGATION \n\n9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 142,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Vide The Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India P. Ltd. v. Management and Ors., AIR 1973 SC 1227; Rama Kant Misra v. State of U. P. and Ors., AIR 1982 SC 1552 : Management of Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. v. Mohd. Usman and Anr., (1984) 1 SCC 152 ; Ved Prakash Gupta a M/s.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 108,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 170,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 257,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 277,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Tneobald on Wills, Eighth Edition, the law is thus stated at page 607:\n",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The murder or the offence was committed, to prevent a person lawfully carrying out his duty like arrest or custody in a place of lawful confinement of himself or another.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He watched for a while but he could not find Munni Bai.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For determination of those questions we have to bear in mind that the first incident with the Chamars occurred at about 9 or 10 a.m, in the Kudihar field, which is also in the same village, and the present incident with which we are concerned, in sequence, was the second incident as would be evident from the evidence of PW 12 Narmada Prasad, H. C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 328,
"end": 342,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ld. counsel relied upon an order passed by Delhi High Court in bail application no. 35/11, decided on 25.07.2014, in the case of Avinash v. State, wherein the Court had given direction to the husband to pay Rs.50,000/- to the wife, for meeting day to day requirements of the child, before granting anticipatory bail to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 112,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 145,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Special Bench of three Judges has been constituted under extraordinary circumstances arising out of the present Criminal Revision Case No. 676 of 1973 as well as Criminal Revision Case No. 854 of 1973 (Bimal Chandra Samaddar v. Ranjit Samaddar).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 155,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 249,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n (c) the injunction sought for by the respondent could not be granted in view of Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 95,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 122,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is well settled that reservation is provided at the discretion of the State, and no citizen can claim reservation as a fundamental right and compel the State to make reservations.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Instances of the exceptions are Sec.198, 199 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Sec.25 of the Act is another instance of a statutory prohibition against cognizance of the offence being taken in any manner other than what is provided therein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 74,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 85,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Rajasthan High Court struck down Section 17(4) of the Act on the ground that parliament under Entry 66 of List I of Schedule VII of the Constitution is empowered to make law prescribing qualification of entry into service under the State Government and that such law could only be made under the proviso to Article 309.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 24,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 132,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 152,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 322,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Amalgamation or bifurcation of various departments, formation of cadres etc. are always considered to be the function of the management.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Ajit Kumar Guha (D. W. 1), who was himself a member of the Board, deposed as follows:-- \n \"We the members of the Board did not make any separate enquiry.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Mohnish Bhalla, PW-4, in his deposition at Exh.81, who was Intelligence Officer on Deputation with NCB, has clearly stated that at about 7:30, they reached the house of accused No. 1-Iqbal Moosa, who was present there in the veranda and he is said to have stated his name to be Iqbal Moosa Patel.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 106,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 198,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 299,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I may also refer in this connection to Bidhu Bhusan Bagchi v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1952 Cal 901 where the learned Judge, at paragraph 26, observed as follows :\n \"In the first place, Article 19(1)(c) which speaks of the right of a citizen to form aslociations or unions refers to the ordinary right which is enjoyed by all citizens.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 100,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 203,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By an assessment order dated December 30, 1950 for the assessment year 1947-48, the Income tax Officer assessed the remittances from Singapore at Rs. 61,538.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 46,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 142,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The selection should be made in order of merit on the basis of the total marks obtained by such candidates.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was, therefore, held that, \"mere slitting and re-rolling of such duty paid paper cannot be called a process of manufacture.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "For reasons which we have already given we respectfully dissent from the view so taken by the Madras High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 111,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendant company has admittedly paid the rent @ Rs. 4,320/\u00ad per Suit No: 72/14 Sudhir Kumar vs Bata India Ltd month.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 114,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The undisputed facts are that the defendant is the tenant and in possession of house no. 23E, Village Bansant Nagar, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi , (hereinafter referred as suit property).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 140,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The conviction as well as the sentence directed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part I) or 304 (Part I) read with Section 34 of I.P.C is hereby set aside.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 136,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 157,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 166,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Disagreeing with the said conclusion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-\n\n \" ...... This conclusion of the Tribunal is contrary to the service jurisprudence and to the relevant rules under which the respondent was sent on deputation to the post of Deputy Director (Development).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh CRA NO.D-445-DB OF 2005 -15 - PW-12 (Ajit Singh) and some amount out of the said amount, which the deceased (Ranbir Singh) had received from Patran Sugar Mills was misappropriated by the appellant and a sum of `9500/- was recovered from him during investigation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 161,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 192,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 266,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 304,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dineshbhai ? opponent No.1 was the driver of the said tempo and Babubhai was the owner of the said tempo.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further he admits that Zonal Office used to conduct conferences and meetings of Branch Managers periodically and Bank Managers were motivated to be liberal in their approach and attract more number of customers with a view to expanding the business.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, the case was fixed for complainant's evidence and complainant was directed to supply copy of the affidavit and annexed documents to the accused. \n\nSubstance of complainant's evidence and cross examination 4. Complainant Ashok Tyagi examined himself as CW1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 232,
"end": 243,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Part of sugarcane price which is considered as excess cannot be construed as bonus as per Section 65(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 149,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n 39.Ex.B.6 is the copy of the Plaint filed in O.S.No.96 of 1978 by the 1st Plaintiff K.V.Subbiah Mudaliar (died) wherein K.S.Rajarathinathanni has figured as Supplemental 2nd Plaintiff.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 65,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 107,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 144,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His finding that the plaintiff was not in bona fide requirement of the suit premises is not challenged in revision.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Merely because Iyer had gone to foreign country, he could not be said to have been employed outside India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 105,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After the formation of the JSTF, PW-7 Shankar Bidri said that he used to lead the Karnataka and Tam.il Nadu Task Forces along with BSF.. subject to the general powers of control.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 31,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 91,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 107,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 134,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": " \n Rajinder Singh, record clerk, Hindu Rao Hospital (DW7) identified the hand writing and signatures of Dr. R. P. Gupta on the original medico-legal report relating to Attinder Singh, appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 52,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 120,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 183,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been contended on behalf of the Reserve Bank of India that the supposedly wide powers conferred on the Reserve Bank of India by Section 45K(3) have been affirmed by the Suprerne Court of India in its decision in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Reserve Bank of India , when it sustained paras 6 and 12 of the 1987 Directions with reference to Section 45K(3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 60,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 131,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 149,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 199,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 292,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 383,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under Section 36(2)(a) of the Representation of People Act, a candidate has to be qualified to become a member under Art. 173 of the Constitution of India on the date fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 22,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 58,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 125,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 154,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Among the petitions before us, we find that the petitioner in O. P. No. 247 of 1982 had obtained 398 marks as per the original mark-list and gets 416 marks as per the fake mark-list; the difference is only 18 marks.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 83,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One of the questions that was canvassed before Supreme Court was whether the Commissioner could revise an order passed under Section 65 at any time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 135,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(JT 2004(8) SC page 531), the Apex Court observed, \"No person illegally, appointed or appointed without following the procedure prescribed under the law, is entitled to claim that he should be continued in service.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 23,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW7 and his wife Neeiavva thought it fit to leave their daughter Sumangala (PW.5) in the house of PW.i-Venkanna Timmanna Maled at Laxanatti.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 25,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 74,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 126,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 139,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whenever there is a repeal of an enactment, the consequences laid down in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act though it has been specifically mentioned in the repeal Act or not, will follow unless, as the section itself says, a different intention appears.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 83,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 110,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, Smt.Surjit Kaur, her daughter expired on 29.12.1984 and the parties to the suit entered into a partition deed Ex.PW1/4 dated 19.02.1987.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 63,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 147,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reliance on the decision of the Supreme court in the case of Canara Workshops (P.) Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 320 was also made before the Bombay High Court and it held to not applicable to in such a situation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 106,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 149,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further argued that even RW-1 Veena Gupta in her cross examination had stated that her defence is the same as taken up by her father in law (deceased respondent no. 1) in his written statement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 48,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This argument sounded very attractive especially in the light of the evidence of one Packiam [D.W.1], an Ex-Serviceman and a self proclaimed expert in firearms.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 92,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further stated in the application that there was something fishy about the death of her husband and she had a doubt that P.S.I. Mr. Joshi and Police Constable Dinesh had murdered her husband and the Sub-Divisional Police Officer Mr. Dave had helped them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 144,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 172,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 244,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, the respondent preferred a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 27079/1998.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 72,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The ennobling quality of sex of which havelock ennobling quality of sex of which havelock Ellis wrote in his studies on the Psychology of sex ensues out of this freedom of choice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Kirpa Ram Patwari PW. 4 has produced the site plan Exh. P3 which was prepared in accordance with the Aks-Shajra of village Patti Mehar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 17,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 134,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appellant was arrested in this I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Murder Reference No. 06 of 2012 - 4- case .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 128,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 199,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appeal has been preferred against the award dated 18.10.1995 passed in M.C.O.P. No. 21 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Kulithalai for a sum of Rs. 95,000.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 94,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 177,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "My answers to the questions are as fol-lows:- \nQuestion 1 (a)--Yes. \n (b)--Yes. \n\nQuestion 2 --Yes.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After the death of Syamala's husband, Syamala and her children were residing with Pw.44.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 45,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent No.2, (in the claim petitions) the Insurance Company objected to the maintainability of the claim petition and locus standi of the claimants to file it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However, since he used a weapon like Gupti, it can be held with certainty that he acted with intention of causing such bodily injury to deceased as was likely to cause his death making him liable to be convicted under section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. \n\n (12) Cr.A.128/2004 Cr.A.143/2004 20.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 218,
"end": 236,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 261,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 284,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 298,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner in M.V.C.No.6642/2013 herself examined as PW5 and got marked ExP.33 to 37.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 32,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The law on this issue is well settled and the law is that though the provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable, but in a given situation the help of the principles of Evidence Act in the proceedings before the assessing authorities can be taken.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 95,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 183,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been alleged by the petitioner that since the expression 'Collective Investment Scheme' had not been defined in the Act prior to the amendment introduced by the Security Laws (Amendment) Act of 1999 w.e.f. 22-2-2000 hence the Regulations regarding 'Collective Investment Scheme' made on 15-10-1999 were invalid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 205,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 222,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 304,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By a judgment delivered on 19th February, 1981, we referred to the relevant decisions of the Supreme Court, some of which again were referred to us, we also referred to the meaning of expenditure as understood in accordance with the accountancy principle and we further held that, really, depreciation was the money expended which was spread over the effctive life of an asset.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 46,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Manoj and Ankit finally left her leaving a word of warning \"Hum Tek Tai Tum Kaise Hardeep se milthi ho bath karthi ho\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 10,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are unable to accept this reasoning of the learned Judge of the court below in paragraph 25 of his iudgment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The following observations in Paragraphs 24 and 25 highlight the supremacy of legislation made by Parliament with reference to Entry 66:- \u0013(24)\u0005..",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the Government of Bombay is satisfied that the said lands are needed for the aforesaid purpose, a final notification to that effect, under Section 6 of the said Act, will be published in the Bombay Government Gazette, in due course\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 27,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 151,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The exemption was granted for the use of granite factory located in the land in question.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was, then, contended by Mr, Sahay that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to cross-examine Satyanand Roy and the two witnesses, Bulanand Singh and Nityanand Roy, who supported him with regard to the payment of bribe to the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 125,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 163,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 181,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One of such notices was addressed to the appellant No. 1 Krishnalal Sadhu and the other notice was addressed to the appellants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and they were directed to deliver vacant possession on the date fixed in the notice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 73,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Basudeva Prasad, learned counsel for some of the petitioners eloquently highlighted primal thesis that under the Acta village Panchayat was integrally a self-contained unit of self government at the grass root level.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 139,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "may be available to the victim in the event the State has already preferred appeal with the leave and such leave is granted and the appeal has been admitted by this Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Then comes Rule 16 which may, for the sake of convenience, be called the fixation of seniority rule.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 18,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If some of the sections such as sections 80HHE and 80HHF provide for a formula for calculating the deduction which is identical with the formula prescribed by section 10B, it would be incongruous to interpret section 10B in a manner different from those two sections merely because there is no definition of \"total turnover\" in that section.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 56,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 170,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 220,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words, we were asked to hold that the legislature orders a defendant to declare that his statements are true and, since it is further emphasised that the same legislature passed all the Acts, in the same breath says that it does not care whether the statements are true or not and that no penalty shall follow the making of a false verification.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n (c) P.W. 3 is Sanjay Verma who was also a candidate for the impugned election.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 29,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is a gap of more than 5 years and the other ejectment petition was filed because the condition of the building has further significantly deteriorated.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Dayawati (PW/10) has also stated that Chameliya Bai and accused Suresh on one hand and Lamaru on the other had fought several times before the aforesaid incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioners and supporting respondents, are, therefore, guilty of gross improprieties.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The prosecution case in brief is that P.W.1 Madhu and his wife, late Beena jointly acquired a property with a house bearing Door No.7/68, which was named 'Madhuvilasam'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 49,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 74,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 167,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "AC No.03/2012 CBI Vs. Smt. Ramo Devi etc.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 78,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel next contended that the award is perverse as neither any original document nor any books of account, vouchers or any such document was produced or being proved.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A Map showing the revenue estate of Village Rithala also shows that the acquired land is surrounded by different villages.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 51,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In his disclosure statement Ex.PW1/D, accused has stated that he bought the smack from one Devender Yadav at Firozabad, U.P. and he had come to Delhi to sell the smack to one Ravi who would have come at 09.00 p.m. at the spot.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 118,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 124,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 149,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 179,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is this particular passage that is very much relied upon by the learned Advocate General in support of his contention that in this case, the legislature, leaving to the State Government to determine regarding details of special circumstances for levying of tolls and deciding the rate at which the tolls are to be collected, cannot be considered to be unconstitutional.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In State of Bihar v. Ram Pardarath Singli, reported in AIR 1998 SC 2606, Ihe Supreme Court held in Paragraph 10 of the judgment that, if independent persons were not willing to tell the police that they had seen the incident, the prosecution cannot he blamed for not examining independent persons as eye-witnesses and veracity of the evidence of the witnesses examined as eye-witnesses cannot be doubted on that ground.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 71,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of this contention, the respondents' counsel relied upon the observation of Dutta, J in Rebati Ranjan Chakravarti Vs. Suranjan Chakravarti (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 149,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On arrival in India, they registered themselves as refugees and complied with several other formalities required of a refugee from Sri Lanka.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 19,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 140,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They are assessees on the files of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mannargudi, Thanjavur district (first respondent herein).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 80,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 100,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was further questioned about the loan agreement.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He has cited a decision of mine in Ganesh Nayak v. Land Acquisition Collector, (1961) 65 Cal WN 908.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 99,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In my opinion, State employment can be for other purposes as well.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Padmacharan, a Kannada poet has given forceful to the feeling of fraternity among the people of this country in the famous Kannada song composed by him thus :\n (Matter in Vernacular omitted - Ed.) \"Despite our having hundred languages or religions, we the people of Bharat are one forever; united emotionally, we march forward.\" \n58.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 272,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n (2) The opinion of each member of' the Court as to the finding shall be given by word of mouth on each charge separately.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, Section 31 is a civil remedy available to a person aggrieved against the order of the Board.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 29,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have already noted that in the exemption notification No. 55/75-C.E., dated 1-3-1975, all kinds of food products and food preparations including the other items mentioned therein which fall under Item No. 68 have been exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 87,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Hughes v. Lord Advocate, 1963 AC 837 the facts were thus: On November 8, 1958, some Post Office employees opened a manhole n Russel Road, Edinburgh, to do some repairs to a telephone cable under the roadway They erected a canvas tent over the open manhole and at about 3-30 p.m. put four red warning lamps in position outside the tent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 39,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 80,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 150,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In exercise of the powers conferred under the Act, the State of Maharashtra framed Rules known as the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Rules\").",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 75,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 140,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That direction was given in the above writ application after coming to a conclusion that the bar beyond six months as provided by the third proviso to Rule 141 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules had been removed by virtue of the amended notification dated December 23, 2004.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 151,
"end": 159,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 199,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 278,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In State Bank of India Vs. S.N.Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 92, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the scope of powers of disciplinary authority.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 52,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The deceased Kranti and his daughter Sarita told him that earlier in the day, the appellant Sonu and co-accused Manoj had visited and insisted that they would continue to sleep on the roof of the house of their neighbour and if they objected to that, their house would be blown with a bomb.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 96,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 117,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If these principles are applied it must be held that the failure of the appellant to bring on record respondents 8, 11 and 12 in C.M.P. No. 1990/72 resulted in the abatement of the appeal against Askar Nawab Jung the 1st respondent in the appeal, as was held in the order passed by the Gopal Rao Ekbote, C.J., and Chennakesav Reddy, J., on 30-1-1974.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 147,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 212,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 302,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 331,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 349,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If these applications were properly scrutinized in accordance with the strict conditions laid down in the advertisement, they should have been rejected at the very stage of acceptance.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, according to the petitioners, on the coming into force of the guidelines issued by the Government of India dated 28.12.2017, they are entitled for determination of compensation under the 'New Act' as per Clause 4.6 (iii)(a)(b).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 117,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 134,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 237,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Counsel for the petitioners in CWP No.15228/2013 Mr. Amit Gupta on behalf of Mr. B.L. Agarwal & Mr. J.C. Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent No.21 in CMA No.4379/2012, CWP No.15228/2013 & CWP No.15275/2013 Hon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi REPORTABLE :-\t \n1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 48,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 63,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 109,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 175,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 194,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 214,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 250,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The admitted facts are that the DPC which met in 1988 had considered the respondentemployee's case for promotion to the post of Commissioner of Income-tax.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The appellant has submitted that since rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 does not speak of the place, where the application for the registration of the vehicle is to be filed, so, the vehicle may be registered by the respondent no.1 and 2 in Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 86,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 261,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Moreover,\t the medical evidence fully supports the finding of the\tHigh Court that there was an attempt to commit rape on P.W. 1 by the appellant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was further contended that it has not been shown that the transfer is in public interest or what category of public interest is being served thereby.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Probably it was felt that a Purohit would be more likely to be invited to an adoption and therefore this story was put in his mouth.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "[See Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Ltd. Vs. Donoghue [2002] Q.B. 48].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 91,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This conclusion was arrived at by him relying upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 882. \n 8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 155,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Pritam Kaur v. Surjit Singh , Sandhawalia, C.J. presiding over a Full Bench traced the law of precedents in detail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 30,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereupon, his family members, namely Ajit Singh, Kuldip, Rajesh and Vikas, and one Amit (friend of Vikas), went to the Pepsi agency of A-1, where the occurrence had taken place.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 64,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 74,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 132,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Pai next referred to an order in Reference (I.D.) No. 203/70 by the Industrial Tribunal Maharashtra between the employer and the workmen-employees under it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 7,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, in matters of account, although not barred by the Statute of Limitations, courts of equity refused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Out of the remaining twenty six coke oven plants, twelve were identified as situated near nationalised Coking Coal Mines and so they were expressly specified in the 1972 Nationalisation Act and nationalised.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 189,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This precise matter came up for decision before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Chagla, C. J. and Desai, J. in Lalbhai Tricumlal Mills Ltd. v. D. M. Vin, 1956-1 Lab LJ 557=(AIR 1955 Bom 463) where it was held: \n \"But what we are concerned with to decide is: where did the dispute substantially arise?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 111,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 128,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 215,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly the evidence of Dr. R. Anandan PW-11 who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Deivammal the other lady establishes the fact that she died due to strangulation of the neck and smothering.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 40,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 122,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "State of H.P. reported as AIR 1999 SC 782, para 14 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Baliya v/s.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 41,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 106,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that view, the seizure under Section 37(2) of She Indian Income-tax Act would be temporary and thus not violative of any fundamental right upon the authority of the above Supreme Court decision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 74,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 187,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "9.6 In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 3 SCC 374, the Supreme Court observed that right from the inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying existence of Courts of justice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 69,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta category Writ Petition No.6669/2004 9.12.2014 Parties through their counsel.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 12,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 63,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 73,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is claimed by the respondent side that the building in which the suit shop is situated is a plot measuring 160 sqr yards and there are 5 shops in the same.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The accident is said to have occurred on Bombay-Pune Highway near Nalgaon Village, within the territorial jurisdiction of Wadagaon-Moval Police Station.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 47,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 52,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 81,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 151,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW9 (P.G.Sasi) is an attester to Ext.P7 Scene Mahazar prepared by PW19.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 13,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 53,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This decision therefore rendered by the Supreme Court of India says that the question regarding the necessity of sanction can be determined from stage to stage and when such a question is raised and it falls for the consideration of the Court, all the materials on the record at the time when the question is raised can be taken into consideration.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 62,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It can be seen that after amendment in 1958 the language of S. 7 (d) is the same as we find in S 9-A as renumbered in 1966 The Legislature has deliberately omitted the words \"or the performance of any services\" which is very significant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 100,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the Act itself makes this distinction between fertilisers, including mixed fertilisers, on one hand and acid like Sulphuric acids gases like Ammonia as pointed out and maintained, it is futile to argue that Notification No. 25/70 grants exemption to mixed fertilisers which are manufactured from two or more fertilisers and acids and gases.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "23) As a consequence thereof, an eviction order is passed U/s. 14 (1) (e), DRC Act against the respondents regarding the tenanted premises i.e premises comprising of two rooms attached with toilet and a kitchen on the second floor bearing No. 324, Second Floor, Hastal, DDA Flats (LIG) New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan 24)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 82,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 295,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The apex Court upheld the validity of Sections 3(4) and 7(5) of the Act in Dharam Das etc. etc. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1069.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 60,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 132,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to PW4, the autorickshaw was overtaking MRL bus at the time of accident and for that purpose it was brought to the right side of the road.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Moreover, as my learned brother Lodha, J., has pointed out the question as to whether the workmen concerned have been gainfully employed or not during the period after the termination of their services by the Corporation is a complicated question of fact which this Court is ill-equipped to decide in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 330,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 350,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Not only this but the learned counsel appearing for the accused appellant Suresh at the trial did not put any question even to the Investigating Officer, Chutia Police Station, Raghuvir Singh, PW 59, Rajendra Singh, or to PW 82 and Madanlal, PW 85, the CBI Inspectors or any other prosecution witnesses about the alleged statement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 80,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 191,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 214,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 240,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 256,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have carefully gone through the statements of PW-9 and PW-10.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This is a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff against UOI, MCD and seven individuals.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\"Life\", as observed by Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois (1877) 94 U.S. 113, means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of life extends to all those limits and faculties by which life is enjoyed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 71,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the decision reported in Ajit Savant Majagyai v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 110 : 1997 Cri LJ 3964 the Supreme Court has observed as follows (at p. 3968 of Cri LJ):\n19.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 106,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 124,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(It is conceded that these persons had no manner of authority to sell the property of the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs are entitled to ignore the sale even if it was for necessity, and that their suit for possession brought, in forma pauperis, on 1-2-1954 falls within Article 142 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 250,
"end": 258,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 283,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Date : 2-2-1990. \n\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-IX, Bombay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 15,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Why, said K. M. Munshi, should the Assembly turn its back on a hundred year old tradition of parliamentary government in India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 126,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The construction of fly over bridge before the notification in question in the present cases has not been proved on the record of the case by production of any evidence and, therefore, the Award Exh. P.18 is irrelevant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Superintendent's letter No. ST/. SSP/R-14 dated Banaras May 18, 1956 was read out in Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 59,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 72,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court also rejected the contention that no safeguard had been provided for search and seizure proceedings and, therefore, these provisions were unconstitutional in that arbitrary powers were conferred upon the State to make search and seizure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the evidence of Dhirajlal on behalf of the plaintiff in the matter from which second appeal No. 447 of 1960 is filed, he has stated that if the potatoes are kept loose, then they will remain good for 15 to 20 days.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 110,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rich J., held that the Constitution expressly provided for the continued existence of the States and that, therefore, any action on the part of the Commonwealth, in purported exercise of its Constitutional powers, which would prevent a State from continuing to exist or function as such was necessarily invalid because of inconsistency with the express provisions of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 4,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 35,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 383,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However I find no merits in the above arguments of Ld. Defence counsel. \n\n\nCC No. 225/03 DA Vs. Subhash Garg Page 21 of 62",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 110,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As against that Mr. Sen on behalf of the respondent submits that there was no relevant material before the Tribunal to hold that the sum in question was the concealed income of the respondent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 23,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also participated in the chase and in the arrest of 7 persons at village Chandrahatti, who had injuries and also went to Hajipur and saw that 15 persons had been detained there including Appellants Anand Mohan and Lovely Anand.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 88,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 131,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 212,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 229,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Activities which are too fundamental to the society are by definition too important not to be considered government functions.\" \n\nBhagwati, J. dwelt on the functional formula and reasoned:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 138,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Out of them about 60,000 teachers were members of a registered society, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh (hereinafter referred to as \"the Sangh\"), the First Petitioner in the said Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 9174 of 1978 in the Allahabad High Court and one of the Respondents in the Appeals and Petitions before us.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 122,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 239,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 267,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the functions of the Govt. are carried on by the Executive in the name of the President on the advice of Ministers, they (Ministers) alone are answerable to the Parliament.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 167,
"end": 177,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A contrary view has, no doubt, been expressed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Western India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (i).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 165,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Jyoti Basu, the Chief Minister as the seventh respondent, Md. Amin, the Minister of the Transport Branch of the Home Department as the eighth respondent, Hashim Abdul Halim, the Minister of the Legislative and the Judicial Department as the ninth respondent and the Electoral Registration Officer as the tenth respondent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 66,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 172,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the aforesaid, the reference is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. \n\n REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) A.K. SIKRI (JUDGE) August 16, 2010 km",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 146,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 165,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 189,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It may be possible to deprecate the manner in which the statute removed the respondent from office, but it is not possible to deny its effect.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Motor Vehicle Tribunals are directed to take notice of this fundamental principle of law in every case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Though provisions are available in the Code of Civil Procedure itself providing for settlement and conciliation by courts in matters concerning family, such provisions were found to be not quite effective.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 62,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant is therefore right in his contention that unless the statute itself enacts otherwise, an application which a partner has to sign would be in order and. valid, if it is signed by his authorised agent.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the same footings the learned counsel for the appellant no.2 Murli has submitted that the trial Court has accepted the evidence of witness Sharda Prasad (PW13) and found that the appellants assaulted the victim in their right of private defence and therefore, looking to the right accrued to the Criminal Appeal No.897/2000 appellants, the appellants could not be convicted for any crime.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 69,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 155,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 326,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ Crl.M.C. Nos.53 of 2009 &",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 10,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 47,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the Judgment and Orders dated 24.4.87, 2.3.87, & 1.4.87 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Original Applica- tion No. 121/86, T.A. Nos. 958& 180 of 1986 and O.A. No. 140of 1986.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 42,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 147,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 175,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 199,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having regard to the fact that several writ petitions came to be filed before different High Courts, an application for transfer was filed before the Supreme Court, which was marked as T.P. (Civil) Nos. 41-55 of 1995 (Mohan Lal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.). \n23.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 163,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 216,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 264,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the view we have taken of these cases, the petitions succeed and are allowed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Whether Omwati died of the fatal injuries caused in a road accident which took place on 26th March, 2001 at about 11.00 a.m. at Ring Road near Chandagi Ram Akhara, under Shahdara Flyover, Delhi by TATA 407 bearing registration no. DL-1L-B-1175 by resp.no.1 Shyam Lal?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 104,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 193,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 266,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dr. Abhinav Sharma had challenged the legality of the order taking cognizance and its confirmation by the Revisional Court in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.26/2014, which is pending in the High Court, Bench at Jaipur, and in which, an interim order was passed on 26.03.2014, directing the summoning Court to adjourn the matter beyond the date fixed in this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 164,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 217,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 274,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is admitted that the vehicle bearing registration No.DL\u00ad9CE\u00ad1188 OMNI EMPI STD was insured with the respondent No.2 in the name of Dharamvir for the period 26.11.2011 to 25.11.2012 vide policy No.0411003111P001471472.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 143,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 169,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 183,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 219,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is vehemently stated that the plaintiff had discontinued the sale of goods after 1986\u00ad87 where\u00adafter the goods were sold through M/s Khushi Ram Behari Lal (Export Division) and on 01.04.1996 said division transferred all their rights in the name of M/s Khushi Ram Behari Lal Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 159,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 195,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 285,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The notification dated 18.10.1996 referred to in the Original Petitions is admittedly incorporated in Rule 95(2) of the Rules.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 33,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 112,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The claimants produced two witnesses, namely Bhim Singh (PW-1), and Lalloo Mal (PW-2) but they arc not parties to the sale-deeds filed by the claimants. \n\n8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 55,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 78,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, in the 'Parcha Bayan' Ex.P. 3 also Mangat Ram had given the name of appellants Gurdeep Singh and Smt. Chandra Kaur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 98,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 120,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The\tcadre of Assistant Engineers was to consist of 344 permanent and 345 temporary posts.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "P. W. 13, Dr. S. K. Roy examined the girl on the 23rd March, 1960.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 23,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 65,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further deposed that the said import was to facilitate the export of handicraft and the application of the firm was given receipt no. 168949 as mentioned in mark X/1.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment, we are unable to agree with the effect of the Patna High Court CWJC No.6155 of 2016 dt.27-09-2016 submissions of the learned Principal Additional Advocate General that in case of compensatory tax, the State has the power to resort to discrimination.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 142,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 156,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ext. H: Ext. H is the notice dated 6-3-1943, which was sent to the plaintiffs' firm by Mr. Hassan Mohiuddin (D. w. 1), who was then the Price Control Officer, informing the plaintiff's firm that the District Magistrate had suspended the licence of the plaintiffs' firm for the present due tg his conviction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 43,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 107,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From this document it is established manifestly that the assessee has received on money of Rs. 3.35 lakhs from Mr. Grewal and this can very well be said to be the undisclosed income of the assessee as contemplated under s. 158(1)(b) of the Act which is liable to be taxed in view of the provisions contained in Chapter XIV of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 121,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 232,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 322,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both Courts accepted the evidence of Gurdeep (PW1), Jagjit (PW2) and Rajrani (PW4) as being consistent, cor- roborative and credible.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 44,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 58,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 76,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was amended late on November 20, 1991 .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 40,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment of the Full Bench of Orissa High Court in Salil Kumar v. State of Orissa, AIR 1988 Orissa 246, in support of their contention that giving weightage to rural service is arbitrary and unreasonable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 165,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "b) Likewise, the point that arises for consideration in O.S.A.No.60 of 2007 is:- \n \"whether this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit?.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 75,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even TLO stated that he had no knowledge whether the CDR of mobile of the complainant (9312037565) is a relied upon document or not.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "66.Ex.B.7 was the Sale Deed dated 16.04.1986 executed by M.Parasakthi Ammal to and in favour of A.R.Mohamed Hanifa (Appellant/2nd Defendant)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 44,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 114,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[ (1984) 1 SCC 43 : AIR 1984 SC 273].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 36,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W. 9 Ravindra has stated that accused No.2 Dinesh had manhandled P.W.10, that after some time the deceased had come on the spot and that the appellant and other accused had manhandled the deceased and took him inside their house.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further the said document has been verified by the jurisdictional revenue department of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike who have issued Khata Certificate in the name of the second defendant and have collected the property taxes and revenue.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 119,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At page 261, the Supreme Court noticed that in the case before them, \"payments were made only after the industries have been set up\" and in the very next sentence observed that \"payments are not being made for the purpose of setting up of the industries\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 30,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Again, in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) this is what their Lordships held in paragraphs-27, 28 and 29, which is quoted hereunder:-\n \u201527.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ammini and the second accused were arrested on 29-6-1980.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 56,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. Meera Srivastava, a young woman aged about 25 years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 70,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Initially, the assessee had challenged the validity of the action under Section 158 BD.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 83,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel further relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Narsinbhai Haribhai Prajapati vs. Chhatrasinh & Ors.-AIR 1977 SC 1753 to argue that recovery of blood stained weapons would not be sufficient to convict the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 137,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This prayer of the plaintiffs was allowed, and, they were ordered to be ready to cross-examine him the next day.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In my view, if the secret information was received by P.W.2 Rajesh Kumar Srivastava on 02.07.2003 itself, there was Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1052 of 2011 dt.15-03-2013 16 enough time to reduce the same in writing and report to the immediate superior officer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 83,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 132,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 161,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 175,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The injuries of Shish Pal (D-3) are as follows:\n (i) Incised Wounds at (Lt) pareital area of skull at top size 12 cm x 1-1/2 cms x Brain matter deep obliquely & Tailing Backwards. \n\n (ii) Multiple Incised Wounds at (Lt) Head Laterally & at Back side.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 25,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Craies in his Interpretation on Statute Law 6th Ed. p. 369 observes as follows:-\n \"Many earlier statutes contain clauses similar in effect to the general rule, but without the confusing words as to contrary intention.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Judge Judge kkc F. A. No.414-10 19.1.2015.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 41,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, the matter has to be examined having regard to the scheme of the Act in the matter of assessments and the procedure prescribed therefor. \n 9. Section 139 to 158 in Chapter XIV of the I.T. Act provide for procedure for assessment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 168,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 183,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 199,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J. \n\n1. Should the \"information which has come into his possession\", as envisaged by Section 18(1) of the Bihar Sales Tax Act, 1959, for purposes of reassessment, necessarily spring from a source external to the original record?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 118,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 151,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The other circumstances relevant in this connection is that appellant Tripalhi was detained under the Crime Control Order and on 5-4-1983 a petition for bail was filed on his behalf that he had to attend some religious Seminar at Haridwar on 10-4-1983 and, therefore, he should be enlarged on bail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 78,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 137,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 238,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 251,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent Subodh Chandra Bose was also a party to that application under the Indian Trust Act, yet this Rabindra Nath Mitra goes to the District Judge under the Indian Lunacy Act years after in 1961 and solemnly takes oath and tells him \"Sanat is insane for the last 20 years.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 30,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 94,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 124,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 179,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She has in unmistakable terms alleged that Prof. Sidhu-respondent No. 3 told her that Shri Partap Singh Bajwa, who was then PWD Minister in the State of Punjab, has been patron of the Kalaswala Khalsa Senior Secondary School Kadian, Gurdaspur and he was extremely annoyed on account of her action.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 54,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 109,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 159,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 242,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accusations which led to the trial of the accused-appellant are that H.R. Prakash, PW-1, the owner of Prakash Transport, was having a contract for the transport of transformers belonging to Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane (KAVIKA), Bangalore, and the said agreement was for the period 15.9.2000 to 14.9.2001.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 85,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 123,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 229,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 240,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 293,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 306,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The main allegation of the plaintiff in the present suit is that he is the sole and absolute owner of the property bearing no. B-197, Greater Kailash, Part-1, New Delhi consisting of ground and first floor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 168,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The right of defence of the delinquent member as contemplated under Rule 15(3) is a legal right and cannot be denied by exercise of absolute discretion opposed to the principles of natural justice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 78,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, the District Magistrate granted the 'No-objection Certificate' on 27-11-1970 to Res. 1 and 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 89,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, in short, the case of PW-2 Manik was that the accused abetted the suicide of the deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 38,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These facts go to show that the plea of the defendant that Mr. M.A. Jose had been given back 215 Rocker Sprayers and 65 Knapsack Sprayers out of the goods admittedly received against the bill No. 1558 dated 28.12.1999 under any expressed or implied authority by the plaintiff in favour of MR. Jose, in an afterthought.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 217,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 297,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented before the Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The trial Court as well as the appellate Court held that M/s. AT Overseas Limited has no reason to give cheques to the complainant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 81,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The counsel for the petitioner has taken us through the evidence and we find that in particular the evidence of witness No. 7 Shri Ram Datt and Witness No. 15 Maj. Gurung was highly incriminating the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 139,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 170,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He denied that amount of Rs. 20,000/\u00ad which was given to the Finance Company on 06.07.2009 was given by defendant no. \n 1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 90,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the R. v. Stafford Justices (1940) 2 K. B. 33 (Q) Sir Wilfrid Greene held at page 47 that \"the court having regard to all the circumstances of this case, and in particular the knowledge and conduct of the council and the time which has elapsed, ought not in its discretion to grant the relief asked for\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 71,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that Rangachari15 has been the law for more than 30 years and that attempts to re-open the issue were repelled in Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India and others .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 203,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendant's counsel argued that if really payment of Rs.20,00,000/- is towards further sale consideration amount, then endorsement as per Ex.P.8 ought to have been found even in E.xD.1.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court made a reference to its earlier decision in Union of India v. H.C. Goel, and relied upon the dictum of Gajendragadkar J., which reads as follows:\n \"It still remains to be considered whether the respondent is not right when he contends that in the circumstances of this case, the conclusion of the Government is based on no evidence whatever.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 89,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 135,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned Government Pleader then relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 144 of 1992 dated 14-1-1992 in support of his contention.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 77,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 109,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 125,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The counsel's point is that impossibility of performance, in the instant case, is a valid excuse against application of the time-bar provisions of Section 11B.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 147,
"end": 159,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Doctor has examined them and issued report Ex.P.7 to 9, confirming that there are no factors suggesting that the accused were incapable of performing act of sexual intercourse.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This is a clear indication that in the past the Government also considered it just and fair to regularise the services of those who had been in continuous service for two years prior to the cut-off date.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 18th January and 18 January, 1984 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Nos. 33OO of 1981 aud 4757 of 1982. \n\n H.K. Puri, M.P. Jha and Sanjeev Walia for the Appellants. \n\n S.K Bagga for the Respondent. \n\n L.N. Sinha, A.K Panda and Ashwani Kumar for the Respon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 96,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 182,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 196,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 206,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 224,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 257,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 291,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 302,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 320,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He concedes that the Supreme Court can exercise an unrestricted power of reviewing the judgment of the High Court in the case of a certificate hedged in with conditions by resorting to its power under Art. 136 of the Constitution, but this is not a case where it can do so especially having regard to the fact that the appellant did not seek to invoke that power.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 34,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 209,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 229,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Balaji and other cases, it was assumed that reservations are necessarily anti-meritarian.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulaben Jayantilal Nakum and Others (1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 552 heavy reliance upon which was placed by Mr. Rajive Atma Ram, learned senior counsel for the School, does not, in our opinion, lend any assistance to the School or its Management.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 148,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 208,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, the intention of the Parliament is unequivocally clear from the language employed that a mere information relating to commission of a cognizable offence is sufficient to register an FIR.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 37,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In accordance with this decision a writ of certiorari shall be issued setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and remanding the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for disposal in accordance with law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He\t had executed a promissory note in favour of one Anantha\tIyer who, after his death, instituted a suit against his\t son Sankara Subha Iyer for recovery of the amount thereunder and obtained a decree.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 67,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 147,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Petitioners belonged either to the Madhya Pradesh District Police Force or the Madhya Pradesh special Armed Force.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 75,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 117,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Undoubtedly, the Supreme Court in that case held that although the colour of the cloth had changed by printing and processing, the cloth exported was the same as the cloth sold by the petitioners and they were therefore entitled to the exemption under the notification.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 30,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India , Supreme Court observed:\n ... the duty of a lawyer is to assist the Court in the administration of justice, the practice of law has a public utility flavour and, therefore, he must strictly and scrupulously abide by the Code of Conduct.... \n\nAgain in Sanjeev Datta , Supreme Court observed- 20...",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 65,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 81,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 331,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 347,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the instant case the lease deed dated 19.8.1991 relied upon by the appellants/petitioners shows that the tenanted premises was let out to M/s Gill & Company G\u00ad45, Connaught Circus, New Delhi through its partner Naresh Bhasin s/o late Madan Lal Bhasin.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 193,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 227,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 253,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The seizure witnesses about those empty cartridges, seized from the place of the incident, are PW 12 Narmada Prasad and Panch PW 8 Ramprasad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 115,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 140,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Kapil Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 50,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dr. N. M. Ghatate for Respondent in CA. 1658/80.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 47,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our opinion, tlierefore,\"t.t__ie Courts of Gujarat andJAndhraj a're:_j_ right and",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 53,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above quoted sentence from Ganga Saran's case cannot be read torn out of the context.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "2.11 That the applicant-accused preferred a Criminal Misc. Application No. 9914 of 2013 before this Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, inter alia, praying for quashing of the F IR dated 16.12.2011 registered with the CBI bearing FIR No. BSI/S.2011/0005 as well as to quash and set aside the Order dated 6.6.2013, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section-82 of the Code for proclamation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 87,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 123,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 154,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 217,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 241,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 332,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 409,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "With the promulgation and enforcement of the Delhi Land Reforms Act 1954, by virtue of Section 7 of the Act, treating the land as waste land, it is the stand of the Government that the land stood automatically vested in the gaon sabha by operation of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 72,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 96,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dharma and Amar Nath, prosecution witnesses, were sitting on chairs opposite him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 11,
"end": 20,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondents placed reliance on the deci- sions of Lahore High Court had Oudh High Court in Jagat Singh and others v. District Board Amritsar, AIR 1940 Lahore 18 and Thakur Prasad v.J. Thomkinson, AIR 1927 Oudh 206.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 71,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 164,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 217,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 17, 1958, of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1635 of 1953, A. S. R. Chari, S. Pichai and S. Venkatakrishnan, for the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 55,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 120,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 136,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 147,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 170,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel for the assessee Shri Dastur reiterated that the two cement units and one Ispat Unit were part of the same business and, therefore, interest paid on borrowings was to be deductible under s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 220,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the cases of Captain Jagjit Singh and Sunder Lal, the Supreme Court and High Court examined the case of each applicant on its own footing, even though co-accused had been released on bail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W. 5 was the doctor who had examined P.W.4 Meena and issued Ext.P6 wound certificate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 50,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When two registered documents confirmed a particular fact, any oral evidence contra to that established fact is inadmissible unless those recitals are on account of fraud or misrepresentation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court observed as follows:\n The earlier application which was rejected by the High Court was an application under Section 561 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceeding and the High Court rejected it on the ground that the evidence was yet to be led and it was not desirable to interfere with the preceding at that stage.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 164,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 198,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The doctor in attendance Dr. Kanikdale (P.W. 14) at once questioned him about the incident and Baboolat is said to have made a statement to the doctor which the latter noted in the bed- head ticket (Ex. P-17) that he had been assaulted by Khu- shal and Tukaram with swords and spears.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 38,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 248,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 260,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ex.P.273 Cheque dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.46,25,000/- issued by M/s.Praveen & Co. \n\nEx.P.274 Cheque dated 10-04-2001 for Rs.6,00,000/- issued by M/s.Thirumala's.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 32,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 79,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 114,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 158,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Bose submitted that Clauses 53.2 and 53.3 of the FIDIC Conditions made it abundantly clear that any claim for additional payment had to be supported by contemporary records, interim accounts and final accounts which would have to be submitted to the engineer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 8,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 2(ii) (a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, before that section was amended in 1965 so far as it is material provided :\n \"2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 17,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 51,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pursuant to the observations made by the Hon ble Apex Court in Para-3 of the Order, the applicant accused preferred Criminal Misc. Application No.166 of 2013 under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before the learned Special Judge, CBI Cases Court, Ahmedabad, on 29.7.2013 and requested to release him anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR dated 16.12.2011 registered at RC.BSI/S/2011/0005/8353.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 157,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 175,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 212,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 274,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 288,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 379,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before one goes into a close and indepth analysis of Sub-section (1) (which admittedly is the provision applicable here), it is necessary to look at the broad scheme of the employer's liability for compensation provided by Section 3 as a whole.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 232,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": ": \n\n\n(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao) This is an appeal filed u/S.21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 by the National Investigation Agency (for short, 'NIA'), Hyderabad, challenging the order dt.26.11.2012 of the IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short \"the Sessions Court\") in Crl.M.P.No.569 of 2012, vide Spl. Sc. No.1 of 2011 of CBI Police Station in NIA Cr.No.2 of 2011.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 52,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 84,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 131,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 168,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 198,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 235,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 349,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 356,
"end": 377,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 423,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But this phenomenon occurs even in the case of the print media of all the countries.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has next to be seen as to what exactly is the meaning of the expression 'otherwise invalid' in Clause (c) of Section 30 of the Arbitration Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 122,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 145,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I have heard Ld. APP for State and Sh. R.M. Tuffail and Sh. M.C. Dhingra, counsels for all the accused persons and have gone through the material placed on record with evidence adduced. \nFinding qua offence U/s. 364 read with Section 120B of IPC/U/s. 302 of IPC read with Section 120B of IPC and U/s. 201 of IPC read with Section 120B of IPC:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 215,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 238,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 245,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 254,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 261,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 284,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 291,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 304,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 311,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 334,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 341,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under the Coal Mines Labour Fund Act, 1947, Coal Mines Labour Housing Board (which will hereinafter be referred to as \"the Board\") was constituted for the construction of low cost houses for persons employed in the coal mines industries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 42,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 75,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But, from this it does not follow that the very State that enacts a law, that too a taxation law, should also place itself in the same position with all other persons or assessees and subject itself to the very same procedures and incidents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Since it is not disputed that the Subsistence Allowance was not paid to the appellant during the pendency of the departmental proceedings, we have to take strong notice of it, particularly as it is not suggested by the respondents that the appellant had any other source of income.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court held that the appeal could not proceed against the other brother either.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The reasons recorded by the trial court for rejecting the evidence of p.W . 1, Ramdeo Ram and of his wife Puljharia, P. W. 9., were considered by the High Court to be \"much too infirm\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 89,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 115,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I. S. Tiwana, J, as he then was, who decided that case was of the opinion that only consideration that should prevail with the authorities for the purposes of these admissions should be the rating of these candidates in the light of their performance in the field of sports.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rooms in Tirupathi were taken in the name of taxi driver V. Ramasmy (PW-107).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 18,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 67,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During your tenure as Deputy Manager (Advance) of Calcutta Branch, you had processed, jointly with the Asstt. Manager (Advance), proposal for sanction of Bills Discount Limits of Rs. 25.00 lacs each to 18 companies which are directly or indirectly associated/connected with Hemraj Mahabir Prasad (HMP) Group enjoying substantial credit facilities with the Bank, as per An-nexure 'A' hereto.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 58,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 295,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In a minority opinion, I emphasised the need for judicial restraint and the duty to avoid encroachment on the powers conferred upon Parliament.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 142,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On account of the same, the accused became angry on them and went to his old house and brought a double barrel gun and came in front of the house, with an intention to cause the murder of the deceased Basavanni.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 201,
"end": 210,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whether the particular sale of the property of the company is void as having been made after commencement of the winding-up proceedings is necessarily a question that arises in winding up and such a question can be examined and disposed of at the instance of the liquidator by the High Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The law on the question of consideration of charge is well settled.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Generally speaking, it is the amount of damages incurred which is determinative of the extent of liability in tort; but in criminal law it is not the determinative of liability.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Again, PW 1 would have it believed that he had Rs. 30/- in all with, him which he gave to the appellant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "2013 (6) Scale",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Marriages of defendants 3, 4 and 5 and plaintiff No. 2 were performed by Narayanrao during his life time; and the marriages of plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 3 Usha took place in Chidambar Rajaram Mandir at Govaves Belgaum at one and the same time, and plaintiff No. 1 also attended the marriages.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 83,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 167,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 206,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 225,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He would further submit that challenge to the validity of rule after declaration of the result and after the time-table for holding the main examination has been issued is thus not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches and that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3346/2000 has no locus standi to file such petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 255,
"end": 282,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have no hesitation in holding that the rule of construction enunciated by s. 21 of the General Clauses Act in so far as it refers to the power of rescinding or cancelling the original order cannot be invoked in respect of the provisions of s. 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 82,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 109,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 251,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 282,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But it had then discovered that the real accused were Intertek and Prasanna Ghotage, who had together conspired to defraud not only DLC, but also SMC in the transaction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 83,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An appeal lies to the Supreme Court against I the decision of the High Court son certificate, by the High, Court under Arts. 132, 133 and 134(c) of the Constitution and as of right under Art. 134(l)(a) and (b) and with the special leave of the Supreme Count under! Art. 116 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 35,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 144,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 164,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 209,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 257,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 273,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 293,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Merely by showing that the first\t condition is satisfied, the Revenue cannot ask the Court to presume that the second condition too is\tfulfilled, because even in case where the first condition of 15% difference is satisfied, the transaction may be a perfectly honest and bonafide transaction and there may be\t no understatement of the\t consideration.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The new clause in Article 19(6) of the Constitution was added by the First Constitution Amendment which was enforced with effect from 18-6-1951.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 31,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 51,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 143,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reliance is placed upon judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Payal Vision Ltd. Vs. Radhika Chaudhary, VII (2012) SLT 303.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 80,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 155,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The vehicle was parked facing Kalyan and PW-1 Madhukar went to the Dhaba cri-appeal-471-05.sxw while he and the deceased waited in the car.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 36,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 54,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 94,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under the Indian Evidence Act, a witness's credit can be impeached under ss. 145 and 155 of that Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 29,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 88,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was only then and on the basis of his title that he was able to claim possession of the property from the vendee.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The doctrine of severability rests, as will presently be shown, on a presumed intention of the legislature that if a part of a statute turns out to be void, that should not affect the validity of the rest of it, and that that intention is to be ascertained from the terms of the statute.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPT. OF TRANSPORT M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 22,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 91,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 102,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now, it is trite that the object and (1) [1946] F.C.R. 67, 84.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 57,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is only the proviso to section 12(1) which mandates that the Magistrate shall consider the DIR \"received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 39,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rule 9 of these Rules is important and it provides as follows:\n\"9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Apparently on the particular point before us other States are not accepting the Allahabad High Court decision declaring Section 29 of the Indian Arms Act unconstitutional and void.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 100,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 130,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 153,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "favour of the defendant no.1 and against the plaintiff.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Special public awareness campaigns in anticipation of festivals, events and ceremonial occasions whereat firecrackers are likely to be used, need to be carried out.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The R.W.1 has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that, the Respondent No.1 had issued Policy bearing No.10003/31/14/077897 in favour of the Respondent No.1 in respect of the vehicle Medium Goods Vehicle TATA 1109 Tempo bearing Registration No.TN-70-D- 1803, valid from the period from 01.06.2013 to 31.05.2014.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 130,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 303,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 317,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, these injuries could have been caused by appellants Krishan Lal and Balbir Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 74,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 91,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have therein referred to the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court In Re: Nalla Baligadu, (FB) and held that not only an order of discharge passed under sub-section (2) of S. 251-A is revisable even when the order of discharge is in respect of a few accused or some of the offences and no reasons are assigned to show why the charge is groundless.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 98,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 190,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This view was followed in M/s. Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax & others (1).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 99,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is, in fact, another piece of evidence which clearly establishes that the detailed facts in regard to the allegations against S. N. Kumar were discussed between the Chief Justice of Delhi and the Chief Justice of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 143,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 193,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 224,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957 1959 SCR 995, p.1047, the contention of the State of Kerala was that in order to constitute a minority for the purposes of Articles 29(1) and 30(1), persons must be numerically in the minority in the particular area or locality in which educational institution is or is intended to be constituted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 47,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 94,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 182,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case, we have noted earlier in this judgment that the learned single Judge had recorded that alternative premises had been offered to the appellant / plaintiff, but she refused to accept the same and insisted on retaining the second floor of the property in question claiming it to be her \u201ematrimonial home\u201f. \n\n49.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In examining any transaction and situation of this nature the Court would have more regard to the reality and speciality of the situation rather than the purely theoretical or doctrinaire aspect of it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The idea of the learned Judges in 'Sachindra Kumar Bose's case' (S) that transfer by the court of the District Judge is a necessary condition for the acquisition of jurisdiction by a subordinate court to execute such a decree does not appear to be in accord with the principles laid down by the judgment in 'AIR 1928 P.C. 162 (R).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 329,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As regard the factual position it was submitted that the petitioner Srlmanta Mondal attained the age of 60 years on 1.1.94 but despite filing of application for grant of extension, no formal extension was granted but the had been continuing as teacher and is still working.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 83,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 122,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There was a cut wound on the head of Chand Khan due to which the bone of the occipital region cracked and Dr. R.P. Sharma (PW.3) deposed that he had found the skull wound which resulted in cracking of the skull.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 121,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Treating it as writ petition on February 25, 1992 this court issued rule nisi to the first respondent, initially to make immediate appointment of the President of the CEGAT, prefer- ably a senior High Court Judge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 49,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 172,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The recovery of bullets from the dead body of the deceased and made by PW 6 could not be challenged seriously.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Court may adjourn the hearing of the application made to it pending the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 105,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Their (unction is faithfully to carry out what Parliament has decreed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 57,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Medical Evidence with respect to age \n\n7.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to him the investigating officer has obtained sanction under the Arms Act from the Additional District Magistrate on 2-11-2001.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 83,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 123,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 136,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Another distinction between Sections 376 E and 376(2) (i) IPC is as wide discretion is vested in the courts in relation awarding of punishment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 57,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 61,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, duties of customs and excise were regarded by every one as typical instances of indirect taxation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As far as village Jaswanti is concerned, the same is located 13 kilometers from Kaithal town.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 26,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT Writ Petition Nos.29374 of 2016 and batch 04-07-2017 Jakir Hussain Kosangi and others ..Petitioners State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Respondents",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 79,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 129,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 150,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 173,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 222,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner and respondent No. 5, Chhoga La], offered bids at the auction sale.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 46,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant Tulasamma opposed this application which was ultimately dismissed on October 16, 1946.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 23,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 99,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is the case of the prosecution that the accused appellant Popatbhai hit a blow on the head of Fulabhai, the deceased, with a spade and the original accused no.7 Mohanbhai Dabhi (Harijan) hit a blow on the body of the PW19 Hirabhai with a stick.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 70,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 179,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 188,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 233,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus foicsecability becomes the effective test in reasserting this principle their Lordships concive that they do not depart from, but follow and develop, the law of negligence as laid down by Baron Alder son in Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks Co.. (1956) 11 Ex 781 at p. 784.\" \n 6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 212,
"end": 264,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the word `use' has to be viewed in its common meaning.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Further as indicated by the Apex Court in its decision in the case of Mathuralal Vs. Keshar Bai and another, reported in AIR 1971 SC 310 at page 315 lessee's possession cannot be adverse to the owner and the latters's title cannot be extinguished by the lessee being in possession for any length of lime.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 38,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 136,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Harpreet Singh Inspector/SHO (PW17) and his (appellant's No.1) father-in-law namely Kuljit Singh Dhillon",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 104,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P Dayal examined PW 3 Prahladram on 7-9-1977 at about 11 am.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 32,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 44,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The table given is not exhaustive but it is only a guidance to the Tribunal as well as courts in fixing just and reasonable compensation. \n48.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The crucial question in this case to be considered is, even if the inadmissible or unbelievable portion of deposition of PW41 is excluded, whether the remaining deposition of PW41 is acceptable or sufficient to prove the conspiracy aspect of the prosecution cases against the accused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The first case is the decision of the Supreme Court in Bimal Chandra Banerjee v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1959 SC 169.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 120,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The history of industrial relations in this country shows that various aspects of giving protection to workers and making provisions for enforcement on the privileges granted to industrial workers are attempted in different legislation's both by the Central and the State Governments.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is suggested on behalf of the plaintiff that these entries referred to defendant No. 7 Saryug Prasad Tiwary and they proved that the entire family has been doing contract business for a long time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 110,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A distinction has to be borne in mind in regard to a claim made by the insured in respect of damage of his vehicle or filed by the owner or any passenger of the vehicle as contradistinguished from a claim made by a third party.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The accused persons have thus exercised their right of private defence, therefore, it must be held on that basis that Section 149 of IPC was not applicable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 129,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 136,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Nagpur decision as also the above Supreme Court decision were approved by a 7 member Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 68.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 171,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Basing on the complaint of the petitioner, the Station House Officer, Atchampet Police Station, Mahabubnagar District registered a case in Crime No.30 of 2007 for the offences under Section 498A, 506 and 509 IPC against the first respondent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 117,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 158,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 207,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 211,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He submits that if a statute prescribes notification to be published in government gazette and if the same has not been done, the alleged non compliance of prior permission pursuant to section 9 cannot be insisted upon and would not render the proposal and construction illegal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 194,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sureshwar Jha was treated in Rahman's Nursing Home and from there he was referred to Patna.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 90,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, a clear distinction is made by the learned Chief Justice in this case between agreements entered into by the collector as a subordinate to the Commissioner and the Collector as the agent Of the Secretary of State.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The criminal investigation should be allowed to proceed and should not be thwarted by the Court, simply because, it is of the opinion that the FIR does not disclose an offence against the accused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Parliament also amend- ed clause (3) of Article 269.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 55,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the cross examination of PW4 Sajikumar before the Commission the following was made as suggestions on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.18145 of 2013:-\n\n \"On 25.11.12 at about 5.30 a.m, the petitioner went for a morning walk along with Sri.Bhasurangan and during that time he felt chest pain and after some time, at his instance, he was taken to his house in the car by Saji.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 41,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 158,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 173,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 258,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 381,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He saved himself with the help of his lathi.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The witnesses are not on good terms with Gajanand Prasad, respondent 2, and appear to support the case of defendant 1 only to satisfy their grudge against him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 56,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The expression 'comprehensive policy' was explained by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore 1988 ACJ 270 (SC).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 72,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 138,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But that does not prove that the vehicle did not have a permit on 27-7-1990, when the accident occurred.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 75,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology (supra) the majority judgment considered a catena of decisions on the point and it has been observed in paragraph-25 of the judgment (SCC p.129) that - \"the tests propounded by Mathew, J. in Sukhdev Singh were elaborated in Ramana and were reformulated two years later by a Constitution Bench in Ajay Hasia.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 67,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 211,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 253,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 274,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 376,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded false implication.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 31,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 41,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as, the exclusive competence of the Union Parliament to legislate is concerned, all that is necessary is to find out whether the particular topic of legislation is in List 11 or List 111.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Be it as it may, we are not inclined to adjudicate at this stage as to whether the petitioner is guilty of offences punishable under the TADA lest it may pre-judice the case of any one of the parties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 141,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Question No. 125 - Given the statements: All windows are doors and no door is wall. \n\n (A) No window is wall (B) No wall is door (C) Some windows are walls (D) None of these.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff has not produced even a chit by way of documentary evidence to show that after the death of Chand Mian (in 1950 as per paragraph 13 of the written statement of defendant no.1 Bibi Zohra ), his vendors inherited 6 annas share and became owner of the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 199,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 18.07.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) Vimal JUDGE",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 13,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 31,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 60,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During testimonies of PW-8 (Sandeep Singh SHO), PW-9 (Billu Ram Chowkidar) and PW-12 (Rajbir Singh BDPO), it emerged that the appellant was found in possession of poppy husk in his house and this circumstance appearing against him was put to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 73,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 98,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But if he is not selected, the ASRB may draw the merit list in respect of remaining 21 unfilled vacancies from amongst those who were called for viva voce test and who were not selected because some of them like petitioner did not obtained minimum qualifying marks at viva voce test.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 35,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He did not succeed in the examination.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the same date, the respondent brought in this Court a suit against the appellant, being Suit No. 1298 of 1954, claiming damages assessed by it at Rs. 60,000/- for breach of warranty and, in the alternative for an enquiry as to the quantum of damages suffered on account of diminution of price or on any other basis which the Court might consider appropriate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 112,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was the contention of the present Plaintiff before the tribunal that the claimant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,76,058.90 as damages towards over claiming of the said amount of Rs.9,56,561.80 as escalation charges.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It could be argued that the Principal Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam had himself inspected the property and had differed from the opinion of the Agricultural Assistant Director.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 69,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this respect, he placed reliance on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Eknath v. State of Maharastra wherein it was laid down as under:\n In an appeal against inadequancy of sentence it is not permissible to alter the conviction to an aggrevated cateogory of offence for which the accused was not convicted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 122,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The same view is shared by Krishna Iyer, J. in his concurring judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 39,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further thereto the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways appointed a two Member Committee comprising of the Director General (Road Development) and Special Secretary and Member- Technical, NHAI to review the entire matter.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 39,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 90,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 227,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "order in KuZsum's case, the to challenge the judgment of the batch of appeals.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The general public would be in dilemma to obey or not to obey such law and it ultimately falls into disrepute.'\n\n 82.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(Page 345 in 'The Hindu Law of Religious and Charitable Trust by B. K. Mukherjea).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Later, this witness was referred to Civil Hospital, Kapurthala, where his son Surjit Singh and nephew Joga Singh (PW1) informed him that the accused persons also committed murder of his brother Mohinder Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 62,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 112,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 208,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "certainly that record would be a relevant record to be placed before the selection authority i.e.. UPSC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 103,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The right of the arrested person to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice postulates that there is an accusation against him against which he has to be defended.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The provisions of section 20-A were challenged.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 30,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case the Supreme Court accepted the finding of the High Court that the act of letting by the mortgagee in possession was a prudent act and having found so, held that the respondents of that appeal were not liable to eviction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 30,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "] 2 S.C.R. 272; State of Orissa v.\nDr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors., [1967] 2 S.C.R. 625; State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, [1952] S.C.R. 284\t and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 621, relied on.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 88,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 152,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 210,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If there is (1) 65 I.A. 119, 127 a demand for change in the Muslim Personal Law, it should actually come from the Muslim Community itself and we should wait for the Muslim public opinion on these matters to crystalise before we try to change this customary right or make changes in their personal law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 31st December, 1973 he and other persons were preparing to go for Shiv Temple which was some 2-3 miles away from Sanderao.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 22,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 124,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These aspects were highlighted by one of us (D. K. Jain J) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India [(1996) 220 ITR 248].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 55,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 129,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner Dr. Gupta filed Review Petition No. 79 of 1976 requesting the Court to review its order dismissing the special leave petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 20,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 57,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which came into force on September 3, 1953, and Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 2200A (XXI) of December 16, 1966, which came into force on March 23, 1976.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 96,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 139,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 155,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 215,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 291,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 332,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It would then have been unnecessary to consider the evidence in that detail in which the High Court has gone into it, and thus load the (1) [1951] S.C.R.676. \n\ndice against the appellant, when the case goes back for retrial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 156,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is this conflict that is reflected in these cases referred to the Constitution Bench.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 87,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is dated 11.1.1988 and is in the name of Km. Indira.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appeal No. 4 of 1955 is dismissed also without costs.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 20,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Bachawat, J.-I agree with the conclusions of the learned Chief Justice and the order proposed by him, and will add a few words of my own.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Smt. Dulari the daughter of Sarju Rai was married to Jamuna Prasad whose sons are Shambhu Saran and Bhairon Prasad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 114,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, at the instance of father of Shivani, FIR No.97/2009 at Police Station Lahori Gate, Delhi was registered under Section 363 IPC on 10.8.2009 to which later on Section 366 and 376 were added.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 45,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 131,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 135,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 148,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 186,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The notice given to the petitioner is admittedly under Rule 12 of the Rules and, therefore, the Board is entitled to enquire into the conduct of the petitioner, and Devarajan as one of the members of the Board would, therefore, normally be entitled to participate in the enquiry.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 62,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 174,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In England a dying declaration is not admissible to prove rape [R Vs. Newton, 1 F & F 641], or robbery [R V Lloyd, 4 C & P 233].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 10,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, it is abundantly clear that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge about the mistake in recording the evidence of the first witness, by the committal court, has not been challenged at any stage in the court below.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore this decision is of no help to the petitioners.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has been argued that as per section 17 (1) IT Act, if a person desires that a telephone line or a post should be removed to another part, he may require the telegraph authority to remove or alter the line or post accordingly.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 52,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(iv) Kesho Nath Khurana v. Union of India, 1981 Supp SCC 38 : \n \"It was this question which was referred by the Single Judge to the Division Bench and the Division Bench disposed it of by its judgment dated April 7, 1980.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 220,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was followed by Mr. Som Nath Iyer, learned counsel for the respondent Union in Civil Appeal 2317 of 1972.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 107,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But in my opinion, that cannot be a ground for suggesting that due to the dismissal of R. N. Kumar. for whose dismissal, plaintiff Etwari Sahu also voted at the Municipal meeting, the defendant was annoyed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 98,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 142,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Later, accused 2 to 4 joined P.W. 38 in the car.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW-4: Hanumantha PW-5: Chandrashekhar PW-6: Ramanna PW-7: Gopal PW-8: Narayana Shetty PW-9: Hanumaiah PW-10: Nanjundaiah PW-11: Dr.Kumaraswamy PW-12: Honnegowda PW-13:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 16,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 37,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 51,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 63,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 85,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 101,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 120,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 142,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 160,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The principle of public policy is this : ex dolo malo non oritur actio.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Earlier its name was Chowdhry Plast Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 40,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The seals of two parcels from the specimen seal impression on Exh. 15 were tallied and the Assistant Chemical Analyser Shri Vivek R. Dhole (P.W. 1) took notes on paper (Exh. 16) and carried out analysis on 8-10-1991 and found that heroin was present in the samples and the samples were containing 40-60% of heroin.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 138,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 215,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The report of PW\u00ad1 dated 29.08.2013 is on record as Ex.PW1/A, wherein she has explained the physical and mental condition of the child as under:\n U/s 6 POCSO Act r/w Section 376(2)(i)/506 IPC: \"Acquitted\" Page 11 of 17 SC No.185/2013: FIR No.361/2013: PS Aman Vihar: State V/s Sohan Lal @ Sonu DOD: 09.04.2015",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 35,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 151,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 161,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 187,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 191,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 233,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 265,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 293,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 309,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The acquitted accused are Ram Parvesh Yadav (A-8) and Bhajwan Yadav alias Gorakh Kahar (A-9)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 86,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Art. 225 provides that subject to the provisions of the. Constitution the jurisdiction of the pre-existing High Courts as also the powers of the Judges thereof including the power to make rules regulating the procedure for the exercise of the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court by a single Judge or by a Bench Of two or more Judges",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 69,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Vijay vs. Indian Airlines & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court has held that when absence is for a very long period, it may amount to voluntarily abandonment of service and in that eventuality, the bonds of service come to an end automatically without requiring any order to be passed by the employer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 34,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused/appellant Rajendra Singh was arrested and country made KATTA was recovered on his intimation by Investigating Officer Virendra Bahadur Singh (PW.13).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 148,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that, being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka he has preferred writ appeal No. 1488/2007 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the said appeal also came to be 33 CT0028_O.S._2350_2010_Judgment_ . \n\ndismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 126,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 169,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 208,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This very petitioner filed a third petition bearing C. W. J. C. No. 591 of 1967, which was admitted on 21-9-67, impleading the State of Bihar as respondent No. 1 and U. K. Verma as respondent No. 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 79,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 110,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 141,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 177,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court passed in the matter of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P reported in AIR 2014 Supreme Court 187.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 116,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 209,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In case of a conflict between the two entries, the true character of the impugned enactment as a whole including its object, scope and effect should be examined and the principle of pith and substance should be applied.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But if the claimants choose to implead the insurer as a party, not being a noticee under section 149(2), the insurer can urge all grounds and not necessarily the limited grounds mentioned in section 149(2)of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 211,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I have had the benefit of reading in advance the judgment of my learned Brother Chinnappa Reddy, J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 95,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He expressly took notice of the fact that all the three petitioners had been specifically named in the first information report and further Zamiruddin, petitioner, had been so named by four other eye witnesses in their statements under Section 161 whilst Latfur Rahman and Belel, petitioners, had been similarly named by six eye witnesses.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 150,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 247,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 268,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 278,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Temporary deck will be collected from ONGC and taken to MII yard.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 42,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above judgment was approved by a Division Bench of this Court in Rajappan Nair v. State of Kerala and others (1984 KLT 141).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 127,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The wording of the said clause would show that it was an option given to OCA with regard to the EMD.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 76,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter on tile 24th February, 1975 Shri Madhu Limaye, the appellant, filed an application to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 38,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mrs. Schneider's claim to recover their out-of-pocket expenses in order to reimburse them was allowed by Paul], J. as their services became reasonably necessary as a consequence of the accident and the expenses were reasonable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as the other petitioner C. C. Shah is concerned, it is an admitted fact that he was the chairman of the Dispensary Committee at the relevant point of time when the alleged acts of misconduct or disgraceful conduct were committed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 41,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The right extended not merely to the matter which he was entitled to circulate but also to the volume of circulation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mukhtiar Singh PW4 in his reply has stated that he is not aware whether alleged Jagsir Singh has been found alive or not.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 92,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitions were admitted by the Delhi High Court on 22nd June, 1977, but ultimately dismissed on 10th January 1978, by a common judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 70,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 117,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Bearing in mind the relevant provisions of the 1947 Act as they stood both before and after the amendment and the period of their applicability we now proceed to consider the points urged before us by the learned Attorney General appearing for the-appellant company.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We do so, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the court below. \n\n K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 99,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 120,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The then Hon'ble Gajendragadkar, J., delivering the judgment on behalf of himself, Wanchoo and Dasgupta, JJ., considered the provisions of the the following observations contained in Paras 43, 50, 52 and 53 are very important for the purpose of considering the case in hand which read under:\n... Article 301 applies not only to inter-State trade, commerce and intercourse but also to inter-State trade, commerce and in course.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 31,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 90,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 103,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 307,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection, it has been urged that the arbitrators have misused the letters of Chief Engineer with regard to shortage of gelatin (Ex. R- 148).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Further, she was attending her husband's Mandolin concerts in Hyderabad from her 7th class student days onwards and she adored his concerts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 71,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Bombay High Court was inclined to agree with the view of the Madras High Court in K. Rathnam's case [1969] 71 ITR 433 (Mad) and the view of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Jacob's case [1973] 89 ITR 88 and did not agree with the observations of this court in Mohanbhai Pamabhai's case [1973] 91 ITR 393.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 21,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 96,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 127,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 183,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 192,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 216,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 294,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 317,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On Decem- ber 19, 1952 a notice was given to the Railway Company for and on behalf of the President of India that the undertaking of the Railway Company would be purchased and taken over as from January 1, 1954.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 22,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 108,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 210,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both these appeals have been referred to us by an order of reference dated 19.06.2009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Crl. Appeal No. 318-SB of 1997 --35-- 15.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 30,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "per annum on the market value of the shares to the petitioner, Suresh Rao, till the date of payment of the value of his shares.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 73,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Second proviso to section 143 of the Act of 1881 carves out two exceptions to try a complaint by summons trial case or other procedure given under CrPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 29,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 151,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He carried Renuka to Aurangabad by Bus.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 31,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "With regard to the third question, since the question is academic in nature, we need not go into the same.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Accused Suruchi Sharma is also held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Section 120\u00adB IPC read with Sections 420/468/471 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 100,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 104,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 135,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 139,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As noted earlier, the petitioner before this Court had duly disclosed his involvement in the criminal cases.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The judgment in Bhagwandas case was rendered wayback in the year 1987 by this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has also referred us to the evidence given by Mr. Sen which tends to show that the appellant was frightened by the prospect of investigation and so, suddenly left Kanpur under the pretext of illness.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 172,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(A) If the excise duty paid by the assessee was ultimately passed on to the buyers or any other person, and that the assessee has suffered no loss or injury, the action for restitution based on Section 72 of the Contract Act, is unsustainable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 194,
"end": 204,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 224,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That apart, entry tax is a distinct subject covered under Entry 52 to List- II of Schedule VII of the Constitution, whereas Sales Tax or VAT fall in a different category, i.e. under Entry 54 to List-II of Schedule VII.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 114,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 217,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In terms of the evidence produced on record by them, they are entitled to at least ` 22,00,000/- per acre.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Mitter's argument is that the petition to the Home Minister made by Idris Ali though undated, must have been made before the 4th of March, 1960 when the Home Minister made an endorsement upon it to the effect-- \"For a thorough enquiry, necessary action and report.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 81,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 147,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "12. Rule 49-A also does not in any way violate the provisions of Article 21 but it deals with a special circumstance, namely where the government servant is under detention.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 75,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The two respondents who are indisputably the owners of a house situate at Vikasnagar in the district of Dehradun the boundaries of which are described at the foot of the plaint, instituted the suit giving rise to the present second appeal, against the State of Uttar Pradesh, the said Hem Chandra Joshi, District Industries Officer Dehradun and K. N. Rai. Foreman.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 84,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 112,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 274,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 302,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 340,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 354,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He deposed that the plaintiff had got the said rent agreement prepared at a court complex near India Gate and stamp paper for preparation of the same had been purchased by him from Seelampur Court complex.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 196,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case, the vires of the Bengal Money-lenders Act was questioned on the ground that though \"money-lending and money-lenders\" were within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature under' Entry 27 of List IT, it trenched upon incidentally on \"Promissory Notes and Banking\" which were subject-matters reserved for the Federal Legislature under Entries 28 and 38 of List I.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 55,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh. P.C. Tiwari, LDC from the office of the Sub Registrar, Nand Nagari, Delhi has been examined by the plaintiff as PW4 and this witness exhibited the certified copy of the GPA in favour of Sh. Prem Chand executed by the plaintiff as Ex. PW4/1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 70,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 77,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 204,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By this application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Ajmer s/o Arjun Singh Nunia has prayed for grant of bail being implicated in Crime No.313/15 registered by Police Station Kanwan, District-Dhar for offence under Section 363, 366-ka, 366, 344, 506, 376 (2) (dh), 376 (2) (jh,) of IPC and S. 6(da) of POCSO Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 58,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 74,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 96,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 197,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 212,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 293,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 301,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 314,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 327,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In rejoinder arguments, the Ld. Advocate for the defendant had relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Transport Corporation of India Ltd. v Veljan Hydrair Ltd. 2007 (2) CPJ 35 and submitted that Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 bars the filing of a suit but does not debar a defendant from contesting the suit filed against it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 198,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 228,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 254,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC, the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to grant an ex parte interim injunction order when it comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff made out prima facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable injury, which cannot be compensated in terms of money, if the interim injunction is not granted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 24,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 28,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The husband was employed in Delhi and he could not be expected to leave his job and try to win back the affection and confidence of his wife in her parent's house at Aligarh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 33,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 173,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Jyni v. Raphel P.T. (2016 (2) KHC 870), after referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (2009 (6) SCC 1), Shyamwati Sharma's case (2010 (12) M.A.C.A.No.850/2016 SCC 378), etc., we have held that the conventional amount of 15,000/- awarded under the head loss of estate represents just and reasonable compensation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 41,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 93,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 132,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 152,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 198,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this writ petition, the petitioners, inter alia, seek a direction to the Competent Authority to look into the grievance of the petitioners with regard to illegal development of colony by the respondent Nos.10 and 11 in contravention of the provision of M.P.Municipal Corporation Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 256,
"end": 285,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under Section 10(2) (x), Income-tax Act, the bonus or commission is subject to the test of reasonableness, and the department has jurisdiction under that section to determine a reasonable amount as deduction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 23,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 39,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pal, AIR 2002 SC 1644, wherein explaining the scope of Sub-sections (5) and (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C, the Court held that the word \"shall\" used in sub-section (5) for requiring the Police Officer to.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 117,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 190,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 197,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 259,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is urged by Mr. Manchanda, that these receipts have been described in the bye-law 50 as deposits, but we fail to see how they can really be regarded as deposits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even if all the averments made in the FIR are taken to be correct, the case for prosecution under sections 420 and 467 IPC is not made out against the appellants.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 118,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 122,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All remittances were received through their London Branch for the credit of M/s. Raja Ram Bhasin & Co., for purchase of shares on behalf of the thirteen companies.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 50,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 102,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "relying on the decisions in In Re Punnya and Mahabab Alii Khan (supra) of the Madras High Court and other decisions taking the same view it was held that such amounts could not be recovered by resort to Section 74 of the Old Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 95,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 213,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": ", a two-judge bench of this Court while considering the question as regard grant of relief or reinstatement, observed:\n\"The general rule of reinstatement in the absence of special circumstances was also recognised in the case of Workmen of Assam Match Co. Ltd. v. \nPresiding Officer, Labour Court, Assam and has again been affirmed recently in Tulsidas Paul v. Second Labour Court, W.B.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 229,
"end": 303,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 344,
"end": 386,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To counter this reasoning it is pointed out that Parliament under the Union List has the residuary power of legislation and, therefore, there is no difficulty in giving a wider meaning to the expression \"taken possession of or acquired\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The payment of the amount covered under a cheque can be stopped by the drawer thereof by intimation to the bank in time before the cheque is encashed and in such an event the cheque would stand dishonoured.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This obviously is a point which has to be stated merely to be rejected.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That was the act of the appellant U.I.T. and not of the respondent Laxmichand.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To deny to the government the power to recruit temporary staff drawing the same pay and doing the same work as other permanent incumbents within the cadre strength but governed by different rules and conditions of service, it might be including promotions, would be to impose restraints on the manner of administration which we believe was not intended by the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 360,
"end": 372,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears that the Board, however, continued to function even afterwards and on 25-11-1954, the term was extended under Section 15 of the Act up to 31-3-1955, or till the new Board took over, whichever was earlier.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 91,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 131,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 158,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Neither \"capital expenditure\" nor \"revenue expenditure\" has been denned in the repealed Indian I.T. Act, 1922, or the LT. Act, 1961.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 109,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 131,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the course of such assessment m the trustee, all exemptions, deductions, abatements and refunds will be required to be given as the beneficiary would have been entitled to in case of direct assessment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The reservation in promotions in all the services or posts under the State of Uttar Pradesh was in vogue from March 1973.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 91,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Nanavati, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company, strenuously contended before this Court by relying upon the panchnama of the place of the accident that there being a divider in the street where the accident had occurred, the Maruti car coming from the opposite direction could not have collided with the scooter driven by the deceased which was coming from the opposite direction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1.The Home Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, St. George Fort, Chennai-600 009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 41,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 67,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 110,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh. Ram Prakash Sharma and Sh. Megh Raj were examined by the plaintiff as PW2 and PW3 respectively who tendered their evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/1 and Ex.PW3/1 respectively in respect of the rate of rent between the parties and the witnesses were duly cross examined.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 22,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 39,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": ": (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) PROLOGUE",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 36,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They were:-\n1. Hire Purchase Finance Institutions;\n2. Investment Companies;\n3. Chit Funds/Kuris;\n4. Nidhis or Mutual Benefit Funds; and 5. Finance Corporations.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "At the gate of the Police Station, Inspector Darshan Lal (PW.17) met him, who recorded the statement (Ex.PB) of complainant Ajit Singh at 5.00 PM, on the basis of which the formal FIR (Ex.PB/1) was registered against A-1 to A-3 at 5.10 PM, and the special report was sent to the Ilaqa Magistrate, which was received by him at 12.15 AM (mid-night).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 56,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 134,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 295,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first is a consortium of four companies (respondent Nos.1 to 4), the second is M/s. Taisei Corporation (respondent No.10) and the third is M/s. Skanska International (respondent No.11).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 106,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 169,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On appraisal of the material on record, accused Surender Kumar @ Pappu was charged under section 21 (a) of the NDPS Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. \n\nFIR No. 464/2007 State Vs. Surender Kumar @ Pappu Page No. 5/19 21.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 119,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 235,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appeals No. 80-DB, 698-DB & 1046-DB of 2007 -7- track was coming out posteriorly on the left scapular area. \n\n6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 43,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The contention was that once the Civil Court frames a scheme decree, it can only be dealt with by the Civil Court and neither the Wakf Board nor the Wakf Tribunal will have any jurisdiction over the same.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 140,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 162,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Committee also took notice of the fact that the Fourth Central Pay Commission appointed by the Central Government and presided over by a former Judge of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice P.N. Singhal, was then examining the question of pay-scales and other matters referred to it in respect of the staff of the Central Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 81,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 117,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 174,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 200,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 330,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced here under :\u00ad Page no. 21 of 19 State vs. Neeraj Jain and others FIR No. 289/2010 \"41.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 137,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But in the present case it was soon after the arrest of appellant Girbachan Singh that he took the Police Officer while in custody to the place where according to him he had thrown the dead body of Urshia wrapped by the incriminating articles.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 81,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 204,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Record of M.A.C.T Case No. 112 of 2000 ( Smt. Munni Devi and others Vs. Manager M/s Metro Cargo Carriers and another) be sent back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mainpuri. \n\nOrder Date :- 10.3.2017 Arshad",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 38,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 117,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 178,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 205,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Insofar as the terms of Heading No. 74.01/02 are concerned, the primary conclusion to which we have come is that brass scrap is not a master alloy.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. S. Muthukumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No. 5040/2002, would point out that by giving preference to the existing contractors running in the Board, even the persons having new model vehicles cannot enter into the field; accordingly the said condition cannot be sustained.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 74,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this suit, both these minors, Binapani, plaintiff No. 4, and Krishna Kumar, plaintiff No. 5, are represented by Dalim Kumar, plaintiff No. 1, their brother and next friend.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 41,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 77,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 126,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Out of three witnesses examined on behalf of respondent, P.W.1 is the respondent himself, one Sri Ram Murthy is examined as P.W.2 to prove that the respondent herein is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and this P.W.2 is looking after land on behalf of respondent from 01-07-2002 on a monthly wage of Rs.750/-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 303,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He paid the requisite tax till the quarter ending 31st March 1974.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 65,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 26-3-2000 at about 5.30 p.m. PW3 (Kamalakshi) saw the deceased on the veranda of the house of the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These appeals by special leave are directed against an Order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court summarily rejecting writ appeals preferred by several students against a common judgment delivered by Justice Rama Jois dismissing the writ petitions filed by them challenging the cancellation of their admission by the Karnataka University.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 117,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 237,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 357,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been pointed out by Wallace J. in Satrucherla Shivakanda Raju v. Rajah of Jeypore, AIR 1927 Mad 627 that it is an inroad on the general proposition that a court has no power to sell property outside its territorial jurisdiction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 106,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in The State of West Bengal v. S.K.Ghosh (AIR 1963 SC 255) held as follows:\n\n \"11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 36,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 95,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W. 9 Ravi Sahare and P.W. 7 himself had gone to the rescue of Ashwin.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though the Tribunal did not deal with the issue relating to entitlement of the respondents to Scale No.21, but directed the appellants herein to extend the benefit of the said scale to them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Originally, when the appeal in Crl.A.(MD) No.402 of 2009 was taken up for hearing on 17.12.2012, the learned senior counsel, who was appearing for the first appellant/accused Sekar, had submitted that the first appellant/accused Sekar was a juvenile as he was aged only 17 years 5 months and 15 days on the date of commission of crime i.e., as on 19.04.2007. \n\n111.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 56,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 95,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 180,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 234,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 357,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In so far as the rest of the appellants are concerned, the evidence of this witness has been accepted and acted upon by the Sessions Court and the High Court, and we do not see any reason to do otherwise.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "One of them was Simranjit Singh Mann who had been dismissed from the Indian Police Service.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 90,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, service under any provision of the Code would be good service and the notice could have been served on the Managing Director or principal agent or any other responsible officer.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It may be stated that this concept of deemed date laid down by the Circular dated 5th August, 1968 governs all Agricultural Supervisors, who were, though junior as Agricultural Assistants, promoted as Agricultural Supervisors earlier and also the Agricultural Supervisors",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 98,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "CW2 Sultan Singh @Ravi has stated about solemnization of marriage between appellant and complainant and that sufficient amount was spent in marriage.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 22,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He then referred to p. 51 of the paper book and submitted that capacity increased to 39,472 as on 31st March, 2003, but this was because more machines were added which becomes clear from the schedule of fixed assets.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 114,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A hue and cry was raised by Pardeep Singh (PW3) and his mother (Balwinder Kaur).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In State of Rajasthan Vs. Major Singh AIR 1999 SC 1073, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law about the contradictions or inconsistencies occurring in the statement of an injured witness as under:-\n\"It would be practically impossible for any injured witness to exactly notice and memorise which accused was assaulting by the blunt side of the weapon and which was causing injuries by a sharp edged weapon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 54,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 81,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It should have been viewed in totality of facts and circumstances of the case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This also does not help the petitioner.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The wheel pana was taken into possession, vide memo PMM.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The rationale of this practice can have no application where the Court is not in a position to dispose of the appeal for five or six years.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He, therefore, concluded that under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B it is only that income which is discovered as a result of search which can be assessed as undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B. \n8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 197,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Historically the change or alteration denoted was for the sake of correction or improvement.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "U/s 6 POCSO Act r/w Section 376(2)(i)/506 IPC: \"Acquitted\" Page 5 of 17 SC No.185/2013: FIR No.361/2013: PS Aman Vihar: State V/s Sohan Lal @ Sonu DOD: 09.04.2015 Q. Kya aap Sonu ko bhaiya ke naam se bulati thi ?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 5,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 6,
"end": 15,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 86,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 118,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 146,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 162,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?\n\n 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?\n ---\n\nVINOD K. SHARMA,J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 253,
"end": 268,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Atul Singh (PW-9) stated that on 1.8.2009 he conducted test identification parade of the rings, gold chain and bracelet in meeting hall of Tahsil Office.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 41,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 145,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In W.P. (C) No. 19665 of 2003, it is also prayed that there should be declaration that the people calling for such hartals have committed an unlawful activity as defined in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and action shall be taken.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 29,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 215,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Merit must be the test when choosing the best,\naccording to this rule of equal chance for equal marks.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But the principles of English law cannot determine the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, for it can entertain a petition under Article 32 only for the enforcement of rights conferred in Part III of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 138,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 195,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 215,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The claimant is entitled to the interest under section 28 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 57,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly Anantakrishna Ayyar, J, Observed (at page 576) follows: - \n \"The question whether an appeal lies under Cl. 15, Letters Patent, against the judgment of a single Judge of the High court based on an appeal preferred to the High Court under O. 43, C.P.C. (corresponding to. S. 588 of the earlier Cqde) has been the subject of discussion in some cases in this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 252,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 260,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 286,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After the Federal Court had settled the matter, one of the defendants, Jainarain Ram Lundia, applied to the Calcutta High Court for execution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 91,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the background of what usually happens in Hindu marriages namely, placing of the articles presented to the bride in the presence of the elders and others assembled for the occasion and removal thereof after the function is over it has to be seen whether the allegation made in the complaint amounts to entrustment as required by law to make out an offence under s. 406 l.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 365,
"end": 371,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 372,
"end": 378,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent's agents requested the petitioner to hand over delivery orders in respect of the balance goods in case they could not obtain a new quota.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But one of the principal objects in enacting Section 28 is to provide a deterrent against recurrence of default on the part of the assessee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 55,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner is a registered body, promoted by prominent persons of Proddutur Town.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 84,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Annexure 22/1 is the document showing that P.P. Sharma assumed charge as Managing Director of BISCO on May 26, 1986.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 99,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 115,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is nothing in the language of Section 7 or in the context in which the word 'consequential' has been used to support these tests.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent in Special Civil Application No. 11868 of 2012 had filed Appeal No. 560 of 1981.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 61,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 94,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"To be a witness\" is nothing more than \"to furnish evidence\", and such evidence can be furnished through lips or by production of a thing or of a document or in other modes.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He cannot further be equated with a proprietor or zamindar or an intermediary or jagirdar or magulzar whose proprietary rights were extinguished and vested by operation of law in the State.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He said that witness Nair was suspected for having participated in committing murder of one Shri S.A. Nair and was under the police pressure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 25,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 106,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[ Per A.C. Gupta, J. dissenting ]\n 1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 16,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reference may be made to Shiv Saran Rai v. Sukhdeo Rai, (AIR 1937 Pat 418) where Agarwala and Madan, JJ. observed that it was not open to the court of fact to dissect an admission in parts arising out of the pleadings but the court ought to have taken the whole of it into consideration.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 74,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 89,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 99,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The post conviction conduct of the appellant has been satisfactory and there is no complaint against him.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The very fact that the Section specifies that the premises must be one which was let out by the widow or by her husband implies that the provision would not apply to a premises let out by any other person.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After the above finding, the next consideration of the appellate court was whether the arrest of CW1 was illegal, he was tortured and mischief was committed in the Sudhinam Office and Jyothi Press as alleged, if so who are responsible for that.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 164,
"end": 179,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 196,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is so held because the Minister holds his office at the pleasure of the Chief Minister and/or the Governor and neither the Constitution nor any law made by the Parliament either prescribes breach of oath as a disqualification for holding the office of a Minister or provides forfeiture of office as a penalty for breach of oath.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 138,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 173,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "C.C. NO.08/2013 PS Anand Vihar PAGE NO.9/15 BALKRISHAN SHARMA vs. ABDUL SALAM 5",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 16,
"end": 30,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 77,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is no thumb mark of the executor either in page (1) or page (3).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Gurnaik Singh applied for the post of Peon and Water Carrier and did not apply for the post of Mali-cum-Chowkidar, but he has been appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "K. B. Asthana for the State of Uttar Pradesh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 44,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the process of berthing with the assistance of two tugs of maximum Bollard Pull of 10 tons, as per the documents annexed to the plaint and relied upon by the plaintiff, it seems, due to a sudden squall, rain and swell, the defendant vessel drifted away from the jetty and could not be controlled by the two tugs.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is also true that if the assessee in the Madras area gets very high income during those 5 months and little less than the taxable income during the succeeding 12 months, his income, which would have escaped taxation, would be liable to tax.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 50,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The application at Exh. 12 was given on 14-3-1983 and the Court was pleased to register it as Revision Application No. 25 of 1983.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 49,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 129,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the contrary, I am inclined to fully accept the contentions urged on behalf of the respondents, particularly, the Union of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 131,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Narasimham, C. J., delivering the judgment observed that when necessary facts for the application of that section have been brought to the notice of the court, it cannot be a party to the perpetration of an illegality.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The cheque in the case before the Hon'ble High Court was duly filled in at the time of its issuance and on the date of its issuance the accused admitted that he would have to pay Rs. 72,750/- on 19.9.93, (the date of the cheque in dispute).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 195,
"end": 202,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to Art. 137 of the Limitation Act, limitation runs from the date on which the right accrues.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 21,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 43,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sir Ameer Ali in his book Mohammedan Law, Tagore Law Lectures IV Edition, Volume I has observed that the Islamic system, from a historical point of view was the most interesting phenomenon of growth.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having regard to the context of the definition of \"public place\" in S. 2(24) of the Act, the regulatory character of the Act, and the use of the word 'road' used in a public Act, road would mean a \"public road\" which word as already noticed has been used will the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 76,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 320,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "C.A. No. 4458 of 1999 Vidha Devi (Dead) Thru Ram Prasad Mittan",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 21,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 32,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first call from the first number was from Mohammed to a Delhi landline number on 21.11.2001.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 65,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 95,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Tribunal has further directed the Union of India to refix the pension of all pre-2006 retirees w.e.f. 01.01.2006 based on the resolution dated 29.08.2008 and in the light of observations made by the Tribunal in that order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 52,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 116,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 157,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Page No. 7 of 24 engineer referred to as the prospective accused no.2 in the complaint pending before the magistrate.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was further stated that in order to accept the plea that Rule 3 applied, it must be clearly shown by overwhelming evidence that the proceedings were not ex-parte.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 66,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 10.07.2012 M/s Hindware Homes Retail Private Limited vacated the shops.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 55,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The investigation continued on the basis of first information report registered by Police Officer Mr. Devidas on the basis of complaint filed by complainant Mrs.Vibha, wife of the deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 109,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 166,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "4-9.In such circumstances, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Master resorted to pass an order on 07.07.2000 in E.P.No.48 of 1997, directing the Judgment Debtors in E.P.No.48 of 1997 to execute the deed of reconveyance to the decree holder and deliver possession of the properties within in one month from 07.07.2000 to the decree holder S.V.Matha Prasad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 133,
"end": 143,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 164,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 217,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 351,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 389,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Either the owner of the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have not complied the mandatory provisions under Section 134(C) and 158(6) of MV Act in furnishing better particulars and prays for reject the claim petitions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 136,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 146,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, by order dated 06.01.2006, the Corporation transferred and posted Mechanics and Bulldozer Operators as Marketing Executives and Assistants to the ASC In-Charge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 36,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Delivered on 14.5.2013) Per:Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Acting C.J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 23,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 48,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words, his consideration of the record and document at that stage is for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "W. S. Barlingay and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for intervener No. \n\n5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"In these circumstances what can be inferred as to the passing of the general property?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If a solution is found, its implementation requires finance and time.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In fact Rule 115(6) of the C.M.V. Rules takes note of this aspect and provides that every motor vehicle manufactured after the specified date shall be designed, constructed and assembled as to enable the vehicle, in normal use, comply with the emission standards despite the vibrations to which the vehicle may be subjected.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 19,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 39,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case, the common object of the unlawful assembly as alleged in the charge was to kill PW 6 Baharan Mian.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 118,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our opinion, neither of the two objections raised is sustainable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 40,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 94,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[659B-C]\n635 D.C.M. v.\tRajasthan State\t Electricity Board, [1986] 2 SCC 431, referred to.\n 21. Different tariffs for High and\tLow Tension Consumers and for different classes of consumers, such as,\nIndustrial, Commercial,\t Agricultural and Domestic have been prescribed and the differention appears to be reasonable and far from arbitrary and based on intelligent and intelligible criteria.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 80,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There a Division Bench of this High Court consisting of Shelat C.J. and Bhagwati J. held that bonus and commission referred to in section 10(2) (x) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, referred not only to ex gratia payment but also to amounts payable under contract.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 67,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 80,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 147,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 182,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This paradox can be unlocked only by examining the nature of the activity of the charity, for there are charities and charities.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the background of principles underlying Section 311 and Section 391 of the Code and Section 165 of the Evidence Act it has to be seen as to whether the High Court's approach is correct and whether it had acted justly, reasonably and fairly in placing premiums on the serious lapses of grave magnitude by the prosecuting agencies and the Trial Court, as well.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 70,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 118,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I also do not find any necessity to consider the matter in the light of the orders of the Appellate Collector of Customs vide Order in Appeal No. 313/72 dated 12-1-1972, since I do not find any scope to apply the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Customs Act to this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 152,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 168,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 243,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 262,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent 1. Name of the complainant .. \n\n 2. Father's or Husband's name .. 3. (a) Age .. (b) Occupation .. (c) Whether the complainant is a public servant or a Service Association or a Trade Union ..",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Further, even after alleged termination, when defendant paid the rent in account of plaintiff in Income Tax Department as per instructions of the plaintiff, therefore, the notice dated 15.02.1995 stands waived off and a new tenancy has been created in favour of the defendant and increase of rent from 7,700/\u00ad to Rs. 1,2480/\u00ad is contrary to DRC Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 195,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 348,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having considered the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of records, I find that Unit No. I was set up in 1972 at Sahibabad and it was engaged in printing of magazines and books.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 133,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent also did not explain anything about the source of the furniture.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Puran Chand v. State of Haryana, 2010 (91) AIC 226; Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that a dying declaration which has been found to be voluntary and truthful and which is free from any doubts can be the sole basis for convicting the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 53,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But the petitioner and his parents did not make arrangements to take the respondent and her child.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It\twas contended before this Court on behalf of\t the appellant and\tthe petitioner\t that:\t(1) the expression 'police officer' used in section 25 64 of the Evidence Act must not be read in the narrow sense of only those officers belonging to the regular police force but must be construed broadly to include all those who\thave been",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 153,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 173,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Special Commissioner cum Transport Commissioner Chepauk Chennai-600 005 3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 67,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned single Judge while dealing with Crl.A. No. 1016 of 1996 felt that two learned single Judges of this Court took conflicting views and therefore the matter was placed before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice, who referred to this Bench for laying out the correct position of law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 67,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "26.Counsel for the appellant further stated that on 06.06.14 when the counsel for the appellant appeared before the court that there it had come to his knowledge that the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 165 of Evidence Act on 23.05.14 which facts were totally contrary to the pleadings of the appellant in his application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 228,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 244,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 256,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 367,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 371,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Besides relying on the above observation of the Apex Court,reliance is also placed on the view expressed by Justice Oka, in one of the cognate matters between the parties, in his judgement dated 15th February 2008 in Civil Application no.5892 of 2007 in First Appeal no.2667 of 2007.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 119,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 213,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 250,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 282,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Coming to the pecuniary damages, on a consideration of the evidence in the case, I am of the view that the loss of earnings of the claimant are liable to be computed at Rs. 350/- p m.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But the Nawab of Jaora was not defeated by the United State of Madhya Bharat or as for that matter, by the Union of India,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 22,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 76,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 121,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This in the view of the High Court would impede the freedom of inter-State trade, com- merce and intercourse within the meaning of Art. 301 of the Constitution and was not saved by Art. 303.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 139,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 159,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 189,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The binding nature of settlement entered between the parties containing Clause XXIII as quoted above has never been questioned by the K.S.R.T.C, nor before us.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 84,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 143,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While deposing in court P.W. 3 again named the aforesaid accused persons as assailants but did not take any steps to summon them to face trail by filing any petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which is reflective of his habit to falsely implicate innocent persons including the appellants.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 172,
"end": 183,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 191,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle, declares Section 5, shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy Section 3 or Section 4 to drive the vehicle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 145,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Law laid down by the Supreme Court:-\n 18.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 36,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Any other haul roads required by the Contractor and not specified in plan shall be carried out by the Contractor at his cost. \n\n 8.(A) 1. WIDENING OF BANKS",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The principal questions, therefore, for our consideration are:\n 1) Were the earlier statutory provisions capable of only one interpretation, namely, that placed by the assessees or was there any ambiguity in relation thereto ?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Those benefits will be available to the petitioners in addition to the benefits which have again been made available to them under Notfn. Nos. 45/89 and 46/89, dated 11th October, 1989.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 158,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 184,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On facts, it is worth noticing that the sixth respondent Smt.Tensy Scaria is a person who was admittedly recruited into service along with the petitioners in 1995 to the post of Junior Clerk/Cashier.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 73,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The names of four Subordinate Judges thus recommended for promotion were Sarvashri J. Narain (respondent No. 4), Sharda Prasad, Durga Prasad Sinha No. 1 and Bhanu Prakash Pandey.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 92,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 126,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 146,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 177,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It would be relevant to note here that the order directing the winding up of the Company were passed on 5th July, 2001 whereas the SEBI (CIS) Regulations came into force on 15th October, 1999 where- after all the public notices and notices were sent to the company, which were all prior to the directions for winding up of the Company by the Hon\u201fble High Court of Punjab & Haryana.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 118,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 153,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 191,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 380,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Purna Ch. Majhi - Kalicharanpur Do 18.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 31,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "in \"Joseph Thomas' Case\" (AIR 1958 Ker 33) that \"the distribution of seats between the two areas on the basis of population is sustainable.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 42,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Pi-ivy Council affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Ceylon, and made the following observa- tions in the course of their judgment, which would suggest that a dying declaration, if found reliable by a jury, may, by itself, sustain a conviction:\n (1) I.L.R. [1940] Mad. 158,170. \n\n (2) A.I.R. 1941 Patna 409. \n\n (3) I.L.R. [1945] Nag. 613; A.I.R. 1945 Nag. 153. (4) [I937] A.C. 220, 229.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 71,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 288,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 314,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 349,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 398,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By taking this Court to various documents i.e. memo of agreement Annexure P/2 dated 11th December, 1974, code of conduct dated 03.08.1994 and joint resolution of office bearers of all Central Trade Union Annexure P/7 it is contended that there exists effective institutional alternative redressal mechanism in CIL and therefore respondents should have granted exemption to the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 103,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 137,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Muthukaruppan v. Raghavan - 2006 (2) KLT 996 a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court has held that a complaint can be signed and filed and sworn statement also can be given by the power-of-attorney of the payee or holder-in-due course, but at the time of the trial of the payee or holder-in-due- course himself will have to mount the witness box.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 47,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 95,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ordinarily no parents would do so in Indian society as at present.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "d) Avon Beach & Cafe Ltd. v. Stewart [1950] 31 TC 487.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 53,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is urged that, if the plaintiffs are aggrieved by the first defendants adopting the word \"Bedrock\" as part of their corporate name, and, if the act of the Registrar in permitting them to adopt the name \"Bedrock Sales Corporation Ltd.\" was erroneous, then the remedy lay elsewhere, and not by way of an injunction in an infringement action or passing off action.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 206,
"end": 236,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Louchs v. Standard Oil Co. of New York' I Cordozo, J. has said:\n \"The courts are not free to refuse to enforce a foreign right at the pleasure of the judges, to suit the individual notion of expediency or fairness.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 52,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner No.2 Uthan Pada Das completed 65 years in 1997 but his pay had been held up since August, 1992",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 34,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There may be cases where the driver, owner and insurer of a vehicle would each jointly and severally be liable to pay the entire compensation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "These cases are :\n(i) Baldeo Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996 JT (8) SC 280 (The Baldeo Singh case). \n\n(ii) Ram Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad, JT 1995 (1) SC 593 (The Ram Reddy Case). \n\n(iii) Inder Singh v. Union of India, JT 1993 (3) SC 653 (The Inder Singh case). \n\n14.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 73,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 174,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 254,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even if there was such evidence, it would have been required to be considered whether, when he was on his way home from the school in a playful mood in the company of his friends, he would not have overlooked all that he was taught.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the accident had in fact taken place.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This is because of the Madhya Pradesh Secondary Education Act, 1951 (No. XII of 1951), Section 8 of which provides that the Board of Secondary Education constituted under Section 4 thereof shall have the power to prescribe courses of instruction for recognised institutions in such branches of secondary education as it may think fit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 96,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 180,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act is only to give assistance and come to rescue of a party who has taken steps to get attesting witness to give evidence, but he failed or such witness denied or failed to recollect the execution of the Will.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 37,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Union of India, in part, accepted the recommendations but instead of amending the definition of sales in Central Sales Tax Act, inserted a new Entry in the Union List in the shape of Entry 92B and also inserted a new sub-clause (4) after subclause (g) in Art. 269 (1) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 18,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 130,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 255,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 271,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 291,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel for the assessee has drawn our attention to the APB I at pp. 61 to 101 where the documents regarding the transfer of assets and payments made and installation certificate of the asset are filed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Manchanda strongly contend- ed before us that the Tribunal has nowhere stated in terms that it has taken into consideration the totality of circumstances or the cumulative effect of the circumstances pointed out to the Tribunal and hence the matter should be remanded to the Tribunal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In State of Rajasthan v. Mangilal Pindwal - the Supreme Court has held as follows :\n\"As pointed out by this Court, the process of a substitution of statutory provision consists of two steps; first, the old rule is made to cease to exist and, next, the new rule is brought into existence in its place. (See: Koteewar Vittal Kamath v. K. Rangappa Baliga & Co. - ).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 41,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 61,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 357,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On that day on a request of SP Alwar in case No. 250 of 2003 against Ramjan, Jamil, Mehboob and Asram under section 3/25 of the Arms Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 60,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 91,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 101,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 120,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 136,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Article 246 and List I confer certain specific powers on Parliament.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 67,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In their cases, the assessing authority had taken the view that desiccated coconut and coconut were one and the same and, therefore, the appellants were not liable to pay tax under the Central Act as they had paid tax under Act at the purchase point on the coconut out of which desiccated coconut was produced.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 196,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This view of ours will find support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Jayaram Reddy and Anr. v. RevenueDivisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnoon .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 74,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 182,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The view taken by this Court also finds support from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arulvelu & anr. vs. State represented by the Public Prosecutor and anr. 2009(4) RCR (Crl.)\n\n638.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 94,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 205,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Parliament may consider whether the anomaly which is apparent in the different modes prescribed by Art. 368 for amending Articles 226 and 32 respectively, should not be remedied by including Part HI itself in the proviso.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 140,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Can it be said or even suggested that the amending body can make institutions created by our Constitution undemocratic as opposed to democratic; or abolish the office of the President and, instead, have some other head of the State who would not fit into the conception of a \"Republic\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal do not show that any notice was issued to Surendra Kumar Bhadani in any proceeding under Section 34 of the 1922 Act on August 11, 1961,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 132,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 167,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 183,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 202,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case, it appears that the Tribunal has awarded compensation by taking into account only the loss suffered under the first sub-head.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was pointed out that under s. 55(2) of the I. T. Act, 1961, the expression \"cost of acquisition\" had been clearly defined and accordingly the cost had to be determined as provided in that definition without having any recourse to any judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 38,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 61,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reiteration of direction to inspect all new constructions and ensure that they are in total compliance of laws and building regulations.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "OPM (ii) Whether the claimant is a workman as defined under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as amended upto date)?OPW (iii) Whether the workman has absented himself from his duties with the management and thereby abandoned his services with the management as alleged?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 74,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 111,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "30.In S.Kannan and others Vs. Secretary, Karnataka State Road Transport Authority and others reported in AIR 1983 SC 1065, the Supreme Court had observed in paragraph 15 that though Section 44(3), a State Transport Authority can perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority, but the term Regional Transport Authority found under Section 62 will not comprehend the term State Transport Authority.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 121,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 140,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 195,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 347,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW 12 Narmada Prasad says that those articles were sent on next day, i.e. 7-2-1985, though according to DW 1 they had been deposited on 8-2-1985.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 20,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 82,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the meantime, the first petitioner company filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and sought for Arbitration which was allowed on 16.09.2009 and that was challenged by KENSOFT, the fifth respondent before the Division Bench of this Court which has passed an order to the effect that arbitration will not lie remitted back to the learned single Judge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 82,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 122,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 181,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 216,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The trial Court was also right in acting upon the statement of the prosecutrix, duly corroborated by the medical evidence, to come to the conclusion that the accused committed the offences, punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 207,
"end": 232,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 257,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A complaint for the aforesaid incident was lodged by P.W.1, S.T. Desle, in presence of P.W.9, N.K. Rathod before P.W.5, Arvind Hiralal, ASI in the City Police station, Vadodara which was reduced into writing and is produced on record at Ex.32.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 70,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 105,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 134,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 176,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court is requested to go into the Rules as well as the amendments afresh and decide the questions involved.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Section 49(1)(k) does not insist for prior approval of the Chairperson.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is needless to say that this defendant had not preferred any Appeal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The possibility cannot be ruled out that the original date below the endorsement was \"16/4\" and the figure \"4\" was overwritten by figure \"3\" with a view to showing as if the endorsement was made on 16th March 1981.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 198,
"end": 213,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is based on the use of the words no such file is in existence which made the appellants contend before the High Court that a deliberate incorrect statement was made by the CBI in its affidavit filed before the High Court with a view to deny the allegation made by the writ petitioners",
"entities": [
{
"start": 175,
"end": 178,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He did not record the statement of Suresh son of Chhote Lal under Section 161 Cr.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 41,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 77,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 85,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A conjoint reading of Sections 42 and 43 of the Act, shows that these sections are independent of each other.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 40,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As observed by Venkatarama Iyer J. In --'Paupuk Kannu Anni v. Thoppayya Mudaliar', (J) : Clause 7(iv).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 31,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 90,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also not disputed before me that on 28 October, 1971 the present petitioner i.e. Smt. Ayshia Bi had filed her written statement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 58,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 101,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The right of the plaintiff bank, thus, to recover the amount to the above limited extent, even if it is assumed that the letter dated 7th July, 1993, is valid and proper cannot be frustrated, the amount being less than the amount claimed in the plaint.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 148,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Taking into consideration the observations made by the Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation's case (supra), we are of the considered view that pending necessary legislative action by the State, the Tribunal constituted should be able to hear all grievances of the staff and teacher and not necessarily as restricted to in Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the said Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 90,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 349,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant No.2 Shaikh Asad in Criminal Appeal No. 19/2011 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 61,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 118,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 149,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not disputed by the petitioners that after promulgation of the Legislation in question, no sales tax is levied on sale of lottery tickets in Karnataka under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 147,
"end": 156,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 208,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both were seen carrying blue and green-red check coloured airbags each on their right shoulders.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(2)The Government after conducting a survey of the lands referred to in sub-section (1) shall make a regular assessment of the basic tax payable in respect of such lands.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 87,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Regional Director, Animal Husbandry, Ranchi vide his letter No. 4690 dated 31.5.90 submitted his report to the Secretary of the Department certifying that the livestock had actually been transported to the destination.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 47,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 86,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The law laid down in the above noted cases has been further approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases :-\n(1) Karnel Singh v. State of M.P. (9) (2) State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (10) \n \n\n33.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 202,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On seeing shipping bill dated 03.03.1993 Ex PW8/A, witness identified signatures of his brother Rajesh Kumar Palta on bill Ex PW8/A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 40,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 114,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reliance in this connection is placed on the dissenting judgment in Bikani Mia v. Shuklal Poddar, (1893,) ILR 20 Cal 116 (FB) in which Ammeerali. J., expressed the view that a wakf in favour of the wakif and his descendants would be for charitable purposes under the Mahomedan Law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 125,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 144,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 280,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Civil Writ Petition No. 16707 of 2008 Ishwar Dass Gupta",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 37,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Another decision by a single Judge of that High Court in the case of AIR 1934 All 693(2) held that the Legislature intends that the statement should be personal statement made by the accused and that statement made by an Advocate is merely hearsay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 88,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "First injury is lacerated wound on scull, second injury 'contusion' is also in the same region, third injury is bleeding from right ear and fourth injury is complain of pain on right hip.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Seshadri, the learned counsel for some of the assessees, contended that the levy of a tax in the purchase of groundnut at the rates prescribed by the Madras General Sales Tax Act was in contravention of the provisions of Article 276(2) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 182,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 239,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 259,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He contended, in short, that he is running a wholesale business in pulses in a rented premises in Mamulpet where the suit schedule property also is situated, that premises is inadequate for him to run and expand his business and because of that reason he purchased the schedule premises to demolish and reconstruct it and start his business in the premises so reconstructed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 106,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, Dharambir (appellant) is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324, IPC, which is the lesser offence of Section 307, IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 20,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 90,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 95,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 139,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 144,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I do not think it is possible to take the rhetoric of Royappa and Maneka Gandhi seriously and find that the Act passes the test of reasonableness.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 79,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Of course, in the said decision having regard to the finding it reached, the Supreme Court did not directly decide the question whether a petition under S, 33C (2)would be bared if there was a dispute as to the rate and a petition under S, 20 of the Minimum Wages Act was entertainable by the Authority constituted under Minimum Wages Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 168,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 242,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 267,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 338,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On these passages the learned counsel, Mr. Surianarayana lyer, places considerable reliance in support of fits contention that the levy in this case, under the General Sales-tax Act, imposes a direct restriction on the freedom of trade, commerce and Intercourse guaranteed under Article 301 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 181,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 290,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 310,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the above, the Government of India set aside the order in appeal and allow the revision application.\" \n9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 45,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per the report, applicant no.1 Manish S/o Harish Rathore of this criminal revision has completed his jail sentence, therefore, he has been released on 01.02.2014.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 40,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 164,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, the Road Certificate is maintained as per form No. 10.17 PPR and also called Register No. XXI at Police Station and as per 22.72 PPR Chapter XXII, Volume No. 3 (page No. 933) these Road Certificates Book shall be destroyed when the last certificate therein in Three years old (Reference in this regard is also made to SO No. 64 dated 1.11.1998).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 343,
"end": 352,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the light of the above discussion, all the appeals 29 of 30 C/FA/415/2009 JUDGMENT succeed to the following extent:\n First Appeal No.415 of 2009 The appellants shall be entitled to recover additional compensation of Rs.3.06,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from all the opponents jointly and severally.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 87,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 149,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is submitted that the inmates of the Special Camp are provided with basic amenities and are allowed to move freely within the premises of the Special Camp.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, though the conviction of an accused on the testimony of accomplice cannot be said to be illegal yet the courts will, as a matter of practice, not accept the evidence of such a witness without corroboration in material particular.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Apart from the language of bank-guarantees, Clause 23.1 of \"Instructions to Bidders\" provided clearly that \"the guarantee amount shall be payable to the owner (Corporation) without any condition whatsoever.....\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 55,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I am unable to subscribe to the aforesaid proposition for the simple reason that if such an interpretation is given with regard to the jurisdiction of a learned Single Judge to entertain a petition, the entire foundation of the High Court would run haywire and make the proceedings of the High Court inchoate.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks time to file the rejoinder.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus, the respondent No. 1, Babulal would also be jointly liable for the amount of compensation fixed in appeal along with the State of U. P. \n 44.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 35,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 141,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Inasmuch as the value of the contract is very high and a contractor is not normally expected to be possessed of such huge funds to carry out the work with his own funds, the contract provides for the Corporation advancing certain amount to the contractor, for which he has to furnish a bank-guarantee.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The prosecution case was that accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with accused Nos. 3 to 6 constituted an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to kill PW 6 Baharan Mian and in pursuance of the said object accused No. 1 caused the death of Sahana Khatoon aged about seven years and accused No. 2 caused the death of Chand Tara aged about seven months.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 172,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 257,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 329,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "21. Secondary evidence of unregistered document was allowed for collateral purpose of showing the nature and character of the possession.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "E v) Bagga Singh, Appellant No. 7 in Civil Appeal No. 230/82.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 17,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 61,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He said that on 07.03.2007, when he was at the bus stand of VM Banjara, police called him to act as a panchwitness along with Venukonda Koteswar Rao (L.W.14).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 26,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 148,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Judge-Magistrate, Sagar, held that the appellants contravened the provisions of the aforesaid sections and on that finding convicted them under s. 92 of the Act and directed them to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and Rs. 25 respectively.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 27,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 153,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The point at issue was whether the Commonwealth Parliament, in the exercise of its power under Section 51(ii) of the Constitution (subject to the Constitution, to make laws with respect to taxation, but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States) may include the Crown in right of a State in the operation of a law imposing a tax or providing for the assessment of a tax.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 58,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 109,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 129,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It may, therefore be taken as unchallenged that these students, namely, Anil Kumar Sinha (respondent No. 3) and Anil Singh (respondent No. 8), would not have secured admission if merit had been the sole test, and that they secured admission by virtue of Sub-Clauses (f) and (g) of Clause 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 88,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 122,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 289,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In case of Ramesh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 2009 Criminal La Journal 3268, the facts were that on the eve of Raksha Bandhan, coconuts were offered to Lord Bajrang Bali by the villagers.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 75,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These averments have not been disputed in the reply that has been filed on behalf of non- petitioner-appellant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A brief reference to some decisions of this Court, in which the character of engagement of a Government Counsel was considered.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Essentially, two contentions were raised by the State before the High Court, in addition to the application filed by the appellant-Zahira highlighting certain serious infirmities in the entire exercise undertaken.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 137,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Government of Tamilnadu rep by Secretary, Home Department Fort St. George, Chennai 9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 23,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 82,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As far as Navi Mumbai Court Complex is concerned, there are certain assurances incorporated in the affidavit dated 30 th July, 2015 of Shri Mansing Namdeo Pawar, Deputy Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 35,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 131,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 160,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In a recent decision pronounced by the Bombay High Court in the case of BDA Ltd. v. ITO, the decision of Pune Tribunal in the same case relied upon by the AO has been reversed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 56,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 87,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On plain reading of Section 102 of the Act referred to above, it is very clear that a party aggrieved by any decision of the Registrar or his nominee or Board of Nominees can file an appeal within two months from the date of the decision or order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 31,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi the observation of the Court in Mubarak Ali's case was affirmed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 51,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In all fairness, it must be stated that Mr. Raval did not contest this legal position.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the plaintiff's case, defendants 1, 5 and 8 entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of the common intention, Sri Chattar Sen (defendant No. 1) took leave from 27th to 31st December 1949, handed overcharge to Kedar Nath (defendant No. 5) on the 24th December 1949, as the Bank was closed on 25th and 26th December 1949.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 142,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 203,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 236,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 280,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 335,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "9) PW\u00ad4 J. S. Pawar deposed that on 05.08.1998 he had mechanically inspected the TATA Tempo no. HR 16 6601 at the request of SI Brij Pal Singh .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 19,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 46,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 142,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view thereof, the matter was referred to the third Judge vide order dated 3.3.2005 and vide judgment and order dated 20.12.2006, the Hon\u2019ble third Judge held that in such a situation where objections had been filed and had been heard by one Collector and the report had been submitted by another Collector, the proceedings stood vitiated being in violation of principles of natural justice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 130,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this suit Lala Bulaki Dass, plaintiff, claimed Rs. 22,000/- from the defendants by way of refund of advance money given by him to the defendants along with interest and damages on the allegation that the agreement dated 1-4-1953 between the parties had been breached by the defendants.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 231,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I hereby order that insurance company is entitled for recovery rights from the insured/owner of the offending vehicle/respondent No. 2 but only after disbursement of the award amount to the petitioner in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled \"National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh\" (AIR 2004 SC 1531).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 66,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 314,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 402,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Prem Shanker Sahay, J. \n\n1. The appeals and the Death Reference have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 18,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the 1940 Act did not contain a legal fiction similar to that enacted in section 48(2) of the 1958 Act, the Appellant's case would fall to the ground because then at the date of its application for registration of the said trade mark, its intention would be not to use it itself but to use it through another.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 15,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words, computation of total income under one or more of the sections from Section 15 to Section 59 is to be made only for the purpose of chargeability to lax.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the meanwhile, P.W.25 prepared Ext.P8 scene mahazar.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The distinction between a `transport vehicle' and a `passenger vehicle' can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the witnesses are not tutored they would come out with a natural and spontaneous version on their own.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The first proviso has been set out above.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Here again, we are not able to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "D. A. Desai, J. (as he then was) who heard the appeal, observed: \n \"The drivers of trucks in India are presumed to know that children of tender age are likely to run at the last moment or dart across the road.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 98,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Put briefly, the prosecution case is that PW 13 Mukhram Jat is the brother of the deceased-victim Amilal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 59,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 104,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "when the State , after receiving the permit, sent instructions to the assesses\tto despatch sugar and the assesses despatched it a contract emerged\t and consent must be implied on both sides\t though not expressed antecedently to the prmit.\nState, ofMadras\t v. Gannon Dunkerky Co., [1959] S.C.R.\t379 andThe\tTata Iron and SPA Co. Ltd. v.\t The State\tof Bihar, [1958] S. C. R. 1355, explained.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 250,
"end": 308,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 391,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "3.State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cri) 426)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 54,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, the accused was charged for offence U/s.21 of NDPS Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 55,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 67,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, contrary to her above depositions made in her examination\u00adin\u00adchief regarding meeting the Investigating Officers Mr. Girish CC No. 146/15, CBI Vs. Gopal Krishan 48/90 Bhardwaj (PW11) and Mr. Rajesh Chahal on 10.05.2010, she has stated in her cross\u00adexamination dated 04.06.2014 that she had only met the SP of CBI in the CBI office on 10.05.2010.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 145,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 183,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 212,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 226,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 284,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 320,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 331,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 352,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In England the law was drastically altered by the Fatal Accidents Act, 1959.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 10,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 75,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reference may be may to the pronouncement of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Joseph s/o Koveli Poulo Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2000) 5 SCC 197, wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court in paragraph no. 14 has held as under:-\n\"14.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 67,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 155,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 187,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "15.1 Sri sen also relied heavily on the other cases, namely , State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bridge and Roof; , Orissa Agro Industries v. Bharati Industries; , Bareilley Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh; , National Highway Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises etc.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 103,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 151,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 204,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 264,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "*** Date of Order ::: 25/02/10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi *** For petitioners - Sarva Shri Rajendra Soni, Shailesh Pra.Sharma NK Maloo, SS Hora, Tanveer Ahmed,Vinod Gupta, Kailash C. Sharma, RD Soni/Kuldeep Aswal, Rampartap Saini, Ripu DS Naruka, HR Kumawat, Praveen Sharma, Rajeev Sogarwal, JK Yogi, Rajesh Kala, SS Mahla, Shiv C.Gupta & TC Sharma.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 30,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 63,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 96,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 110,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 140,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 149,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 164,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 176,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 195,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 204,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 218,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 235,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 251,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 263,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 279,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 296,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 305,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 318,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 328,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 342,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 354,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, the first son had already attained majority even before the death of the deceased.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13938/2014 16.12.2014 Mr. Manas Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner. \n\n On payment of process fee by registered post with Acknowledgement Due within a week, issue notice of the writ petition to the respondents.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\n (Alok Aradhe) Judge RK Writ Petition No.13974/2014 16.12.2014",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 12,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 50,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 61,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 273,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 311,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 322,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the result, I proceed to pass the following:\n ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted to the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 82,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 93,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 173,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 180,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ramaswami Iyengar v. Panduranga Mudaliar, A.I.R. 1938\tMad.\n173, referred to.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 54,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are clearly bound to follow the said judgment of the Constitution Bench.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 74,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question is whether such a stand taken by the Government as a policy, is unfair and arbitrary as to warrant interference by the courts.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The electric\t meter\t was tampered With\tby breaking its seals opening its stud\t and inserting a wire which prevented the rotation of\t the disc,so\t that the consumption\t of electricity was\t not perfected. There was thus a perfected\tartificial means for abstraction of\t energy.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In 2003 SC 3995 in Parwati Bai Vs. Radhika the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that:\n \"The singular question to be examined in the present case is whether the tenancy was terminated in accordance with the provisions of S.106 of Transfer of Property Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 42,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 77,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 232,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 260,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Rohit Arya) Judge ns C.R. No.163/2014 12.07.2017 Parties through their counsel.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 11,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 19,
"end": 38,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 49,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first respondent Delhi Administration pursuant to aforementioned written agreement referred the following dispute to Shri G. C. Jain, Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Delhi who was selected by the parties to be the arbitrator.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 41,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 136,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 182,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, to see that the trade union, which takes up the matter concerning service conditions of the workmen truly represents the workmen employed in the establishment, the trade union is first required to get itself registered under the provisions of Trade Unions Act, 1926.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 252,
"end": 274,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, the prosecution case was that the swami had met Savita on 30.11.1994, in the evening, and tried Crl.A.Nos. 786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 33 to cover it up, by asking PW-13 to depose in Court that if questioned by the police, he should tell that he (the swami) had in fact visited PW-13 that time, since he lived in West Patel Nagar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 63,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 77,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 139,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dua, J., speaking for the Bench. held that under s. 2 the special officer had to determine the average rate of cash rent per acre for each class of ryoti land such as wet, dry or garden.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 3,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 53,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The order of the State Transport Authority indicates that parties were heard and prima facie there was compliance of the requirements of the provisions of Section 57(8) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 155,
"end": 168,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PP has also submitted that on 20.06.2014 after seeing the accused No.3 in the Police Station, said Dinesh identified him that he is the same person, who was along with other accused persons sitting in the blue colour car belonging to accused No.4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 40,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "in our opinions there is no substance in this argument.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Under S.147(2) of the Act, while the liability in respect of damage to any property of third party is limited to Rs. Six thousand as regards the liability in respect of passengers as also third parties it is made equal to the liability incurred.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 14,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Kerwin, J., referred to the reasons of their Lordships in In Re The Initiative and Referendum [1919] A.C. 935 Act as instructive.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 113,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Authority of the Parliament to legislate in respect of bonus is not denied and the provision for payment of bonus is not open to attack on the ground of infringement of fundamental rights other than those declared by Art. 14 and Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 27,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 242,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 262,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said view has been followed in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vardhman Estate P. Ltd., [2006] 287 ITR 368 (Del). \n\n23.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 114,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These observations made in the context of sales-tax Law were relied upon and referred to in the context of the Income-tax Law in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust vs. C.I.T. \n 17.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 154,
"end": 167,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 216,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The word \"proprietor\" however, has also been defined in Section 2(o) of the said Act to mean a person holding in trust or owning for his own benefit an estate or part of an estate, and includes the heirs and successors-in-interest of a proprietor and, where a proprietor is a minor or of unsound mind or an idiot, his guardian, committee or other legal curator.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was, however, directed that such reservation based upon institutional preference should not exceed in any event 50% of the total number of open seats available for admission to the post graduate courses such as M.S., M.D. etc. and the remaining seats should be filled in by open merit on all India basis.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 295,
"end": 300,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has further contended that the State Government approached the Central Government after taking decision to abolish the Tribunal for issuance of the requisite notification because it was of the impression that the notification would be issued by the Central Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 84,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 270,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts disclose that the policy was changed during the period of settlement for five years and then the impugned Government Order affected petitioners whose term under the earlier order settling the right of vend would have continued for another four years.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on Para-9 and 10 of the Reply of petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC (Annxure-5) where said that trade mark \"Hero\" exclusively vests with plaintiff and said trade mark can only be used by defendant-appellants as corporate name, that too not for bicycle is Patna High Court MA No.121 of 2015 false and incorrect.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 118,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 122,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 326,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 344,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioners themselves do not claim the above sub-section to be a colourable piece of legislation and as such a fraud on the legislative power.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Nanak Chand Sharma, investigating officer, tendered evidence as PW 7.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Deceased Ajit had contracted with opponent No. 2, the owner of the truck, to carry his wheat from village Radhu to Kaira.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 111,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 120,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first witness mentioned in that list was Sri R.S. Prakasa Rao, District Supply Officer, Visakhapatnam.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 65,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 105,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By this Appeal, preferred by the Appellant - original accused - Yashwant Hiraman Thakare, exception is taken to the judgment and order dated 23rd January, 2008 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge - 3, Nashik, in Sessions Case No.25 of 2007.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 159,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 225,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 257,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "DW1 stated that a cheque bearing no.650948 dated 20.06.2009 for a sum of Rs. 15,750/- was cleared/encashed from SB A/c no.1685 in the account of M/s Aman Services.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 162,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was catering to many neighbouring districts.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned authorised representative of the assessee, having referred to the assessment order of 1992-93 of the assessee particularly at p. 7 said that the assessee disclosed net income on average rate of 29.7 per cent and there was a finding that the net profit disclosed by the assessee out of that project was much better in comparison to other builders.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The next claim is against the non-allowance of bad debts written off of the following items : \n (a) Rosella Products Rs. 3,00,000 (b) Maccoos General Foods (P.) Ltd. Rs. 3,00,000 (c) United Precision Industries Rs. 64,587 (d) Narendra Motta Rs. 29,680 (e) Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board Rs. 1,00,000",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 117,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 166,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 211,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 241,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 295,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[3] After notice, the Respondents has filed the return in which it is stated that due to cancellation of transfer of Respondent No.4 - Bhanupratap Tiwari, the petitioner has become surplus at Indore, therefore, vide order dated 15.06.2016 his salary is being drawn from the vacant post of Assistant Grade-III from Government College, Badnawar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 153,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 198,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 238,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 342,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We, therefore, hold that the Delhi Court was competent to decide this suit within the meaning of Section 13 irrespective altogether of the consideration that the defendants were subjects of the former Kotah State which was an independent princely State and which now, forms part of the State of Rajasthan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 206,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 304,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Announced in the open court on 25th Day of March, 2014 (K S MOHI) Presiding Officer : MACT South Distt. : Saket Courts New Delhi : 25.03.2014",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 54,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 64,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 128,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 141,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Vide: Gagan Kanojia and Anr. v. State of Punjab.)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 48,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "'Cut-off', i.e., the minimum qualifying marks to be secured by the candidates in each of the papers for qualifying the examination as specified in paragraph 4 of the Notification dated 16.04.2007.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 195,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It may be noted that in December'57 original plot No. 4 comprised of 113.4 sq. mts. let to the appellant, 390 sq. mts. let to M/s Dhanji Mavji, 453 sq. mts. let to two asso- ciate firms (M/s Gordhandas Ranchoddas and M/s Chunilal Gupta) and 195 sq. mts. let to M/s Vassanji Hirji.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 142,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 212,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 235,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 279,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(V.N. Sinha, J.) Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. : I agree.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 11,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore unduly burdening the State for implementing the constitutional obligation would create problems which the State may not be able to stand.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Sachindra Mohan (PW 1), P. N. Chowdhry (PW 2), Hoon appellant (PW 3) and N. K. Majumdar (PW 4).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 38,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 61,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 87,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is the duty of the Court to separate grain from the chaff and to search out the truth from the evidence produced before it wherever it is possible.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Now, if it is proposed to charge 20% ad val. duty instead of 10% ad val.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thereafter the complainant moved an application for the substitution of the AR for the Bank which was allowed vide order dated 26.05.2012 and Syed Mohammed Shabir Shah was substituted as the new AR for the complainant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 137,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 167,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to PW-4 Phulabai, she noticed that the feet of the deceased were on a stool.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 26,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Aggrieved by the same, the R.T.C. filed C.M.A. No. 2125/2000.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 60,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The same applies good even to appellant Jagpal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shanthi (A-11) would go with them for shopping.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "was chiefly placed on the observations in 1943 AC 627 (P).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 53,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We direct that from the file that has been produced, the copies of the two documents, viz. (1) letter written by Mr. Avade to the . _Revenue Minister on 5th October, 1983 with all endorsements thereon, and (2) note of the Revenue Secretary dated 19th September, 1984 for the Cabinet, should be placed on record of this case before the file is returned to Respondent No. 2. \nOrdered accordingly.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 122,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 170,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 266,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The remaining two appeals, namely Jail Appeals Nos. 317 of 1965 and 320 of 1965, are the unrepresented jail appeals of Chhotey Lal and Gayari.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 79,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 130,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 141,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Joshi relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kumbakonam Mutual Benefit Fund Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 55,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 124,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Mardia Chemicals case, the Supreme Court held that under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, it is incumbent upon the secured creditor to serve sixty days notice before proceeding to take action under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 19,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 93,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 232,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 252,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 43(6) defines \" written down value \" as meaning \"in the case of assets acquired in the previous year\", the actual cost to the assessee, and in the case of assets acquired before the previous year, the actual cost to the assessee less all depreciations actually allowed to him under the Income-tax Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 308,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Another point pressed in arguments on be-half of the respondents was that the property, which was not mentioned in the notification of 26-2-1944, could not be subject to the Muslim Waqfs Act even if it was originally waqf property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 190,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Letters Patent Appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 22nd March, 1996 vide the judgment impugned in the SLP 12013/98.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 134,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 181,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first contention raised by Mr. Hardy, learned Counsel for the appellants, was that the F.I.R. itself appears to have been lodged not at the time mentioned in the F.I.R. but much later and after due deliberations and after preparation of the inquest report.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is manifest from the above that though the framers of the Constitution made an exception to the rule in Part XVI, the same was to be entirely of a temporary and ephemeral nature of ten years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 73,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 115,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "19.In the case of State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2018 Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :\n\n \"It is not obligatory for the judge at that stage of the trial to consider in any detail and weigh in a sensitive balance whether the facts, if proved, would be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or not.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 67,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is claimed by the petitioner that before his death, Ram Behari had executed a registered will dated 29-9-1992 in favour of his daughter Luxmi Devi (present petitioner) to the exclusion of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, whose copy was Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 112,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 149,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Judge had thereupon noted that by the 1988 amendment \"goods [MFA No.502 of 1999] carriage\" was defined as any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 91,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He deposed that his mother was also having the said number with her.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the case of 'Chunna Mal v. Bhagwant Kishore (FB) (A),' Sulaiman, C. J. and Bennet, J. toot the view that the Court cannot grant time to pay the court-fee as in that case the question of previous payment of the costs would not arise and the order would therefore be in conflict with the provisions of Order 33. Rule 15.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 55,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 66,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 84,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 320,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of the said contention, reliance was placed on a decision of the Bombay High Court in Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Bapu Onkar Chaudhary [(2004) ACJ 35].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 93,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 204,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore both the appeals preferred by the insurance company and the appellants Smt. Munni Devi and another are hereby partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 96,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that we should prefer the view expressed by Shivashankar Bhat, J. in the case of Balappa in preference to the view expressed by Swami, J. which was affirmed in the case of Gwalior Rayon and the Division Bench in the case of Lakshmi Bai.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 110,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 137,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 182,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 234,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 284,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On September 10, 1965, the Legislature of the State of Maha- rashtra enacted the Maharashtra Municipalities Act which repealed the Bombay District Municipal Act 3 of 1901.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 21,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 68,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 111,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 170,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the 4th July, 1956 the Commissioner of Income-tax, the respondent No. 1, issued an authorisation, in favour of the respondent No. 3 under the provisions of Section 37(2) of the said Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 21,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 172,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was, therefore, a child and not an adult person.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As the High Court rightly observed, those cases relate to what happens after or in consequence of the dissolution of a firm whereas we are here concerned with a question that arises before or at the time of dissolution.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The dress which he had taken to the ancestral house were burnt by Nazeer and his wife Selma (PW2) and a false complaint was lodged against him in the Kottayam East Crl.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 91,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 167,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": ".P.79(a) : Signature of P.W.19 in Ex.P.79.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "iii. Ex PW 1/3 is original death certificate of Sh. Vipin Solanki.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 65,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(emphasis added) PW4 Sajikumar repudiated the said suggestions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 30,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not disclosed in which judgment or order Ashok Bhan, J., has upheld the validity of the Notification dated 8-7-1997.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 57,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 121,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The apprehension must not only be entertained but must appear to the Court to be a reasonable apprehension.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Madras City Wine Merchants' Association and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994 (5) SCC 509), the Supreme Court considered the doctrine of legitimate expectation at length, from paragraph-43 onwards upto paragraph-48.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 97,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 116,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It objected to the renewal of a permit to the third respondent C. Abdul Rahim for the route Hiriyur to Chitradurga and back via V.V. Sagar, Hosadurga and Janakal on the ground that this renewal will authorise an overlapping over three miles on the notified route.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 99,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 114,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 138,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 149,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 161,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The resolution to that effect was passed by the board of directors of the assessee-company at its meeting held on June 22, 1966.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 127,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After going through the above mentioned observations made by the Hon'ble Justice S. Murlidharan in the above mentioned case and after going through the averments made by both the parties during the Course of evidence and after going through all the documents it is clear that it is incumbent upon the complainant to prove that he has sent a legal demand notice by producing the delivery report.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 95,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "H \" A 7 % . \n\n2. Chand S/0.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is only a convenient label to apply to a set of circumstances in which a plaintiff proves a case, so as to call for a rebuttal from the defendant without having to allege and prove any specific act or omission on the part of the defendant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff Bank no doubt pleaded at para-11 as hereunder:\n\"While so it came to the notice of the officers of the plaintiff Bank in February 1971 that defendants 2 and 3 and their henchmen tampered with the goods in the key godown and furtively removed the goods in both open loan and key loan godowns.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(Arun Kumar) Civil Judge(SW)/Dwarka Courts New Delhi/25.03.2014 Civil Suit No: 237/12 Sada Ram Kadian Vs Archit Raheja Civil Suit No: 320/12 25.03.2014",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 13,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 85,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 140,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 151,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioners object to the above searches and seizures and attack their validity under the law and claim that they were illegal and they ask for return of the seized documents, books and papers and for other reliefs, mentioned hereinbefore, under Art. 226 of the Constitution. \n 93e.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 250,
"end": 258,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 278,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Alok Aradhe) Judge a/rk Writ Petition No.4474/2013 02.03.2015 Mrs.Devika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 12,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 51,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 79,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Banks, L. J., said this :--\n ''A member of a partnership on becoming a partner takes upon himself the responsibility for everything that his partners may do in the conduct of the partnership, whether it be in the ordering of goods, or failing to defend an action, or admitting, however wrongly, the liability of the firm.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "32. Har Hara Bheri No. III ... \n\n 33. Har Hara Bheri No. IV ...",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 52,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Applying the test of Kuppuswami case such an order will (1) A. T. R. 1970 S.C. 406. \n\n(2) [1968] 2 S.C.R. 685. \n\nnot be a final order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 31,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 82,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 109,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She would be taught by the father of the appellant who was working as Adjunct Professor in City College of Chicago.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 114,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondents have filed a written statement.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This interpretation is also supported by Circular No.387, dt. 6th July, 1984.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 56,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 76,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "State versus Tarun Kumar -:: Page 3 of 12 ::- -:: 4 ::-\n\n26.02.2014 and the same were with her free consent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 24,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 67,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is stated that the said suit was compromised vide compromise deed dated 28.03.1958 and RCA No. 10/14/10 7/41 accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad terminated the said receivership vide order dated 02.05.1958.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 111,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 160,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 221,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri Srivastava, on the contrary, submitted that, even though there is a comprehensive insurance policy, the liability of the insurance company would be up to Rs. 50,000/- only as per the condition mentioned in the insurance policy, 'the limit of the liability to pay such amount as is necessary to meet the requirement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 351,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "... PETITIONER (BY SRI. N P VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. BASAPPA S/O GURAPPA HUNSHIHAL @ HUNSHYAL AGE MAJOR, OCC:AGRIL, R/O MUGAD, TQ & DIST:DHARWAD 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 64,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 107,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It further recites that the same rule for determining seniority list is to be applied in both the matter of confirmation and fixation of seniority.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is alleged that on 30.07.2005 at about 11.15 a.m., P.W.2-Thippeswamy, PSI., Basavapatna Police Station received a credible information that some persons at Kamsagara village are circulating counterfeit notes in a Maruti Omni van.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 32,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 71,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 105,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 176,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If reasons are not given in the order this Court also is placed under a great disadvantage.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There are Benches of these Tribunals in the State of Madhya Pradesh but their main seats are outside the State of Madhya Pradesh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 67,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 128,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If after the order, the Civil proceedings still remains to be tried and the rights in dispute between me parties have to be determined, the order is not a final order within the meaning of Article 133\". \n\n Jethanand and Sons v. State of Uttar Pradesh, .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 189,
"end": 200,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 250,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On October 8, ]993 itself, Maple Leaf executed a lease deed in respect of the said property in favour of an Embassy of Israel in India, New Delhi for a period of nine years at a rent of Rs.8,38,360/- per month.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 37,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 125,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 134,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 145,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the Karnal Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the plaint, it was not the proper Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 19,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But testimonies of P.Ws. 41 and 44 clearly show that those accused approached them and told them that something should be done for the total annihilation of Tomy's family.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 157,
"end": 161,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This route was also advertised and in due course applications of the respondents Kishore Sharan and two others were published on 25-10-1956.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 95,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 139,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The relevant Paragraph 8 and 24 of the aforesaid judgment are being quoted below :- \n \"8.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the 21st May, 1956, the assessee entered into an agreement with Messrs. Simplex Electric Company Ltd. of England (hereinafter sometimes called the \" foreign company \"}.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 21,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 115,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This witness also knows the accused No.1 Srinivasa and another accused Shobha.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is what was stated by a two-Judge Bench in R.S. Naik vs. A. Antulay 1986 (2) SCC 716. \n\n27.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 89,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There they stayed in the house of one Mr. M. R. Singh (PW 53).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 53,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In ILR 1953 Nag 116: (AIR 1953 Nag 12) Hidayatullah, J., (as he then was) and Choudhuri, J. held at page 121 (of ILR Nag): (at p. 14 of AIR): \n \"Order 41 Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure, was not meant to negative the provisions of Order 22.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 38,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 51,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 87,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 139,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 160,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 185,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 239,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The penalties imposed for misdeclaration of value as well as for ITC contravention imposed on M/s BVH Limited are set aside.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 68,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 109,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At this juncture, it ought to be pointed out that the Assessing Officer, in the assessment order dated 18.03.2004, had dealt with the claim of deduction under Section 80HHC as well as the claim of deduction under Section 80IB separately in great detail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 113,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 172,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 225,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No.5564 of 2009 (O&M) with -14- FAO No.5565 of 2009 and XOBJC-43-CII of 2010 (O&M) been filed against the owner of the motorcycle.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However, the settlement deed was not registered though it was presented to the Sub-Registrar at Khairatabad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 107,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Lord Wright in the same case said, \"The actual pecuniary loss of each individual entitled to sue can only be ascertained by balancing on the one hand the loss to him of the future pecuniary benefit, and on the other any pecuniary advantage which from whatever source comes to him by reason of the death\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to quash and set aside the order of respondent No. 1, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, dated March 7, 1977, by which it has granted a temporary permit to respondent No. 3 on Kota-Mangrole route and to quash the permit issued to it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 36,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 56,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 173,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 194,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 266,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "8. Shri. Shabbir Mohd. Ali @ Firoz Khan Gaffar Khan Nanku M/30yrs &",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 57,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such addition made by the AO in computation of book profit were deleted by this Tribunal while disposing ITA No. 693/Cal/1999, dt. 24th March, 2000 reported as Usha Maitin Industries Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (2003) 81 TTJ (Cal) 518-Ed. \n\n6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 125,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 147,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 225,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All the cases pertaining to the revenue estates of villages falling in District Karnal and Jind (except appeals filed by the State pertaining to land of village Anta, District Jind) have already been decided by this court, whereas the cases pertaining to some of the villages of District Kaithal have also been decided.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 86,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 95,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 165,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 175,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 295,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It should be noted that the House of Lord made an exception in respect of the defence of insanity, and did not seek to reverse the law laid down in the case of -- 'Reg v. M'Naughton' (1843) 4 St. Tr. (NS) 847 (N), viz., that insanity, if relied upon as a defence, must be established by the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 164,
"end": 212,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These appeals by certificate arise from the judgment and decision of the High Court of Bombay dated 10th August, 1971 in Income Tax Reference No. 124 of 1963.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 93,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 117,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 157,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A Divisional Bench of the Bombay High Court, relying upon the aforesaid English decisions, has expressed a similar view in Baldeodas Mahavir Prasad v. G.P. Sonavalla, AIR 1948 Bom 385 (D).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 187,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the defendant had paid the entire consideration amount as claimed by her, then, why she had left the half of the suit land to the plaintiff as the share of the plaintiff.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus the wide sweep of Art. 14 undoubtedly takes within its fold the impugned circular issued by the State of U.P. \n\nin exercise of its executive power, irrespective of the precise nature of appointment of the Government Counsel in the districts and the other rights, contractual or statutory, which the appointees may have.\" \n\n55.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 30,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 114,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first contention is that respondent No. 6 Dr. S.L. Mehta who was selected by the Selection Committee for the post of Senior Bio-chemist after the bizarre exercise undertaken to find a suitable person to fill in the post on the earlier occasion, did not fulfil one of the essential qualifications for the post.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Here the appellate court which was competent to deal with the matter has pronounced its judgment against the petitioners, and the matter (1) [1951] S.C.R. 344. \n\n having been finally decided is not one to be reopened in a proceeding under article 32 of the Constitution.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 141,
"end": 158,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 249,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 269,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This can be the only definition of ' repairs ' because it is only by reason of this definition of repairs that the expenditure is a revenue expenditure.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The present appeals arise from the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as \"the Tribunal\") at Sangli, in Petition No. 323/1993, decided on 16.8.2007.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 133,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 159,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 181,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The findings are not opposed to justice or morality or contrary to the public policy of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 93,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is no rule of practice that there must, in every case, be corroboration before a conviction can be allowed to stand.\"*",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel placed strong reliance in Har Shankar & Ors. v. The Dy. Excise and Taxation Commr & Ors. [(1975) 1 SCC 737].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 127,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 1988 (supra) and State of Punjab filed Criminal Appeal No. 784 of 1989 (supra) before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which were allowed vide order dated 6.3.1998 (P-1) and the accuseds were convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 92,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 130,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 171,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 217,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 280,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 291,
"end": 301,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 305,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Memorandum No. 138-PS. dated Calcutta, the 7th February 1956 Subject:-- Action to be taken in cases of stay-in-strikes and \"Gherao\" or Coercive and confinement tactics resorted to by the employees of commercial and industrial undertakings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 21,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 37,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When her husband Manoj protested, he was given knife blows at many places on his Crl.A.Nos. 786, 795, 919, 926/2001 Page 2 body by the intruders.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 115,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sandeep Pathak had stated that in 13 Criminal Appeal No.1264/2010 the evening of the incident, the police came to his shop and they took him to the rented room, where the appellant gave one Katta and one bullet to the police.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 65,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One of the issues that was framed, therefore, was: \n \"Did the plaintiff (Lilabai) pay Rs. 200/- on 11-4-1944 and Rs- 6500/- on 15-4-1944 in cash to defendant No. 1 (Mangilal) at Arvi?\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 80,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 108,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 136,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 173,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 182,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There can be no second opinion that the law declared by a larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, not only binds the High Courts and all other Courts, but also the smaller Benches of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 99,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 211,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness should be ignored.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A case was registered against you at Proh. & Excise Station, Jaggaiahpeta in crime No.254/2004-05 dated 10.7.2004 under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition (amendment) Act, 1997.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 73,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 97,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 113,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 140,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 182,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(255)DBCWP No.9773/2010 M/s Shree Modi Cement Inud.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 23,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 45,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sl. No. NARCOTIC DRUG SMALL QUANTITY COMMERCIAL ITEM NO.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 52,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Jadavji Modi filed a separate application asking for compensation of Rs. 10,000 for the injuries suffered by him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The relevant portion of the cross-examination is extracted hereunder:\n \u0013I have not received any complaint from any of the coffee growers that money is not given from Rahmania Coffee Works.\u0014\n\n 32.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 189,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, the preamble of the Act itself states that it is an Act to provide for the creation of Legislative Council for the State of Tamil Nadu and for matters supplemental, incidental and consequential thereto and the same had received the assent of the President on 18.5.2010.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 143,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 277,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The legal notice bears two addresses of the defendant being Delhi Consumer Co\u00adoperative Whole Sale Store Limited, Moti Nagar, New Delhi and Shop No. AB\u00ad14, DDA Market, \n Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi (Suit Property).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 95,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 189,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 265,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the State of Bihar, in the Directorate of Indigenous Medicines, there were three classes of posts sanctioned, namely, (1) Director of Indigenous Medicines, (2) Deputy Director (Homoeopathic) and (3) Deputy Director (Unani).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 21,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab contended that unfortunately PW12 injured witness Vikram Singh has not supported the prosecution case but the circumstantial evidence available on record against the appellant is sufficient to establish the charges against him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 78,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 141,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In 1930, Raghavamma filed a suit for possession of the property impleading Chenchamma as the first defendant, Kamalamma as the second defendant and Punnayya as the third defendant.\n934 Chenchamma, the first\t defendant and\t the present first respondent, contended\tthat Venkayya\twas not given\t in adoption and that there was no partition as alleged by\t the plaintiff.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 86,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 120,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 158,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 197,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 285,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This judgment shows that no doubt, the law declared by Apex Court binds Courts in India but it has directed to remember that it does not enact.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 87,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In reply arguments, Shri Deshpande, learned Senior Advocate urges that doctrine of Merger is not of universal application or unlimited in nature.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Devendra Yadav was further charged under section 25 (1-B)(a) read with section 27 of the Arms Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 81,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 97,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The product manufactured by M/s. Guardian Plasticote Ltd., consists of two layers of kraft paper joined together by a layer of polythene.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 57,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Perusal of the records shows that earlier, vide order, dated 24.08.2012, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, has dismissed a petition, filed by the party-in-person to take action against his wife, for giving false evidence, in the maintenance proceedings, as not maintainable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 138,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While the coach carrying the bridegroom was approaching the house of Tulsiram Khatik (P. W. 16) the accused Mannalal forcibly tried to get into the coach.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 84,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "AND S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6661/2012 Manoj Kumar & Yadav &",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 41,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 53,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 61,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is fully covered by decisions of this Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It went on to observe that interpretation of Article 361 (2) must be such as to be consistent with it and W.P. No.3346/2015 further that intendment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 60,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 123,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The contention that the papers in question had been \"planted\" in partner Palanetraiah's residence did not impress the CIT (Appeals).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 85,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We must, thus, examine whether reasons given by the High Court in its judgment in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. \nAsian Star Co. Ltd. (supra) were correct in law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 133,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In rare and exceptional cases, St may be rebutted by other circumstances, such as appearance of a Government counsel without getting instructions in a particular case to appear.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "I paisa per unit for the first two generating sets and nil rate in respect of 3rd and 4th generating sets.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That Order is made absolute and the same, for convenience, is reproduced below as follows:\n4-6-07 W.P. No. 8631 (w) of 2007 Sardar Amjad Ali Mrs. Sucharita Roy (Bhattacharya) ...for the petitioner",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 123,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 140,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 159,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have also perused the written submissions filed by Shri P. P. Srivastava, Additional Advocate General for respondents in the writ petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This argument was sought to be supported by reference to two decisions, one a decision of the Calcutta High Court in East India Prospecting Syndicate v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, and the other a decision of the Supreme Court in Bengal and Assam Investors Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 113,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 187,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 234,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 244,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 299,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "First, about the cross-objection of respondent/claimant Ramchandra in MA No. 97 of 1985.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 66,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 87,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Meanwhile, S.I. Brijendra Singh (PW.7), the I.O. stood transferred to another police station and the investigation could not be carried out smoothly.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 31,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both the Tehsils fall in district Ghaziabad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 43,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Court has consistently shown great anxiety for personal liberty and refused to throw out a petition merely on the ground that it does not disclose a prima facie case invalidating the order of detention.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In a recent case reported in 1961 (2) Cri. L. J. 71 (Cal) decided by Debabrata Mukherjee an D. N. Das-Gupta, JJ.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 57,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 88,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(3) F. A. No. 159 of 1955:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 25,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She left the appellant's house only when she was driven out in March 1963 and thereafter stayed with her parent for several years waiting in vain for the appellant to take her back.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this context Dr. Tewari argued that as the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition has her existing holding in a different village in the Gang Canal Area, the argument advanced by the learned counsel is merely of academic value so far as allotment of land to this petitioner is concerned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 153,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The investigating officer alongwith the police officials then once again visited the prepaid taxi parking lot at the IGI Airport.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 128,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The same view was expressed by the High Court of Kerala in Vijayan Pillai @ Babu vs. State of Kerala : 1989 (2) K.L.J. \n\n 234.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 55,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 118,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of this proposition, the Id. representative for the assessee relied on the following rulings :-\n(1) Addl. CIT v. Laxmi Agents P. Ltd. (125 ITR 227) (Guj) (APP) (2) CIT v. Anniversary Investments (175 ITR 199) (Cal) (3) CIT v. National and Grindlays Bank (202 ITR 559) (Cal) (4) CIT v. Jardine Hinderson (210 ITR 981) (Cal) (5) Shaan Finance Ltd. (231 ITR 308 at 314) (SC)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 174,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 229,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 288,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 337,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 356,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An this is why President Roosevelt said that the judges of the Supreme Court must be not only great justices, but they must be great constructive :statesmen",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His father opened a chat-shop at the Bal Mela.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Damages awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity constitute a conventional sum which is taken to be the sum which society deems fair, fairness being interpreted by the court In the light of previous decisions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the house of Bant Singh, his brother-in-law Kesar Singh alias Bittu (appellant), his mother-in-law Bhagwanti (appellant) and the nephew of Bhagwanti, namely, Harbans Singh (appellant in connected Criminal Appeal No.56-DB of 1999) had come there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 70,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 111,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 151,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 174,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 231,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Awarding a sum of \u00a3200 for 'loss of expectation of life', Viscount Simon, LC, in a famous passage, stated as follows: \"The thing to be valued is not the prospect of length of days, but the prospect of a predominantly happy life....",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "N.P. Engineer (G. N. Joshi, R.J. Kolah and N.A. Palki- wala, with him) for the respondent in Case No. 182 and appellant in Case No. 183.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 54,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 105,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 135,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A.9 told him that one Krishnapandi, P.W.34, is running a Semiya manufacturing company in the name of T.K.P Food Products at Mudichur and as the company was running at loss, and if they invested, they may earn profit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 34,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 132,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "'License' to drive a Motor-vehicle is issued by Regional Transport Officer under Motor Vehicles Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 99,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Kh. No. 71/2 had been transferred by Parmanand during his life time to Roop Singh etc., P.W. 3 is Ramkisan (Patwari of village) Bagthari, at the relevant time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 86,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 111,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 141,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It seems that at these meetings some consideration was given to the proposals published on 18th August 1958 and the representations received.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 107,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "..J. \n\n (M. B. SHAH) .J. \n\n (B. N. AGRAWAL) J. \n\n (ARIJIT PASAYAT) January 22, 2002",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 19,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 65,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 83,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The amount, pursuant to the direction given by learned Single Judge, has been deposited in the Registry of this Court, as noted by the order dated 28.5.1998.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 147,
"end": 156,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case looking to the evidence of complainant Bhojraj (PW3) it is apparent that FIR could not be written up to 11.00 p.m in the night whereas dead body of the deceased was taken from the spot.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 66,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The victim K rushed back to her house and narrated about the incident to her mother Smt. Kavita, who asked her as to who the said person was and then, it transpired that accused had followed her to her house.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, in the present case the Executive acted illegally in regularising the appointment of the respondent Thimmiah.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 119,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words, the finding of the learned trial Judge is that Messrs. China Cotton Exporters or the plaintiff had no knowledge that the Concerns, National Hand-loom Weaving Works and Rayon Hand-loom Industries, to which the yarn was supposed to have been sold, were not genuine Handloom factories.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 93,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 179,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 210,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fact that Harbans Singh (PW-6) had seen Harbans Singh (appellant) and Kesar Singh (appellant) carrying some heavy substance on the carrier of the bicycle about two and half months before the matter was reported to the Police is in the facts and circumstances quite doubtful.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 27,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 57,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 85,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case, the Apex Court has laid down that in a case of difference in record with regard to date of birth, the best evidence is that of parents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 27,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are, on the other hand, in entire agreement with the view taken by the Mysore High Court in Hanuman Motor Service v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 88. \n 24.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 140,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "R.K. Garg, R.K. Jain and Guptha Jain for the Respondents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 11,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that in the former case though the trees were not sold with the roots and the stumps, the Kerala High Court took the view that the assessee was not engaged in the business of felling timber and, therefore, the receipts from the sale of trees was not assessable as income.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W.6, a resident of Chimakurthy, Prakasam District, took photographs of the dead body.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 32,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 51,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The last provision to which we may refer in this connection is s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 69,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 106,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No orders are called for on IA No. 1 of 1993 in TP (C) No. 17 of 1978.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 44,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 69,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1. Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur with reference to letter No. 6918 dated 22.10.74. \n\n2. Shri Mangat Rai Mitruka, Addl. District and Sessions Judge Jaipur city-3. \n\nThe pay fixation was done by the State Government in terms of Rule 29 subclause (b) of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules! Rule 29 (b) of the Rules as under:\n29.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 92,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 122,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 171,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 258,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 305,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As a result of which deceased fell on the road and received injuries.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In these matters, several counter-affidavits have been filed by the respondents in C.W.J.C. No. 2905 of 1996.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 108,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practising fraud or deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 163,
"end": 174,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 194,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is, therefore, no doubt that the Court in Srish Kumar Choudhury case accepted and followed, as it was bound to do, the Constitution Bench judgments and not the two Judge judgments in the Dina and Bhiya Ram Munda cases.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 143,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 197,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 217,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Insofar as the writ petitioner in W.P.No.15821 of 2008 is concerned, admittedly he was not appointed under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in the year 2007 either through Employment Exchange or through Outsourcing Agencies, but he is still waiting as a person registered with the Employment Exchange having the qualification of Diploma in Engineering.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 54,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Syed Rafiq Ahmed and Another -v.- Regional Trans-port Officer and Others a Division Bench of this Court speaking through one of us (Puttaswamy, J.) has indicated the procedural requirements for determination of arrears of taxes and their recoveries (vide para 51 to 58).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 75,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 145,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, it was produced on record of the case in the year 2000.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "12.2007 (2) TNT 193 (Jayalakshmi and another vs. Govindammall and others) 13.2008 (1) MLJ 560 (Angammal and another vs. C.Sellamuthu and another)\n 7.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 73,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 145,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mahendrabhai Girdharlal Gandhi, P.N. 15, Exhibit 57 was not the Inspector at Surat when the goods were brought to the godown at Surat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 30,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 82,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 133,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She admits that she went, but explains that her father's brother's children had holidays and as they proceeded to Kashmir, she also accompanied them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 121,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Prakash and others vs. Arun Kumar Saini and another (2010 (3) TAC 114 (Delhi) (supra), Delhi High Court further further held as under:\n20.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 80,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Subrata Bijli Sudarshan Gokulnagar G.P. No. 6 (Chi.-4) 25.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent, Arlabs Private Limited, made two applications for the grant of compulsory licences of the said two patents on September 28, 1956.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 38,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this reference the facts are that on the 5th January, 1965, Title Suit No. 83 of 1959 in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Alipore for the recovery of money due on a mortgage bond was decreed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 61,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 88,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 132,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also pertinent to note that Mohindra Supply Co. was as case under section 39 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 53,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 82,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "4. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant against the accused u/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through the complainant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 82,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before the sale was confirmed the appellant (a minor) represented by his maternal grandfather, filed an application to set aside the sale under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 161,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has produced a copy of the order dated 29.10.2014 passed in W.P.No.15937/2014.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 115,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 143,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that in Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank (2002) 6 SCC 33, pari materia provision contained in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 came up for the consideration of the Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 117,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 165,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 202,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That in brief is the nature of the complaint made by Mr. Sethi in his First Information Report.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "3. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed following in Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana [(2000) 5 SCC 82],:\n \"13.Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 24,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 101,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 171,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 319,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 323,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 376,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 384,
"end": 390,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reliance was placed on the law laid down in State of Gujarat Vs. Harumal Retumal and others 2008 FAJ 292 (Guj), Koyakutty Vs. Food Inspector 2000 (2) FAC 238 and Shew Chander Mathur and anr Vs. State of Assam and anr., 1991 (1) FAC 9.\n\n\n\n26.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 129,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 192,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 288,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has further categorically stated that Shri P. M. Samantray did not put undue pressure of any kind\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court below had allowed the amendments prayed for.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Civil Writ Petition No. 15651 of 1992 came up for admission before the Bench of A. L. Bahri and G. C. Garg, JJ. on. January 12, 1993 and it was also directed to be heard alongwith Civil Writ Petition No. 12079 of 1992.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 37,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 91,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 132,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 217,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Police constable brought PW-1 Madhukar to his cabin and along with him there was a lady and a boy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 42,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus though section 4 appears on the face of it as one short section of four lines, it is in effect a statutory provision adopting all the rules which were in force at the commencement of the Act, governing the recruitment and the conditions of service of the two all-India services.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since, we have held respondents 3 to 5 and Sushil Kumar Taxi Driver, guilty of committing contempt of this Court and have punished them in the manner indicated above, we. drop the proceedings in so far as commission of perjury is concerned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Security against sickness and disablement is fundamental right under Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7(b) of international Convention of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and under Articles 39(e), 38 and 21 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 79,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 124,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 141,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 245,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 274,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "H R SOWMYA, MAJOR, D/O RUDRAPPA NEW NES CROSS QUARTERS NO.576, MYSORE CEMENTS LIMITED AMMASANDRA, TUMKUR-572 211 103.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 116,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr.K.P.Raval, the learned APP, has vehemently opposed this appeal and submitted that the trial Court committed no error in finding the accused no.1 Popatbhai Mohanbhai guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as well as the accused nos.4 and 6 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 167,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 228,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 253,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 339,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 364,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is contended by Mr.Yagnik that Rule 5(A)(ii) of the impugned Rules is also contrary to the eligibility criteria laid down for the candidates to appear for Gujarat Common Entrance Test.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 47,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 165,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the basis of these newspaper reports, a writ-petition in public interest, being C.W.J.C. 3395 of 1994, was filed in this Court alleging fraudulent excess drawals of money by the officials of the Department.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 104,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There remains Appeal No. 302 of 1957, which raises a question of limitation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 36,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Punishment for forgery.- Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Bansi Lal Vs. M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. \n 16.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 46,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In para. 5 of the judgment at page 491 of the report, Vaidialingam, J., has observed : \n\"As to how exactly any books of account : maintained by somebody else, and much less the secret account books, which according to the department were discovered from a third party, can straightaway and without proof be utilized as against persons like the petitioner",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 66,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case, Nathu Bnjara was tortured at police station, Rampura during the interrogation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 66,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "O. P. No. 1211 was filed on 24-4-1967 to quash the said order; and the petitioner in that case obtained from this Court on 25-4-1967 an interim order, staying the operation of the said order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 37,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 132,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "More fundamental is the contention that the impugned notification issued by the State Government purporting to amend r.6(b) with retrospective effect from July 10, 1964 which rendered members of Class II Service who are diploma- holders like the petitioners.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 155,
"end": 168,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "85.Hiralal PW 36 is a businessman of Samath, District Banaras who had gone to the bank of Varuna River on 20-12- 1983 at about 8.00 a.m. to ease himself when he noticed crowd there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 61,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 117,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, we have also this fact that though the vessel started from Camorin on the 7th of January, it has taken over 6 days to reach the environs of Tuticorin, a distance of about 60 to 70 miles.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 75,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A bill issued to one Mr. K. Narasimhalu on 5-4-1950 will be typical of the way in which the matter was treated by the assessee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She stated that the distance Crl.A.No.179/2012, Crl.M.A.7959/2011 Page 12 between the police post and her house could be covered by foot in half an hour.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 46,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 65,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the testimony of PW12 Neeraj Jain who is the independent witness, it has been corroborated that accused Hari Chand came to the spot and demanded bribe from the complainant in his car.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 38,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Ex. C the Government laid down that classification of socially and educationally backward classes should be made on the following basis: (1) economic condition; and (2) occupation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "So, when the appellant has not been able to prove that the house from where recovery of contraband was made does not belong to him and belongs to someone else than him, then, only he could be presumed to be in possession of the contraband recovered from the house in his occupation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "To, obtain marketable carbon dioxide from kiln gas an elaborate plant would be required for separation and purification and it is such carbon dioxide which becomes marketable after it is compressed at a pressure of 1000 to 1800 lbs. per sq. inch in cylinders of the specifications laid down by the Government of India under Rule II of the Gas Cylinder Rules, 1940.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 298,
"end": 317,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 331,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 363,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Bhagirath Mal plaintiff has therefore come to this Court in second appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the offences were bailable, the accused/driver is admitted to bail on furnishing of personal bond and surety bond in a sum of Rs.10,000/\u00ad. \n\n3.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In other words, if in a case, the following of a mandate strictly, results in delay in trapping an accused, which may lead the accused to escape, then the prosecution case should not be thrown out.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish \u201cbreach\u201d on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Roop Kishore v. United Provinces Government, AIR 1945 All 24, was cited with approval, which contained the observation that in some cases, such an application may not be a step in the proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 60,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The husband is an Advocate practicing in this Court as well as in Delhi High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "12] Mr.Kumbhakoni submits that in each of the election petitions paras referred to by the Returned candidates need to be perused for the purpose of appreciating his submissions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This interpretation of sub-section (2) i strongly supported by A the marginal note to section 52 which reads 'Consideration for transfer in cases of under-statement'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 38,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 96,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of recent decision of of Delhi High Court, where, Delhi High Court has considered recent decision of Apex Court in case of R.K. Malik v. Kiran Pal reported in 2009 ACJ 1924, where, decision of Delhi High Court reported in 2007 ACJ 2010 has been confirmed by Apex Court, where, school going children died due to school bus has been fallen down in Yamuna River.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 49,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 74,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 180,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 217,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 243,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 276,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "( ALOK VERMA) JUDGE RJ/ M.C.C.No.500/2015 20.04.2016 Ms. Archana Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 12,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 41,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 52,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That itself shows that opponent had right to carry on business with other agencies.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 19, 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Income-tax Reference No. 1588 of 1956.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 59,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 87,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 128,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the aforesaid discussion, Special Appeal No. 592 of 2006 preferred by the respondent-appellants is dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 67,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned single Judge, the appellant-University has filed the aforesaid writ appeals.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Legislature in its wisdom u/s. 195 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has not declared the Labour Court constituted u/s. 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to be a \"Court\" for the purposes of section S.195(1)\n\n(b) or 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 90,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 145,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 183,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 248,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 287,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Amjad Ali and Mr. Kalyan Bandyopadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That is how the appellant had come to file the above appeal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel appearing for the University of Madras in W.P. No. 1700 of 1992 has taken us through the provisions of the Madras University Act and also the Statement of Objects and Reasons in detail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 54,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 79,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 144,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Puran Mal Vs. Director of Inspection (1974) 1 SCC 345, a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, held that the material obtained by an illegal search, is not inadmissible into evidence, and can be acted upon, to record a conviction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 56,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 96,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to Mr. Pratap when the law allows the arrest of sistership, then it is sufficient for the plaintiff to plead that the defendant-ship is a sistership in order for the plaint to disclose a cause of action.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 23,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Special Civil Application Nos. 23514 of 2005 and 352 of 2006 falling in Category I are also dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 60,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though there are certain technicalities raised on the F.I.R., the other aspects pointed out by the Tribunal have confirmed the negligence on the part of the driver.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In any case, there is no evidence on record to show that the garage in question has been booked for unauthorized construction.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is appropriate to mention that the report of the expert Shri D.B. Gaur, Executive Engineer(Ex. R-1), was disbelieved wherein he has opined that the building had become unfit and unsafe for human habitation, whereas the other report submitted by Shri Hem Chand Goel that the building was safe and fit for human habitation was accepted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 73,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 267,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It goes to his heirs displacing survivorship.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "s. V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor-General, G. A. Pandaya and M. 1. Khowaja, for respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 74,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Manickyam was therefore transferred and posted on August 10, 1950 at Gudur and was given the 445th place in the order of seniority among the clerks in the Grain Shop Department of Bezwada District.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 65,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 74,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 196,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The undisputed facts show that the petitioner's candidature was proposed by an independent member and was seconded by a member of the rival LDF.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gurnam Kaur ).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 46,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This power is to be exercised after giving an opportunity to the assessee of being heard and also after recording reasons therefor except where offices of both the ITOs are situated in the same city, locality or place.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If, in the above illustration, the Court desires to pronounce its decision on those questions of law, so as to make the ratio decidendi, it would be necessary to first restore the suit, then call for its record in exercise of its powers of revision (if it is not barred by the opening clause of Section 115, Civil P. C.), and then dismiss the suit as not maintainable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 295,
"end": 306,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 319,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Announced in the open court (RAJINDER SINGH) Dt. 01.09.2014 ACJ/ARC/CCJ (NE), KKD COURTS, DELHI.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 95,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The demand of dowry, cruelty or harassment based upon such demand and the date of death should not be too remote in time which, under the be treated as having become stale enough.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It will not behove the prestige and glory of this Court as envisaged under the Constitution if earlier decisions are revised or recalled solely because a later Bench takes a different view of the issues involved.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 91,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To prove the forgery committed by accused Suruchi Sharma, PW10 Sh. V.S.V. Nagesh has deposed that as per loan file Ex.PW1/A, loan application was moved by accused Suruchi Sharma along with her husband accused Anuj Kumar Sharma on 10.04.2004.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 80,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 177,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 226,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 240,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Chahar submitted that the Magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction and both the Session Judge and the High Court had misconstrued the provisions of Sections 190, 193 and 209 of the Code, in upholding the order of the learned Magistrate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 177,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Microsoft Office 2000 Rs. 10,500/- Per unit 720 (In 5 Years) Rs. 75,60,000/- Microsoft Visual Rs. 12,600/- Per unit 180 (In 5 Years) Rs. 22,68,000/- Studio 6.0 Microsoft XP Rs. 6,200/- Per unit 144 (In 1 Year) Rs. 8,92,800/- Professional Version 2002",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(10) Mr. Dhanda contended with force that it is the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act which determine the legal requirements for transfer of a motor vehicle and that section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, dose not have any application to the facts of the case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 87,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 178,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 210,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL DIET, CONVEYANCE AND ATTENDANT:\n18.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It would be obvious that in the context and on the language here employed, if s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act were repealed there would no longer be any legal foundation for invoking the penal provisions of the Sea Customs Act to a contravention of a notification under s. 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 83,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 106,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 223,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 274,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 313,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[382A; 374D]\n Caledonian Railway Co. v. Walker's Trustees, and Quin v.\nLeathern, [1901] A.C. 495 (502), referred to.\n (3)\t Apart\tfrom Article 141 of the Constitution\t the policy of courts is to stand by precedent and not to disturb settled point.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 60,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 105,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 152,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 174,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The other argument is that they were not properly wrapped and sealed when they were sent to the Chemical Examiner or the seal was tampered with later on.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Manohar Lal Chopra vs. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal 1962 AIR(SC) 527 ], the law is stated in the following terms:\n\"The Code of Civil Procedure is undoubtedly not exhaustive: it does not lay down rules for guidance in respect of all situations nor does it seek to provide rules for decision of all conceivable cases which may arise.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 78,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 150,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased being the wife, two sons and parents of the deceased Shri Neeraj Dubey.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 132,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since none is appeared on behalf of the applicant(s), case is adjourned.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After the marriage at Bombay on the 4th June, 1986, the spouses immediately left for Pune where the husband lives and where the husband's family had arranged a reception on the 7th June, 1986.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 28,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 89,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 191,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is for the Union of India to raise objection to the filing of the agreement and to give reasons for not going to arbitration.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 28,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It will be relevant to quote the statement of Shri B.D. Kaushik which reads as follows :- Q. You have been issued a show cause notice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 63,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Bench of the Punjab High Court rejected the writ petition of the appellant holding that the principles for determining seniority between direct recruits and promotees laid down in rule 1(f)(iii) and (iv), 1952 were not discriminatory and there was no infringement of Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 30,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 203,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 285,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 305,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, the application dated 2nd March, 2007 moved through M/s Swan Telecom Pvt. Ltd was of no use to Reliance ADA Group.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 43,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 83,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 119,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for appellant nos. 5 & 6.\n Shri Saurabh Mohunta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 21,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 121,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Sessions Trial No. 504 of 2001 charge was framed against all the accused under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 33,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 116,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 137,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 162,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as Rafiq (A.6) is concerned, as per the evidence of Anees (PW.1), Ashfaq (PW.2) and Usman Ali (PW.4), Rafiq used a Gupti for committing the crime.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 15,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 64,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 79,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 100,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 114,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case, the order of termination of the (1) A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 689. \n\n (2) [1961] 1 S.C.R. 606. \n\n (3) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 716. \n\n appellant's service which was preceded by an enquiry into his alleged misconduct was based on the finding of miscon- duct which amounted to casting a stigma affecting his future career.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 70,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 98,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 126,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Looking to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, it clearly appears to us that the Supreme Court has given specific direction to consider only merits subject to reservation under Article 15 and the reservation contemplated by Article 15 alone is saved.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 53,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 111,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 204,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 251,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Bachhittar Singh vs State of Punjab and another7 (para 9); M/",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 131,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is significant that in the present case no case w.r.t. the Customs Act under which the Tribunal has been constituted or the Excise Act w.r.t. which this case has arisen has been cited by either side.\" \n\n27.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 73,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 137,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner renewed its prayer by another letter, dated the 25th June, 1971 (Annexure \"6\" to C. W. J. C. No. 1361 of 1973), for instructions for payment of the amount due to It.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 78,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 124,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Chief Election Commissioner had given good reasons for postponing the election in order to uphold the purity and fairness of the election.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "No doubt, in this context it must be stated that PW 1 in cross-examination deposed that after he thus fell down, the bus did not move even a foot.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "While a written examination has certain distinct advantages over the viva voce test, there are yet no written tests which can evaluate a\t candidate's initiative, alertness,\t resourcefulness, dependableness,\ncooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment,\nability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "12. Minister for Petroleum & Natural Gas Discretionary Allotments of :\n 1. Gas Connections.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Before considering the question as to what is meant by doing any act towards the commission of the offence as an inevitable part of the process of attempt, we may point out that the last act attributed to the accused in this case is that they asked Tejinder Pal Kaur (PW-5) to go to the rail track and commit suicide.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 249,
"end": 266,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 13-4-1983 he examined PWs 22, 36, 39 and 63 and he made over the charge of this case to PW 65, who is the main Investigating Officer in this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the principles of partnership are attracted to the case on hand.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "P.W. 3 is the complainant Vibha Godghate, P.W. 4 Ashish is son in law of P.W. 3, P.W. 5 is Medical Officer who had examined the dead body, P.W. 6 is Police Officer who reached the hospital and had drawn inquest panchnama and spot panchnama, P.W. 7 is one of the eyewitnesses who stays in the same locality, P.W. 8 Anup and P.W. 9 Ravindra were witnesses to the incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 40,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 55,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 318,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 338,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner's father originally resided at Umreth, while the original place of residence of the respondent is Vaso.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 52,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 117,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The evidence of PW.10-PSI (investigation officer), PW.7 (ASI) would reveal that on the following day, accused no.2 was arrested and his voluntary statement was recorded.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After discussing the scope of Section 437 and 439 of Cr. P.C. the Supreme Court observed (at pages 135 & 136):\n\"S. 439(1), Cr. P.C. of the New Code, on the other hand, confers special powers on the High Court or the Court of Sessions in respect of bail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 61,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 121,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 131,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Once it is offered, the Court is to only see whether it is satisfactory or not.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Out of her earnings Rs. 100/- from bidi-making, she spent Rs. 50/- on the family.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Before proceeding further, I might refer to another\" Article of the Constitution which has a more direct bearing on the question before us.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 80,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the second decision, viz., 2001 (6) SCC 46 (cited supra), though it also relates to submission of tenders, the principle laid down is helpful to the stand taken by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 45,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 207,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document ITA No. 591 of 2009 & connected appeals.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 78,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the matters came up for further hearing on 7-2-2000, the learned Counsel for first respondent in W.A. Nos. 5508 and 5509 of 1999 filed a Memo dated 3-2-2000 in Court, objecting to the Hon'ble Chief Justice and Ashok Bhan, J., being Members of this Full Bench.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 56,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 133,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 161,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 225,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Neither the plaintiff Vijayaben nor the attesting witness Pravinchandra. stated in their evidence that when the deceased testator signed the Will he was in sound, disposing state of mind.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 31,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 71,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The we petitions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, C. M. P Nos. 6834 and 6835 of 1959 are dismissed with costs (Consolidated Advocate's fee Rs. 100).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 93,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Article 301 is, however, subject to the other provisions of Articles 302, 303 and 304.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 85,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Counsel appearing for the Caveator Market Committee submitted that the petition is premature and that the apprehension of the petitioner is ill-founded.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, I am of the view that where compared to the RTC Act, the Trade Unions Act has to be certainly considered as a special Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 62,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 84,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Tne case for the prosecution is that as Controller 9f Telegraph Stores, Phillips had the duty of procuring stocks of all varieties of Telegraph Stores and supply them on demand to the Branch Stores, Depots and Divisions throughout India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 236,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Much waters have flown through the gargantuan Ganges, after the Privy Council made its inoffensive remarks in Bilas Kunwar's case (1915) ILR 37 All 557 : (AIR 1915 PC 96) (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 122,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 170,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the context of the amendment in Section 110(1) it would not be possible now to Act upon the former interpretation of Clause (a) of Section 110-A(1) by this High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 150,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The date of registration of domain name is also not given.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Furthermore, the Appellant's case during argument that the fact of the foreign principal benefiting had been disclosed in the Form 3CEB and the Transfer Pricing Officer `could' have taken a different view.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Dr. Narender Singh Lauhora (PW- 4), who medically examined Anuradha and Ashok Kumar on 30.04.2002 at 7.40 P.M. found some injuries on their persons and those injuries were found to be result of blunt weapon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 26,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 67,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 83,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 10.12.2001, P.W.10 pledged jewels belonging to him and obtained Rs.1,10,000/- and took the said amount to A.9's house as per his instruction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appellant Jose claimed that he had sold the offending car on 7th May, 1986 to Smt. Bhavani, who in turn sold it to one Sri Aboobacker on 12th May, 1986 who again sold it to one Sri George Matthew on 18th August, 1986.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 14,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 74,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 133,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 151,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 195,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 216,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The file shows that the note was thereafter approved by 4 other officers and finally by the Hon\u201fble Lt.Governor and pursuant thereto the order dated 3.7.2006 was issued. \n\n 19.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 149,
"end": 157,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The matter was considered by a learned single Judge of this Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\nIt is evident from para 43 of the judgment in the Delhi case that the wife having failed to justify the allegations made by her, it was held that on account of false and baseless allegations made by her in the written statement, she was guilty of the charge of cruelty to the husband and the husband was held entitled to a decree for divorce on this ground alone.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 57,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The false theory of suicide is also a circumstance to be taken into account.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The observations in that case lead to the same conclusion that we have arrived at though the point for decision in that case was different.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was stated in evidence that this Rosiah was an experienced pilot who had navigated on this route continuously for several years and he was in charge of this vessel from Kolachel to the environs of Tuticorin where the boat was lost.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 180,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 209,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Keeping open all the contentions of both the parties, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is set aside.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A.1 produced five piece of papers, Exs.P.126 to 130, in which names of hospital drugs, Exs.P.126 to 130 found written.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned Counsel for the parties informed that the matter is still not decided by the larger Bench of the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That was the decision of Santosh, J. to which I have referred to earlier in the case of Laxmimanojana v. Sujnandra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 114,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In order to appreciate the bone of contention, it would be suffice to state the facts relevant to one of the assessee's viz., M/s Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai case in T.C.(A) No.887 of 2004, which are as follows:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 163,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 194,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned single Judge (Coram: C.K. Thakker, J.) while considering interim relief in Special Civil Application under reference felt that the decision of the Division Bench of This Court in Parmar's case (supra) requires reconsideration for the reasons stated in order of reference. \n\n3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 193,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On eh other side of the pistol police found marking \"TAURUS INT MFG. MIAMI FLA. MADE BRAZIL\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr Kaul, with reference to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra), submitted that the said decision was contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court and, in any event, was on different facts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 7,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 188,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The argument was that anything that is put into the soil which protects the plants by destroying the pests also does a function similar to a fertilizer, which gives some kind of a nutrition to the plant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 10th November, 1965, respondent No. 3 requested the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for issuance of certificate for non-satisfaction of the liability.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 22,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner burst his wrath and anger by resorting to firings taking life of an innocent person.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We agree with the observations of Mathew, J., in V. Punnen Thomas v. State of Kerala (FB) that:\n The Government is not and should not be as free as an individual in selecting the recipients for its largess.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 84,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We, however, showed an indulgence to him by permitting to file \"Written Submissions\" on the next day i.e., 9-12-1994.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 116,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If 10 percent weightage is given as aforesaid it will come to 275 marks and with this increase in marks no candidate from University other than University of Rajasthan can get admission to post-graduate course in any one of the medical colleges.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 167,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dilip, P. W. 4, had claimed that from 18th April, 1976 he had begun to live separately with his wife in a different house with a view to cure her.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 54,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": " \n 2. Petitioner joined service of the Company as Sales Assistant on October 23, 1967.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We may even say that there is no effective cross-examination, either on the question of the above stated various wrongful acts of the defendants or on the question of the presence of the defendants armed with dangerous-weapons first at the hut and then at the field of Parshottam, where the dead-body of deceased Shana was then lying.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 269,
"end": 279,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 318,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, the points 1 and 2 are answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents 1 and 2/cross-objectors.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "5 Criminal Appeal No. 818-SB of 1996 Criminal Appeal No. 828-SB of 1996 6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 43,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 78,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n12. Laxmibai (P.W. 2) makes the similar statement about the marriage of Usha and payment of dowry and the casual demands by the in-laws of Usha.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 14,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 145,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the result, W.P.(C) 34540 OF 2006 and Crl.M.C. 259 of 2007 are allowed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 36,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 61,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He considered his stand, namely, one of the sale deeds of 1962 in which his status was declared as Kattunaicken but the same was disbelieved by the District Collector before cancellation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Onkar Singh Lakhawat, learned counsel further argued that mere failure of appellant Sohani to prevent the offence cannot be taken as proof to hold her guilty for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 90,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 187,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 198,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The object of establishing the Corporation was to provide efficient, adequate and proper transport service to the commuters in the State of Karnataka.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 149,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even if the decision of the Bombay High Court were correct, which he disputed, the Petitioners cannot derive any advantage, unless they were citizens of India on the dale of the order, since Section 2(a) had been amended to remove from the category of non-foreigners, British subjects within the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 158,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 203,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 346,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been further stated that however, Sh. Atul Kumar Garg, the then, Ld. ADJ, Delhi has not dealt with the abovesaid vacant plot in the said suit as is evident from the preliminary decree dated 13.10.2008 and as such, the necessity has arisen to file the present suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 60,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 207,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Can it then be said that the O.N.G.C. has discharged its burden to establish that it employed competent servants ?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 37,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rape is serious violation of fundamental right to life of the victim contained in Article 21 of the Constitution and is a crime against basic human right.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 92,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Laxmi vs. Om Prakash & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court has pointed out that the admissibility of the dying declaration rests on the principle of necessity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 23,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I am amply satisfied that Gopi Shanker had sexual intercourse with Mst. Draupdi during the period she remained in the Agra Hotel and the trial Judge's conclusion in this behalf is quite sustainable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 79,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The words used in the fourth paragraph of the notification are, \"as the acquisition of the said lands are urgently necessary, the provisions of Section 5-A of the said Act shall hot apply in respect of the said lands\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 155,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sobhag Mal could not have insisted that it was he alone who could preside over the meeting and when he was not permitted to exercise that right he unauthorisedly declared the meeting dissolved.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Exhibit R-20 is the cheque dated March 12, 1986, issued by M. Venkatesh for a sum of Rs. 2,58,000 on the Corporation Bank, M. G. Road, Bangalore, on his S.B. Account No. 1692.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 47,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 71,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 121,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 144,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Direct Entry Officers thereafter moved this Court in CM No. 2682/95 for extending the aforesaid stay granted by the Apex Court, which was allowed by an order dated 1st May 1995.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 71,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 130,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 180,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It waS secondly contended that even assuming that this was not correct the profits of that part of the business, which was carried on at Raichur, did not accrue or arise in'the Hyderabad State because the profits arose the sale of the oil in Bombay and therefore the assessee's contention was incorrect.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 144,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 186,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 248,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This was secured by expressly inserting Article 40 in the Directive Principles of State Policy in the terms following : -- \n \"40. Organisation of village panchayats- The State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before this report can be made use of against appellant Kalekhan it must have been put to him in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 64,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 137,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 146,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As already men- tioned Justice Agrawal, on the other hand, agreed with the trial court completely.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By adding sub section 2(d) to Section 69, a deeming provision was introduced, whereby disputes regarding service matters are also deemed as a dispute for the purpose of sub-section (1).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 40,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The statement (Ex.PG) of Ram Niwas (PW8) was recorded by Parbhati Lal SI/SHO Police Station Kanina (PW15) on 17.12.2001.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 34,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 119,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The features of the company were examined to conclude that the company was not in substance a partnership and that \"it is not a proper principle to encourage hasty petitions of this nature without first attempting to sort out the dispute and controversy between the members in the domestic forum in conformity with the articles of association.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The language of Section 47 (2) (g) of the Act is somewhat unhappy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 34,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Continuing the argument, it is urged that the decisions taken by two members of the Standing Committee were no decisions of the Standing Committee in terms of Regulation 32.1 and consequently had no legal effect.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In pursuance of the orders of this Court, the Commission appointed Dr. Moti Lal Varma as member of the Sub-Committee (Punishment) who submitted his report, dated 23.9.1995, after giving opportunity to both the parties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 85,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 171,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He did not claim to have made any such attempt.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The power which the Special Judge exercises is not on his own behalf but on behalf of the prosecuting agency, and must, therefore, be exercised only when the prosecution joins in the request.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Notices issued in the name of D. D. Italia were served on his employee, Manchusha, and it was not a valid service.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 81,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The witnesses Ramkali (P.W.3), Ujariya (P.W.5), Ram Bai (P.W.6), Radhe (P.W.7) did not support the prosecution's story from very beginning.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 21,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 38,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 55,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 70,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said suit is for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property admeasuring Ac. 1-39 guntas comprised in Sy.No.225 against three defendants who are the petitioners in WP No.13983 of 1989.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 193,
"end": 212,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This position is reinforced from the observation made by the Division Bench in Para 3 of the reported Judgment, which clearly refers to the seizure of contraband gold valued at about Rs. 1.40 Crores, which means that the seizure was with reference to the goods relating to Section 123 of the Act for which reason, offence was under Section 135(1)(i) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 273,
"end": 284,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 349,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The validity of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 has been upheld by the Supreme Court in T.P.K.Tilakavathy's case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 41,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 78,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 99,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She categorically deposed that she has seen Accused No.1 and she does not know anything about Accused Nos.2 & 3; The deceased Padmavathi was residing along with Accused No.1 (Appellant-Saibanna); The house of this witness is situated about 100 ft. away from the house of Padmavathi;",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 136,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 193,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 281,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for the appellant argued that from the evidence of Musharrat Ali (PW-5) and Shahjad Khan (PW-4), it appears that they with (7) Cr.A.No.1196/2000 malafide intention had concocted the false story of demand of bribe with a view to avoid recoveries from the complainant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 80,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 104,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 160,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The next question which is required to be examined is whether the I.D. Act is a complete code in itself which provides for the remedy of enforcement of execution of awards passed by the Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunal or not.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 74,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He recorded the statements of complainant Ashok Kumar Jain, abductee Vikash Jain and witness Prakash Singh under Section 161 of CrPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 106,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 124,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 132,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was not even remotely intended to override the salutary rule in Raghubans Dubey's case (1967 Cri LJ 1081) which the Supreme Court has reiterated at least twice in the context of the new Code as well.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 107,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 132,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The same is only a paper work.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the latter two cases, industrial purpose is not confined to the purpose specified in Section 22 of the Reforms Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 117,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\nThe report of this incident was lodged by PW-1, Om Prakash, the uncle of the deceased at the police station Onchha on 16.4.2002 at 3.30 P.M and a case was registered under section 302 I.P.C at crime No. 96 of 2002 at the said police station by PW-5 HC Sudhir Kumar, who made the necessary G.D. Entry.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 115,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 128,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 184,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 214,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 265,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner's counsel, Sri.Andrews Mathew explained that Annexure A7 document contains a survey stone from where measurements are shown.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even in this panchayat in spite of all the persuasions of the panchayat members the accused remained adamant and flatly refused to keep the complainant at her matrimonial house until and unless their demands are fulfilled.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The order made on 13th of January, 1995 is recalled and W.P. No. 17474 of 1987 stands restored.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 39,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 78,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused has further taken defence that at the time of allotment of the said quarter and retirement of the deceased D.D. Sehgal from the services, complainant company was not in existence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 126,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even otherwise, there is no cogent and convincing evidence that mother of the prosecutrix had given to her Rs.4000/\u00ad at the time she left for Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 147,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and he is in jail since 08/09/2010. \n\n Looking to the facts, the case should be placed in the category of High Court expedited cases and should be listed in accordance with the scheme formulated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for early disposal of this appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 84,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said indenture and its copies, duly signed by the plaintiff, are on the record.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was, therefore, clarified that expenses incurred can be allowed only to the extent they are relatable to the earning of taxable income.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is also urged that Shri Deshpande, having preferred an appeal before the Comptroller and Auditor-General which is the appellate authority and that appellate order not being capable of challenge in this Court, the petition is not tenable and should be rejected on that ground.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 107,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The owners on 21st November, 1950 applied to the Trust for permission to develop the area and for erecting buildings thereon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 33,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ilu @ Pratiksha (PW-1) and her mother Vidhya Singh 2 Criminal Appeal No.838/2012 (PW-8) went to see off the deceased in a jeep owned by one Ramu for Satna and catch Rewanchal Express to go to Bhopal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 80,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 144,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 198,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P. Eedaiah is examined as D.W.2 to support the contention of appellant that he is in possession of the land even after execution of sale deed in favour of the respondent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At both important points of registering and cracking the case, the common factor also was the same higher officer Mr.Mohan Jha, then in-charge of City Crime Branch.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 126,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per sub-clause (2), the State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language. \n\n 11.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That itself indicates that it is not a Trust.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The assessee agreed to provide certain amenities to the town including provision of water supply and the Government on its part undertook not to include the properties of the factory within the municipal limits for 15 years so that the assessee would not have to pay municipal taxes for that period.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW-4 is the son of the deceased and his wound certificate is at Ex.P.17.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Tax Receipts and Possession Certificates are as if issued from the Village Office, Thiruvarp.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An application under Order 14 rule 5 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was also filed on behalf of Ms. Karuna Solanki for amendment of the issues framed on 14.1.2010 and it was observed in the order dated 24.4.2012 that the applicant and her sons had been impleaded as parties and they would be given opportunity to lead evidence to prove whether they are the dependents of the deceased. \n\n8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 36,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 40,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 62,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 66,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 113,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 161,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 210,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 14(2)(a) provides that a driving licence issued or renewed under the Act shall, in case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle will be effective for a period of three years whereas in the case of any other vehicle it can be issued or renewed for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance or renewal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This G. O. was preceded by an earlier G. O. G. O. No. 197 of 20-2-1929.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 70,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Discrepancies, Cr.A No. 491/1994 Cr. A No. 1190/1996 contradictions and omissions in the evidence of a witness should be evaluated with a balanced approach in right perspective, the Apex Court, in this regard, in AIR 1983 SC 753 (Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai Vs. State of Gujrat) in para 5 observed as follows:-\n \"Over much importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 32,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 52,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 192,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 228,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 279,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Defendant No.1 who mostly resided in Dubai has never looked after S.L.Chopra and borne his medical expenses.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 42,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 76,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 1997 Rules were issued by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No. 260, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (E-2) Department, dated 10-7-1997.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 138,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the Tribunal followed its earlier orders and held that the income derived by the assessee was income from business (vide annexure \"C\").",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The rule of law on the subject is that the evidence must be of such a character that no reasonable person on that particular evidence could ever have recorded the finding that the competent authority has done.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the basis of the factual backdrop as noted above, it is, therefore, to be seen as to whether there is any environmental hazard or affectation of the waste recycling area so as to create problems for this huge metropolis as also for the satellite township in the eastern fringe of the city of Calcutta.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 295,
"end": 303,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That point is raised in Ground No. (g) of the writ petition and is to the effect that proceedings for assessment or re-assessment under Section 34(1 A) of the Act are taken on subjective satisfaction of the Central Board of Revenue or the Income-tax Officer without any requirement of disclosure of the grounds of such satisfaction and without any right of prior representation before the satisfaction is recorded.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 151,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That after taking charge of the case, said Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Verma, carried out investigation and thereafter lodged an FIR on 16.12.2011, which came to be registered as Case No. RC.BSI/2011/5/0005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 65,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 135,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 195,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This argument and the one advanced by Sri Ullal have common areas.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A more definite stand, however, is taken by P.W. 2, Balaram Choudhury, who says that the Sunri caste is sub-divided into three sub-castes--Saha-Sunri, Sow-Sunri and Sunris proper and that while he himself belongs to the Sunri sub-caste, Respondent belongs to the Saha-Sunri sub-caste.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 69,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Where the eye witness account testified that firearms were used and as per medical report, firearm injuries were found, the statement of that witness becomes acceptable irrespective of the fact whether so-called recovery made subsequently tallies with the firearm injuries or not.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On perusal of the same it is revealed that the cheque returning memo is dated 25.06.2012 and the same was issued by the Drawee Bank and the reason of the dishonour of the cheque in question has been shown as 'INSUFFICIENT FUNDS'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The applicant is in custody since 24.3.2014 relating to Crime No.103/2014 registered at Police Station Amlai District Shahdol for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366(Ka), 368, 376(2)(jha), 120(b) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 43,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 73,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 125,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 213,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 220,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 234,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 295,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[also see Basavaiah(Dr.) Vs. Dr.H.L.Ramesh-(2010) 8 SCC 372; University of Mysore Vs. C.D.Govinda Rao-AIR 1965 SC 491 and Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Vs. Dr.B.S.Mahajan-AIR 1990 SC 434]. \n\n12.3 In Neelima Misra Vs. Harinder Kaur Paintal( ) the Supreme Court after referring to its judgment in University of Mysore Vs. C.D.Govinda Rao( ) observed that in the matter of appointment in the academic field, the Court generally does not interfere.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 118,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 184,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 242,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 263,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 339,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dharamchand Mansion is situated in the heart of city of Jamshedpur and is the best commercial and residential area.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 66,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[1972] 42 Comp Cas 125 are required to be applied :",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 22,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are really concerned with clauses (v) and (vii) of section 2(f) of the Excise Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 66,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 84,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now, regarding the defence raised by the insurance company about the transfer of ownership, the reliance was placed upon the statement of opponent No.2, Naran Pala recorded by Vanthali police Exh.52.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 153,
"end": 163,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 184,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "D. W. 2. Narendra Deb Sharma acted as the priest and celebrated the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 28,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reliance was placed by the Counsel for the appellant on Ram Parkash Vs. State of Punjab, Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 1992; decided on 16.07.2003, by a single Bench of this Court, to contend that non-examination of Ashok Kumar, an independent witness must prove fatal to the case of the prosecution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 116,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 139,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 220,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As was noted by this Court, in the order in W.P. No.9175 of 2013 dated 01.04.2013, the Commercial Tax Officer had filed a counter-affidavit, a copy of which had also been served on the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 81,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that compromise was arrived at between the parties before Ms. R. Kiran Nath, the then learned Additional District Judge, Dwarka, New Delhi, and vide Order/decree dated 03.07.2010, the suit was disposed of as settled.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 123,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 175,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 186,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 226,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I am unable to accept this contention of the learned Addl. Central Govt. Standing counsel for the petitioner.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Apart from the glaring illogic in the Revenue's case, it is important to note that spot enquiries have been made at the back of the assessee and proper opportunity has not been afforded to the assessee, thus violating the principles of natural justice as well as the express provisions of Section 142(3) of the IT Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 289,
"end": 303,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 317,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan , Susamma Thomas (supra) and Trilok Chand (supra) held from para 16 of the age of the dependant parents is relevant and not the deceased bachelor for proper multiplier and observed that by and large the multiplier mentioned in the second schedule should be taken as guidance.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 64,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 81,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 106,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Sr. Departmental Representative also made very persuasive arguments in relation to applicability of s. 40A(3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 121,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The police registered Crime No. 43 of 1991 under S. 498-A I.P.C. and investigated and filed the charge sheet dated 11-7-1991 under S. 498-A read with S. 34, I.P.C. read with S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C. No. 120 of 1991 and issued summons to the petitioners herein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 57,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 64,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 124,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 139,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 155,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 163,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 183,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 191,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 264,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Evidence in that regard has to be led by prosecution.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Ms.Karnik submits that the Corporations do not have wide powers as would enable them to coerce the persons concerned to pay taxes and particularly in the case of Octroi and now Local Body Tax which is an account based taxation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Immediately, thereafter with effect from 23.12.2008 till 11.08.2008, accused Shahid Balwa and Vinod Goenka transferred a sum of `200 crores to M/s. Kalaignar T.V. Pvt. Ltd. through a circuit route via M/s. Kusegaon Fruits & Vegetables Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Cineyug Films Pvt. Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 67,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 89,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 106,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 172,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 244,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 277,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The proviso does not travel beyond the provisions to which it is a proviso.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n(6) One increment stopped with commutative effect vide order No. 2739/ECC dt. 17.1.79 on account of misappropriation of Govt. money Rs. 2.25 nP.,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 87,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The driver of the offending vehicle filed the reply denying the averments of the application attributing rashness and negligence on his part with the averments that in fact accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Zen Car.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this connection, we refer to section 13 of the Securitisation Act which reads as follows:\n\n \"13. Enforcement of security interest.-\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 68,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At about 19.00 hours on 22/01/2007, on the basis of a doubt that the deceased Sevantiben was keeping illicit relationship with another person, you gave a stroke on her forehead by a wooden log and caused serious injury and caused her death and thereby you, the accused, have committed the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code within the jurisdiction of this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 34,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 325,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 350,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "D.W.1 deposed in his evidence that as specified in Ex.B.13, he complied with the payment of Rs. 54,400/- to Mr. Mahesh Sanghi and for the said payment made by him, the plaintiff had given adjustment by issuing receipt Ex.B.6, dated 21-1-1985.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 125,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 241,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the 7th February, 1969, as the process-server's report shows, he served the summons by posting the same in presence of two witnesses at 21, Old Court House Street, Calcutta which is the office of M/s. India Steamship Co. Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 25,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 175,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 228,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The scales of justice must be kept on an even balance whether for the accused or against him, whether in favour of the State or not; and one broad rule must apply in all cases.\" \n\n",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act it was stated by the appellant that his wife was not well and was operated hence he could not file the application in time and requested for condonation of delay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 34,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 56,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Regular second appeal bearing no.11/2003 directed against order dated 24.12.2002 in RCA No.12/2001, whereby Ld. ADJ has upheld the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2001 was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 80,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 98,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 167,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 212,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court on 11/01/2013 refused to enlarge the appellant on personal bond on the ground that appellant is the resident of State of Jammu & Kashmir.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 23,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 146,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (\"the N.D.P.S. Act\" for short) contains stringent provisions to deal with such offences.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 56,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 75,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the instant case, the ceiling prescribed, namely, Rs. 10, is wholly confis-catory, expropriatory, illusory and unrealistic and hence such ceiling is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 189,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 209,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Here, it may be recalled that this witness was examined during the course of investigation Under Section 164 Cr PC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 108,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 114,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Collector has been defined in Section 2(9) of the Stamp Act as under:\n2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 59,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also deposed that residential flats were located next to the gate of Delhi Jal Board office.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 87,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n18. Section 25 sets out the Constitution of the Board of Regents (hereinafter referred to as the Board).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 15,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On this aspect also there is no controversy.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Of 100 enrolled, in class I only 23 children reach class VIII\" \n xxx xxx xxx \"If there is no change in the rate of growth of population and the rate of the speed of literacy, there would be 500 million illiterates in India in the year 2000 A.D.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 217,
"end": 222,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both parties agreed to compromise and petitioner intended to withdraw the O.P. \n\n",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": " U/S 355 Cr.PC a. Serial No. of the case",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 8,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 9,
"end": 14,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The aforesaid binding effect of the judgment rendered by this Court in Shyam Sunder's case (supra) stands negated with the order passed by the Supreme Court on 8.10.2002 consequent upon the filing of a petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court disposing of the instant writ petition on 29.1.1999 (relevant part whereof has been extracted in paragraph 7 hereinabove).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 83,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 156,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 169,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 351,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The company was awarded an export contract for supply of 6 (six) Sea-Going Hopper Barges @ Rs. 669,00,000 per Barge (ship) by V/o Sudo Import, Moscow, USSR on June 20,1984.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 149,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 155,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 171,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If he fails to do so, then the wife is entitled to recover it by filing an application before the Magistrate as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 3 but nowhere the Parliament has provided that reasonable and fair provision and maintenance is limited only for the Iddat period or that is to be paid only during the Iddat period and not beyond it.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 152,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 179,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Dutt also drew our attention to a Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Bai Jilekhabai v, Competent Officer (Evacuee Interest Separation), .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 8,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 78,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 159,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The judgment and order dated 05.11.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Criminal Appeal No. 50/2002, is hereby set aside.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 39,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 116,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 an injunction restraining disturbance of possession will not be granted in favour of the plaintiff who is not found to be in possession.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 16,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 49,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We agree with Mr. Seervai that it is not open either to private parties or even to the State contracting with a private party to deprive a third party of his rights under the law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 25,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Valuation Officers at Bangalore had expressed their difficulties about getting such basic data from the local CPWD.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 35,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An inventory was prepared on the 28th oft December, 1956 and sixtyfour articles were entered in it, of which two only were shown as claimed by both parties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 56,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": ".... As the civil court had already found possession in favour of the decree holder, it is open to the decree holder to seek action against judgment debtors for violation of the decree without being affected by the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 233,
"end": 276,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The third defendant has obviously been served and was represented at an earlier stage of the proceedings as is recorded in an order dated February 24, 2010 passed in GA No. 379 of 2010.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 138,
"end": 155,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 184,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The last order-sheet is of the date 28th Aug., 1980, which reads thus:\nCase put up today.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the children of Margaret Mennie themselves had accepted that they were not the owners of the property and the exemption given already had expired and since the ULC Act itself was repealed, there is no more proceedings on this.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 173,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the State of Maharashtra initially an ex-field advance is fixed uniformly for all Co-operative sugar factories.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 27,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On an application under Order IX Rule 4 CPC having been filed in this behalf the suit was restored on 18.07.2001.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 39,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 43,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 112,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The material which has been produced by the investigating agency shows that the tanker got the essential commodity, that is, kerosene from the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd; Khapri depot, Nagpur, for the purpose of distribution to Gadchiroli district for which the applicant had the license.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 178,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 200,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 247,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Kaslefsky v. Kaslefsky, (1950) 2 All ER 398) \n \n\n11.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "So, he cannot be heard at this stage to make a grievance of it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Pleaded case of plaintiff-Nirmal Singh was that vide agreement to sell dated 24.08.1981 signed by the parties on 26.08.1981 (Ex. P-2), Darshan Kumar @ Sudershan Kumar entered into an agreement for selling his 87 Kanals 5 Marlas land, along with all the rights appurtenant thereto for an amount of `1,75,000/-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 87,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 123,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 166,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The proviso in the section does not form a separate section, but has to be read harmoniously in relation to the main provision.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Various cases were referred to at the Bar, but it will be sufficient if we point out the leading cases which have clearly indicated what is the proper test to apply to determine whether a particular scheme is a lottery or not and what are the real elements of a lottery. \n\n(II) the first case is -- 'Hall v. Cox', 1899-1 QB 198 (B).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Pressing into service Sub-section (4) of Section 83-A of the JDA Act, Mr. Kuhad has submitted that the decision of the Settlement Committee was binding on the authority.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 53,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 68,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 79,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The punishment was enhanced and the offence under Section 354 IPC is made a non-bailable one in the State of Andhra Pradesh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 61,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 65,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 123,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While recording the statement of accused nos.1 and 2 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., this circumstance of their arrest by PW 11 on 5/11/1997 was not put to them, though in question no.23 the depositions of PW 19 - Katakdaund regarding their arrest by Santacruz Police Station on 5/11/1997 was put to them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 70,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 81,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 138,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 222,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 273,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 286,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Purabi writes of her getting darker because of her moving about in the sun, asks Basudeb to wait for her on Friday at 4 p. m, at the meeting place, and reports of Nantu-da's desire that she should now go to Jorhat (where her parents are), adding:\n\"Yes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 171,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 213,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\nIn Anter Singh v. State of Rajasthan 2005 SCC (Cri) 597 :2004 Cri LJ 1380 it was held as follows (Para 14) :--\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 74,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been further stated in the written statement that the defendant had applied for registration of the trademark PRICOL in respect of the goods falling under Class-1 and Class-4 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act with the Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi on 21.2.1992.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 189,
"end": 220,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 265,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 278,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As long back as in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah the Apex Court, in respect to procedural law observed:\n Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 74,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the petitioners and came up for consideration before the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court on 03.12.2008.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 133,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sabyasachi Mukharji J. observed : \n \"Normally speaking, in a society governed by rule of law, taxes should be paid by citizens as soon as they are due in accordance with law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 19,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The other articles in the third division to the schedule refer to applications under the Arbitration Act and also in two cases exception of applications under the Code of Criminal Procedure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 104,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 189,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The material placed on record fully establishes that the assessment of the petitioner's work and conduct was bad and the adverse remarks for the year 1994-95 were sufficient for the impugned action.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this suit were also impleaded Bhiwani Das who is now dead and Sardul Singh, as defendants Nos. 3 and 4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 44,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is pertinent to note that Investigating Officer Yadeorao Deshmukh (P.W.8) admitted in his cross-examination that during the course of investigation he has visited C.P. Foundry where accused No.2 was working as Security Guard and upon verification of documents he came to know that Sanjay was on duty during the night of the incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 68,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 290,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[68 C-E;\n69 E; 70 D-E; 72 F-G]\n Burhanpur Tapti Mills Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, (1955) 6 S.T.C. 670, referred to.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 120,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dr.S.N. Mewafaros (PW 9) deposed that he was posted as Medical Officer at Community Health Centre, Porsa at the relevant time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 17,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 104,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Every step taken by the latter was determined by the policy of the former.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Questioning the same, appeal by special leave was filed before the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 80,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Tidal flows from the mouth of Bidyadhari river do not reach the backwaters due to siltation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He stated that in criminal matter, proceedings are going on against the fake RC produced by Satish Kumar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 104,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Insurance company in this regard relied upon the testimony of R3W1 Shyama Charan Vats , Assistant Manager , Legal of the insurance company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 85,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Another supplementary deed was executed on 1st Jan., 1990 and copy thereof is appearing at pp. 131 to 133 of the paper book by which Clause 4 was amended by adding the following clause :\n That w.e.f. 1st April, 1990, the opening balances lying on that date in the capital accounts of the partners shall be sub-divided into (1) fixed. capital account, (2) partners' current accounts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 57,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 215,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Delhi High Court Rules in Part E prescribe the \"Practice in the Trial of Criminal Cases\" and lay down therein the manner in which the record of evidence in criminal cases shall be made.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 20,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 7th December, 1974, the petitioners applied for rebate on excess production for the year 1974-75 under a Notification No. 146/74, dated 12th October, 1974.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 21,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 157,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to him it was granted by Nawab of Karnataka to an inamdar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 53,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Let us now turn to the evidence of P. W. 5 Somnath Sen.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 55,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRA No.430-DB of 2009 -17- all reasonable doubts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 66,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 128,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the hospital SI Tej Singh again came to the spot of occurrence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 30,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The powers of the Lok Ayukta extends to no less than the Chief Minister of the State.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court being the solitary decision on the issue and being based on the two judgments of the Supreme Court, wherein it was held that royalty was a tax, the provisions of s. 43B in our opinion were rightly applied by the Departmental authorities and no interference in their order is called for.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 140,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 210,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, a further sanction was sought for the construction of another 3 floors as, according to the Company construction up to 7 floors was permissible as per the existing rules of the Municipal Corporation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Church Road, Palarivattom, Kochi- 682 025, Kerala.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 25,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 33,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 49,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition u/.s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 110,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 121,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per Article 58 & 113 of limitation Act, the period of limitation is three years from the date of cause of action in case of similar litigation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 23,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 41,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On appearance of the accused notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. dated 06.09.2011 was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. \n\n4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 52,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "... The character of the proceeding, in our judgment, depends not upon the nature of the tribunal which is invested with authority to grant relief, but upon the nature of the right violated and the appropriate relief which may be claimed.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Learned District Judge, Ballia, is directed to hear and decide the Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1996 filed by Lallan Prasad a fresh and in accordance with law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 30,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 94,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 117,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this suit the plaintiff claimed the appointment of an arbitrator under the agreement executed on 16-11-1950 (Ex. 2), and, in the alternative, under the arbitration Clause 12 of the partnership deed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 110,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned trial Magistrate, as observed earlier, has not believed the two documents; one is the wedding invitation card of the wedding: between accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 which is alleged to have been printed at Shivashakti Press at Phaltan, which is 6 miles away from the place of marriage.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 240,
"end": 247,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, this defence raised by the respondent is a vague and sham defence and it does not raise any triable issue.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The AO held Nirma Management Services to be a concern covered within the meaning of \"related concern\" as provided in Clause (b) of Section 40A(2).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 37,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 145,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff's father filed another Title suit (No. 252 of 1927) wrongly stated in the plaint as Rent suit No. 252/27.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 118,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Another consideration would go to show that in the present case there was no entrustment of the depositors' money.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The test which the learned Chief Justice was formulating was to be applied not only to decisions terminating a suit but also to decisions in proceedings other than suits.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "THE MANAGER KVC BANK MUGAD BRANCH TQ & DIST : DHARWAD 28.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 53,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In State of Kerala v. M.M. \n\n Manikantan Nair (AIR 2001 SC 2145) the Supreme Court held so in paragraph 6:\n\n \"6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 64,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Jaswinder Singh, ASI ( PW-2 ), during the course of cross-examination admitted that he saw Gurdeep Singh for the first time in the Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 104,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This revision application has been filed against the order dated 06.12.2004 passed by Sub Judge II, Munger in T.S.No. 20/93 rejecting the petition dated 06.09.1994 filed by the defendant 1st Set praying for rejection of the plaint under Patna High Court C.R. No.476 of 2005 dt.26-08-2011 Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. \n\n 4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 75,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 123,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 163,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 253,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 273,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 287,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 303,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 310,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n List this matter along with WP No.1741/17 after three weeks, as prayed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 44,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The minimum prescribed above is not applicable to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner acting under Section 274 or the Tribunal hearing appeals from the penalty orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in such proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 112,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One spokesman of the Buddhist community who deposed Deface the Commission was Shri R. S. Gavai, Chairman of the Maharashtra State Legislative Council.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 149,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Probhudas Morarjee Rajkotia v. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 1044 where their Lordships at page 1047 in paragraph 8 have observed :\n \"..... The plea of violation of equal protection of laws under Article 14 of the Constitution has not been properly pleaded in this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 56,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 123,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 264,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 284,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n The rule of estoppel embodied under Section 116 of the Evidence Act is that, a tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlord's title, however defective it may be, so long as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 69,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was also alleged that the Dargah waqf was of such a nature as made it safe from the purview of the said Act in view of the provisions of Section 2 thereof.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 149,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After the case was received by commitment, in the Court of Sessions, charge under Sections 323 read with Section 34, 342 read with Section 34, 357 read with Section 34 and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed judicial trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 120,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 146,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 181,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 206,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is a settled rule of law that a delegate can function within the scope of delegation and, in no case, can he act beyond its scope or act in excess of the jurisdiction conferred on him.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Then he (PW4) and Farank (PW1) came to Rajpura at the Civil Hospital.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 24,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 46,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The period 1982 to 1991 has been substituted by the period 1982 to 1998 by Government Notification dt.27.6.2000 (Annexure D), issued in the name of the Governor of Bihar, published in the Bihar Gazette Extra-ordinary Issue, Patna, dated 8.9.2000.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 111,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 169,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 229,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 245,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was ultimately released on 06.06.2012 and the case is now pending trial vide S.C.No.606 of 2013.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 40,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 98,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The latest decision of this Court which lias not yet been reported is -- 'Mst. Latifunnissa v. Mst. Khairunnissa', decided by Malik, C. J. and Brij Mohan Lall and Chaturvedi, JJ. (since reported as (S) AIR 1955 All 53 (FB) (V)).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 112,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 131,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 158,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 173,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 217,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A sole distributor might or might not be a favoured buyer according as terms of the agreement with him are fair and reasonable and were arrived at on purely commercial basis.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In 'Ramashraya Chakravarti v. State of M.P., (1976) 1 SCC 281' Hon'ble Apex Court had observed :\n\"To adjust the duration of imprisonment to the gravity of a particular offence is not always an easy task.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 61,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 81,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What further calls for notice in Section 32 is the fact that the provision mandates that a revision shall lie to the Board of Revenue from any appellate order passed by a Collector, thus giving a vested right to the litigant to approach the Board.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That Act was, however, held to be valid by the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This affidavit can be used by the State Government / Indore Development Authority / Competent Authority of the respondent for verification and for taking further action for clearing the bills.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 81,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 'Roka' ceremony was performed on 14.01.2008 at Hotel Friends Residency, Ludhiana, marriage was solemnized on 29.11.2008 at Club Nirvana, Ludhiana, reception was celebrated at Blessing Resorts, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana on 03.12.2008, the couple left for Australia on 12.12.2008 where some ceremony in the nature of marriage was performed on 31.12.2008 as well for the purpose of registration of marriage in Australia.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 84,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 123,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 149,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 220,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 234,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 265,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 279,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 353,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 409,
"end": 418,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n(iv) The Committal Court shall commit such cases to the Court of Sessions preferably within fifteen days after the filing of the chargesheet.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If that be right, then the fee leviable on an appeal is the fee payable for the time being to the officers of the High Court by virtue of the High Courts Charter Act directly.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 165,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is only Const. Devinder (PW-12) who has deposed that they had gone in Tempo Traveller which was a govt. vehicle and two other private Maruti cars had also gone to Sonepat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 26,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 173,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On March 4, 1957, Sri Hari Das Mundhra wrote a letter to the company authorising it to debit a sum of Rs. 23,00,000 in his account towards the price of shares.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 16,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Anita (PW/5) in para-70 of her statement has stated that on the date of the incident, she was in her house.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rs.8,400 X 10 -----------\n 100 = Rs.84,000/-\n 8,40,000-84,000 = Rs.7,56,000/-\n ",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "P.W. 9 Ganga Yadav is resident of village- Maheshpur, P.S.- Piri Bazar, District- Lakhisarai and is voter from Booth No. 104 of Suryagarha Assembly Constituency.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 52,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 70,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 138,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "{Re: Pollock & Mulla on Sale of Goods Act, Sixth Edition page 231}.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 41,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fact that the National Security Ordinance provided by clause (9) for the constitution of Advisory Boards in accordance with the provisions of the 44th Amendment shows that no administrative difficulty was envisaged or felt in bringing the particular provision into force.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 45,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In its application dated March 17, it merely said that Ram Charan died on July 21, 1957, and that Shri Bhatia, the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Ambala Cantonment, learnt about it on February 3, 1958.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 87,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 109,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 165,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 202,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus none of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant have any force.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Similarly, the failure to mark in evidence the statement of Appala Reddy recorded by P.W.18 under Section 161 CrPC also pales into insignificance in the light of this Courts finding as to the nature of his death and given the evidence of P.W.s 6 and 8 as to the guilt of A1 for the knife attack upon him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 72,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 109,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 114,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question that arose for consideration in this case was whether the refusal to refund the tax illegally collected under the Assam Taxation (on Goods Carried by Road and Inland Waterways) Act, 1954, was justified.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 199,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Page 37 of 70 and the obligations relatable to third parties are created only by fiction of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 119,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The senior counsel for the petitioner/landlord has in this regard drawn attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 175,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For all these reasons, with respect, I cannot persuade myself to subscribe to the views expressed by Mathur, J. in Gurucharan Singh's case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dr. L.M. Singhvi further referred to an unreported judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in S.N. Trivedi \\.M.P. State Road Transport Corporation (1980 MPLJ 146) by Division Bench consisting of the Chief Justice Shri G.P. Singh and U.N. Bachawat, J.).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 160,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 226,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 244,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After completion of investigation he has submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of IPC. \n\n 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 122,
"end": 142,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 149,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It will further be seen that in Sidhajbhai Sabhai case [AIR 1963 SC 540] no reference was made to Article 29(2) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 72,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 111,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 131,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, in the meanwhile, on 4th September 2009, Respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 and 120B IPC before the Metropolitan Magistrate 29th Court at Dadar, Mumbai, praying that the matter be referred for investigation under Section 156(3) and for a report under Section 173(8) of the Code. \n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 144,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 211,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 287,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 325,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Out of that, one Ravalgaon is engaged in the business of candies.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore there was breach on the part of the purchasers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In S.N. Mukherjee and Union of India17, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that a quasi-judicial authority must record reasons for its decision as the recording of reasons would: (i) guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimize chances of arbitrariness in decision-making.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 38,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 81,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such a loan or advance has to be returned by the recipient to the company, which has given the loan or advance.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was found at the time of the arguments before the Sales Tax Tribunal that some of the entries which were found in the khata of Jayantilal Thakordas & Co., as maintained by the Angadia, had corresponding debit entries in the account books of the assessee-firm as having been paid by the assessee-firm to the Angadia.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 71,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 156,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 186,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 317,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rummaging through the evidence of PW3 Meherunessa in juxtaposition to the evidence of PW1, Suraiya Bibi fully establishes the case of the prosecution that Meherunessa (PW3), a minor girl under age of 18 years was taken from one place to another with the sole intention that she would be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 49,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 103,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 166,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 30-11-1949 the petitioner instituted contempt proceedings for breaches of the order of 20-11-1949.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 100,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The deposits in common account representing assessee's income and funds far exceeded withdrawals made for investment and, therefore, it was to be presumed that investments were made out of assessee's income of own funds.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Calcutta Gas Company (Prop.) Ltd. 'scase (referred 6 supra) while dealing with the relaxed or modified rule in the case of Writs like Habeas Corpus or Quo Warranto, the Apex Court observed as hereunder:\n The first question that falls to be considered is whether the appellant has locus standi to file the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 36,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 182,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 334,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 354,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that before the Act can be made applicable it must be found that the number of persons engaged in that particular industry should be more than fifty irrespective of the number of persons employed in the factory.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Immediately after Act 36 of 1969 came into force a Division Bench of this Court in Gopalakrishnan Nair v. Padmavathi Amma (1970 Ker LT 888) had occasion to consider the scope and ambit of Section 125.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 32,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 139,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 199,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, in the circumstances, without costs. \n\n_____________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J) 14.03.2013",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 97,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 111,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Brief facts as narrated in the FIR are that petitioner/complainant-Harjinder Singh made a statement that on 18.12.2010, at about 9.15 PM, his cousin Gurpreet Singh had gone to take documents from vehicle bearing No. PB-65-F-3737 belonging to Sadhu Singh, uncle of the complainant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 85,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 121,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 166,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 256,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n(4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:\n(a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;\n(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;\n(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;\n(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;\n(e) the Director Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State forensic Science Laboratory;\n(f) the Serologist to the Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 257,
"end": 284,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P. W. 6 Manoranjan Sinha is a co-villager of the respondent's father.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 24,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The action of the Income-tax authorities was upheld by a Pull Bench of the Madras High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 92,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the facts of the case, there will be no order as to costs.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After the conclusion of hearing, our attention was invited to order dated 22nd February, 2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition no. 838 of 2006.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 93,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 147,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioners sought declaration that the renewal of the licence granted by the DEO Sirohi in favour of the Sugar Mills for the retail sale of country liquor in the Municipal areas of Mt. Abu and Abu Road was illegal and also the margin money paid by the Sugar Mills be adjusted towards the exclusive privilege amount payable by the petitioners.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 193,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "6. Section 28, Companies Act lays down that the shares or other interest of any member in a company shall be moveable property, transferable in manner provided by the articles of the company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 15,
"end": 28,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the ruling of the Apex Court given in Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 514.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 77,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 135,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The certified copy of the general power of attorney mentions the khasra number as 26/11/2. \n\n21.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If an application is made more than 30 days of the receipt of the notice, it should be dismissed as barred by time, but if it is made before the receipt of the notice, it may not be rejected as premature.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, it has been strenuously submitted for the defendant that the impugned tax is a tax on lands falling under Entry 42, List II of schedule VII and that therefore it is within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature to legislate about it, and therefore Rule 350-A of the taxation rules of the Ahmedabad Municipality is 'intra vires' of the powers of the Municipality.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 285,
"end": 295,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 347,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The suit was filed by the plaintiff on 06.08.2009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 49,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reference may be made to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. Dadi Sahu [1993] 199 ITR 610.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 102,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the aforesaid G.O. dated 18.7.1998 so heavily relied upon by the petitioners, it is provided that the District Magistrate would be the authority competent to see whether at the relevant parking places the aforesaid facilities have been provided or not and in case any dispute arises with regard to the same, he will consider and pass appropriate order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 37,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection it would be relevant to refer to AIR 1954 SC 215 (F) where their Lordships of the Supreme Court have favoured the view that gives to Article 227 a wider and a more general interpretation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 67,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 114,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 163,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both Kiran Bala and Bankim Chandra are Hindus governed by the Davabhaga School of Hindu law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nThough the evidence may indicate a different percentage of increase, it is necessary to standardise the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculation being adopted.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n34.In view of the discussion made above",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The respondent No.1 is the driver cum owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Bhagwan Garje (PW 6) also clearly states that, though he had seen the tempo, he did not know who was driving the tempo.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Act gave powers to the Government to permit any institution to collect capitation fee or cash deposits for a period of five years only.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But the other three brothers i.e. Rajbir Singh, Ramesh Kumar and Mahesh Kumar started questioning Hari Singh's ownership qua Property No.17, Ashok Vihar Community Centre, Delhi and pleaded that the release deed Ex.D-1 was inoperative.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 152,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 176,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On a perusal of sub-section (1) of section 234E, it is clear that a fee is sought to be levied inter alia on a person who fails to deliver or cause to be delivered the TDS return/statements within the prescribed time in sub-section (3) of section 200.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 47,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 250,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The logical conclusion would, therefore, be that in a case, investigated by the agency, if the Special Court forms an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the Special Court would have no jurisdiction to grant bail to such an accused except as may be provided by law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the basis of this report, a case Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 435, 323 and 447 IPC was registered.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 82,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 86,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It further appears from the note that on October 6, 1955, share scrips of the value of Rs. 25,04,282.50 were transferred by him to the company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 56,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr. P.C.), case was committed to the Court of Sessions on August 29, 2011 and assigned to the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 77,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 96,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 161,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 208,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Photocopy of money order forms dt.01.07.2011 as Mark G and H and postal receipts as Ex.RW1/3 (colly.).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 44,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-- The Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette constitute for the purposes of this Ordinance two Special Tribunals, one to sit at Calcutta and the other at Lahore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 25,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 161,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 185,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 22.01.2014 only one witness C.W.No.1 Priyanka Kumari, Project Manager-cum-District Woman Rights Protection Officer was examined and on request of O.P. No. 2 evidence was closed and the matter was posted for ex-parte hearing.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 55,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W.6 said that when P.W.1 and P.W.8 came there and tried to catch hold of the accused, he escaped by jumping over the backyard wall but the people who gathered there however caught hold of him.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That being so, my answer to the first issue is that it is not necessary in law to carry the documents like licence, certificate of registration, insurance papers etc at all times in original while driving a vehicle.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that order of the CIT (A) in allowing set off of income from house property and income from other sources against brought forward business losses is contrary to the provisions of Section 72 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and we, therefore, reverse the same. \n\n20.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 214,
"end": 224,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 252,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not correct to say that sub-clause (viii) contemplates that expenditure incurred in connection with the services rendered outside India or expenditure incurred in connection with or incidental to the execution of any contract for supply outside India of such goods will be covered under this section.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 141,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 256,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Bearing in mind the facts of the present case, we are of the view that law that has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in PNB Finance (Supra) would govern this appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 120,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 135,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In C.M.P. No. 15096 of 1992 the appellant seeks to file six documents detailed in the annexure therein as additional evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 27,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab which was dismissed, after which he appealed to the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 129,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, which on the facts and in the circumstances of the instant case I am inclined to accept, may be relevant for considering whether or not an application for review of the ex parte decree should be granted \"on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record\" or any ground analogous thereto.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If no opinion is formed and if there are no circumstances suggesting any of the prescribed inferences, then the Government has no jurisdiction to make an order under Section 237 directing an investigation into the affairs of a company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 177,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "62.Mr. Vijay Narayan was at pains to emphasis that in the absence of individual authorisation by the members, the PAT cannot be a properly constituted representative.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused no.3 was aware of the fact that goods receipts which were being used by him as genuine and submitted with NCCF were infact the forged ones.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "From the material placed on record and the conduct of the petitioner in appearing before the CBI when summoned before his arrest, it is clear that the petitioner is an established businessman with roots in the Society.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 96,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n 15. it is this notification, dated 22nd August, 1959, fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of timber industry that is the subject of attack in the writ petitions coming under groups 1 and 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 54,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Constitution Bench in OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. VS BANGALORE WP 41352/2001 DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS - (2011) 3 SCC 139, particularly paragraphs 37 to 39. \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 168,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The word, \"accused\" evidently means a person accused of an offence as defined in the CODE.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The land on which there were structures was a land which bears a distinct resurvey number belonging to the petitioner in W. P. 839/1961 in which the petitioner in this case had no interest.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 135,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Writ Petition No.8217/1997 has been filed in respect of assessment year 1995-96.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 26,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have also approved the above principles in their decision reported in AIR 1957 SC 912. \n 66.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 36,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 122,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that the power to nominate a member of Syndicate, under clause (iv) of Sub-section(1) of Section 16 of Act No. 17 of 1962. has its source in the aforesaid Act thus the membership of the Syndicate of the petitioner is a creation of the Statute and his nomination cannot he terminated arbitrarily.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 110,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 132,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The order taking cognizance dated 22.12.2010 against accused-petitioners for offence under Sections 417, 420, 466, 468, 471 and 120B IPC and consequential proceedings initiated against them on the basis of FIR No.170/2007, Police Station Moti Dungari, Jaipur, are quashed and set aside. \n\n(Mohammad Rafiq) J. \n\n//Jaiman//",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 44,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 132,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 136,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 258,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 304,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "See the judgment dated 23-7-1963 in S. A. No. 156 of 1960.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 32,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 57,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "nor do we consider such a course necessary for the purpose on hand.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The law is settled by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas, reported in AIR 1976 SC 490: (1976 Lab IC 395), and in the case of Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 134,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 194,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Substantial corroboration of the evidence of child witness is necessary.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On that day, his mother-in-law won over his son and when he came to know of it, he asked his son not to make any compromise with his maternal grandmother as they were likely to win the case, but his son did not agree to this and said that he would live with her and that the accused should vacate the house.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus the arguments raised by the appellant insurance company that the findings of the MACT on issue No.1 being devoid of merit cannot be accepted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused were simultaneously attacking PW2 and Baiju.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.1233/2010 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Courts at Nampally, Hyderabad are hereby quashed. \n______________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR,J Dt. 5-06-2013",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 108,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 212,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 272,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 288,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under Article 65, burden is on the defendants to 381 prove affirmatively.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 16,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 referred to the decisions of this Court and the Supreme court which the Tribunal has relied on while passing the award and contended that the word 'legal heirs' include illegitimate children also.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The checking and verification as directed by the Court was done and the Department returned back to the petitioner, the ornaments which according to it were accounted for in the account books.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is pertinent to mention here that Shyamabai (PW/2) is not the witness of village Hanuman Sagar because she did not went there so whatever in his knowledge or information is hearsay only.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 46,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 97,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of his contentions, learned defence counsel relied upon the following judgments:-\n (a) Asha and another v. State of Uttarakhand, (2014) ACR 151 (b) Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, (2014) ACR 352 (c) Manohar Lal v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 1188 of 2009 decided on July 1, 2014 by the Apex Court 10.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 154,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 206,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 277,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 301,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 319,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench \"A\", in the case of Ocean Sparkle Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (supra) held that \"Section 80-IA(4) does not provide that the infrastructure facility should be owned either by the enterprise developing the infrastructure facility or by the enterprise operating and maintaining the said facility.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 23,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 79,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 115,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "C.R.A. No. 280/1988 and C.R.A. No. 283/1988 : Assailing the impugned conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court on 29.6.88 both the above appellants preferred two separate appeals.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 19,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 43,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 139,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Being aggrieved by the said orders, Krishna Prakash and his brothers filed a Revision No. 122 of 1993 before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat which was rejected by him by his order dated 15-2-1994 (Annexure 8 to the Writ Petition).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 101,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 141,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 196,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We may, with advantage, consider at this juncture, the essential distinction between an: order passed under Section 145(6) and one passed under Section 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 122,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 155,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 189,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Did the R.T.A. apply its mind at all properly in the matter, in the circumstances?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Such limitation as exists on the competence of Parliament to delegate legislative authority must be found in the division of powers which the Constitution makes between the three organs of Government, the legislature, the judiciary and the executive.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 57,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 154,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the result, we hold that the insurance company is also liable to meet the claim of the claimant and satisfy the award passed by the tribunal and modified by the High Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Under s. 5 of the I.T. Act, 1961, all assessees are chargeable in respect of income accruing, arising or received or deemed to accrue, arise or to be received in India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 32,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 167,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In criminal law, complainant has the right to clarify his stand, based on facts, relevant to the fact in issue.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "MTNL also prepared a role & responsibility list with regard to Broadcasting services which clearly indicated that MTNL solution was based on IP/MPLS technology.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 4,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 118,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent No. 3 D.D. Goswami is her neighbour.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 29,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There are the Civil Applications which are pending in this C.R.A., Civil Application No. 3932 of 1990, was filed by the wife for the purpose of getting the interim order vacated, viz. interim order dated 19-10-1989 passed by this Court in this C.R.A. granting unconditional stay of, the order of maintenance in favour of the wife and son.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 101,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 214,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Legislature has, therefore, made an attempt to curb the practice used to reduce the tax payable on the non-exempt income by debiting the expenses incurred to earn the exempt income against taxable income.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Deducting one-third of the amount towards personal expenses, the dependency benefit has been computed at Rs.1,500/-.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "When the language employed in a statute is plain, unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, normally, the question of construction of such a statute would not arise, for, the statute speaks for itself (see State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vijay Anand Maharaj ).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 208,
"end": 253,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The leading judgment as given by my Lord the Chief Justice has thus clarified the misgivings in the mind of a Magistrate regarding the true scope of Sections 203 and 204 of the Code as enunciated in the case of Chandra Deo Singh (AIR 1963 SC 1430) (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 149,
"end": 169,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 247,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The witness further deposed that Sub Inspector Hanuman Singh pressurized accused Raj Kumar to ask the witness to pay ` 30,000/-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If that be so, this question was to be deleted and rightly so ordered by the learned Single Judge.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has been further stated that there is no top floor at all in the property in question.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The complainant, Gurjeet Kaur @ Gurdebo (PW-2), suffered statement (Ex.PD) to the police wherein it was alleged that she along with her children was residing in her house near Bajigar Mohalla, Sirsa.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 39,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 198,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Can he get back to service, is the question that falls for consideration in appeal against a judgment of reversal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n(v) On 6th December, 1999, the appellant took treatment for traumatic paraplegia with bed sore, degloving injury on left leg and incontinency with bladder and bowel (Ex.PW4/C-1 to C-3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 27,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Then exhibit-13 is certified copy of judgment of G.R.no. 1347/05/Tr.no. 199/06 and it shows that on 28.4.2006 Mohan Singh was convicted under Arms Act for an occurrence which took place on 9.6.2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 78,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 109,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 121,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 150,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 197,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The detention therefore of the petitioners could not be said to be in accordance with the procedure established by law subsequent to July 10, 1957.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 133,
"end": 146,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dr. Pal has laid emphasis on the use of the expressions like \" loan \", \" dues \", \" interest \" in this letter as forming the background of the transaction resulting in the execution of the document executed in 1936.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 7,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also the case of accused that after the arrival of Dy SP, complainant and Shiv Kumar had gone inside for picking up chair and a cot and they should have planted the application Ex.P. 1 at that time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 90,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An objection was raised to this execution on the ground that the decree-holders could not proceed against her other properties, as their remedy lay in following the compensation money which could be given by the State of Bihar to the Mortgagor in lieu of the mortgaged property which had vested in the said State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 221,
"end": 226,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore this court do not find any force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant that the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 171,
"end": 182,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 196,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In their anxiety to fill up seven ex-cadre posts of DSPs, it appears to us that the respondents themselves were not sure as to how to proceed with to secure a legal cover for their action.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After considering the testimonies on record, the trial court has relied on the statement of sister of the deceased, Smt.Radha (PW-2) who was told by the deceased that he was beaten up by the accused Javed @ Sonu and Imran at Tikona Park, C-115 Bust Stand, and the injuries on his neck were on account of being beaten up.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 125,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 211,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 221,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While examining this stand, the Apex Court in Paragraph 14, 15 & 16 observed as thus:\n\n \"14.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In reply, Shri Mukul Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that there cannot be a question of delay at all in a criminal matter.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the facts and circumstances of the case and after appreciating all the contentions raised by the accused persons if this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders if allowed to stand would lead to grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court then this Court would be fully justified to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 344,
"end": 355,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, the writ appeals are dismissed..\" \n\n ii) (S. Harshavardhan and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others) 2005 (3) CTC 691 wherein in Para-3, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court thus:-\n \"3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 130,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the argument meeting of minds for the purposes of entering into a criminal conspiracy was absent.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Her evidence cannot be brushed aside on the ground that she was a child witness.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Explanation II:--The term \"gross annual rent\" shall not include any tax payable by the owner in respect of which the owner and tenant have agreed that it shall be paid by tenant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Having appeared before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, filed several memos, reiterating that the said Court has jurisdiction to try the offence, under Section 193 IPC and also sought for a transfer, party-in-person has alleged contempt against the said Judicial Officer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 197,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 201,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It must accordingly be held in this case that the Court whose jurisdiction for trial is challenged is not merely a proper party but a necessary party as well.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has been proved that R. C. Das Gupta had the authority to enter into the contract.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to D. W. 2 Dr. N. Bhargava, A6 Nijawat Khan was shifted to the hospital at Jodhpur, where he remained during the period 7-7-2000 to 26-7-2000.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 36,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 53,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 138,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 151,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\nFrom perusal of impugned award, it appears that the affidavit in form of evidence was filed by claimant no.1 at Exh. 56 wherein applicant submitted that incident took place on 12.4.02 between 13.00 to 13.30 hours near Rajkot Gondal Bypass.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 177,
"end": 184,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 225,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 232,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But Mathura Prasad Kothariwal (P. W. 12), who was the manager of a firm in which the plaintiff was also a partner deposed that the appellant paid Rs. 1000/- by a cheque on the Central Bank, the cheque having been drawn by the appellant's father in the name of Jai Bhagat Stores, which was a partnership business of the appellant and his father.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 29,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": " \n10) To establish the fault of the driver of the crime bus, the claimants have examined PW2-M.Venkata Ramaiah, an eye witness to the accident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 110,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This collision took place about nine kilometers from Bhatia towards Dwarka between 1.30 and 1.45 P. M.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 59,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 74,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Counsel for respondent no.1 argued that it was the primary duty of the appellant to prove that the respondents/defendants are in possession of her land, however, the appellant has been unable to prove either her possession or title or any interest or any other right in the suit property.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This was at the instance of the defendant who had threatened him with detention under MISA if plaintiff does not do so.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 90,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) (ANOOP V MOHTA, J.) Shraddha Talekar PA 33/33",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 13,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 55,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to Encyclopaedia Britannica Year Book 1979, in 1978 also penologists were seriously divided in their views about the end of punishment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We consider that adequate steps and safeguards should be taken effective by issue of suitable orders under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 160,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 203,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the prerequisite for the entitlement of the petitioner to institute and continue a petition has ceased to exist, it must follow that ABA No. 5/1967 is no longer maintainable and must be dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 150,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 176,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is his submission that the respondents are attending their office and contesting the matter in this Court, but for the reasons best known to the Criminal Investigation Department which had conducted the investigation no steps are being taken to arrest the accused persons, despite application for grant of anticipatory bail preferred by some of them has faced rejection.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "They further came to know that Mohd. Shahid Khan belonged to Jharkhand and Mohd. Irshad Alam belonged to Bihar and both of them would be leaving by train that evening.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 70,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 92,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 110,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On receipt of the report from FSL certificating that the contraband article sent for analysis was charas and as sufficient incriminating evidence was found against the accused persons, on completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against all the accused persons for commission of the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act in the Sessions court, Vadodara. \n\n2.6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 327,
"end": 367,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 383,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 415,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Prior to 15.11.1998, an Act by name Kerala Public Men's Corruption (Investigations and Inquiries) Act, 1987 was in force in the State of Kerala.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 19,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 107,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 143,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The language of Sub-section (2) of Section 97 clearly shows that the provisions made therein would prevail despite anything contained to the contrary in Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 162,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 189,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is in this context that Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Eicher Ltd., (2007) 294 ITR 310, observed as under:\n \u2015In Hari Iron Trading Co. v. Commissioner of Income Tax,(2003) 263 ITR 437, a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court observed that an assessed has no control over the way an assessment order is drafted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 109,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 205,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 256,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We hold that Court by impugned order rightly rejected the preliminary objections.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Any period of military training followed by military service shall also be reckoned as military service.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Referred case No. 2 of 2004 under Section 366 of Code of Criminal Procedure sent by the trial court for confirmation of the death sentence awarded to the appellants is rejected.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 75,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is confirmed by this also, viz., the warrants under Section 344, Criminal P. C., whereby the petitioners were committed to jail custody.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 84,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Then as to the orders passed by the appellant on the applications presented by Sheo Karan Das, there is no date put by the appellant below his signature, though the date 22nd March appears at the top of the document.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case the Assessment Committee had approved of the supplemental valuation list before the expiration of the period of 28 days from the date of the public notice of the deposit of the list mentioned in Section 18 (i).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 208,
"end": 222,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Gobardhan, son of Mahindi Hoy sold to Thatu Majhi by Ext. 5 (c) dated 29-12-1952 his one-half share of this leasehold interest.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 29,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 80,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By way of the present judgment, I shall decide the complaint case U/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (hereinafter Said as NI Act) filed by the complainant Smt Pushpa against the accused Smt. Bandana Jha W/o Sh. Mihir Kumar Jha. \n PROLOGUE (COMPLAINANT'S VERSION)\n\n2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 104,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 132,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 169,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 206,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 230,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, only two persons could have been carried in the vehicle as owner of the goods.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In view of the inherent lack of jurisdiction in the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department to pass the order, it would not require this Court to delve into the issues whether the principles of natural justice stands violated.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, the medical examination of both the child victims was conducted.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The second child also died on 31.7.1991 and she had come back only after about eight months, i.e., some time in the year 1992.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 39,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case, it has been stated by PW8 & PW9 that after due application of mind, they accorded sanction.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The principles reiterated by the Apex Court in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India and another (AIR 1991 SC 1640) is apposite to the context.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 108,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We find that the petitioner has already filed a Writ Petition in the Delhi High Court namely CWP No. 952 of 1998 and the same is pending.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 112,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He identified signature in Ext.P9 search list.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Justice P.K. Deb of the Patna High Court was appointed as the enquiry officer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 16,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "ii) Having regard to the nature and content of the levy indicated in s. 3(1), it is obvious that s. 3(3) has to have the effect of attracting not only the purely procedural and machinery provisions of the 1944 Act but also some of its charging provisions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 76,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 104,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Wherever there are rules, as in All India Service Rules, the appointments have been kept restricted to the cadre only.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases ",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This is one conclusion that can possibly be derived from the above observations of Das, C.J.,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 86,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It will not be inappropriate to refer to a portion of the judgment in W.P.(C) 29278 of 2006 which was disposed of by judgment dated 13.4.2007.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 91,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 141,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After discussing the law of precedents, regarding future prospects, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a recent judgment in 'ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. \n\n Vs. Angrej Singh & Ors'in MACA 846/2011 decided on 30/09/13 held as under:\n \"26.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 99,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 208,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 228,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Deceased Manjunath Ithal was having Sweet Mart at Shimoga.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 57,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is in view of those facts that Lord Denning held that the dependents were not deprived of the contribution provided by the wife and that, therefore, her prospects of going out to work and earning money could not be disregarded.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Again, they went to Kozhikode on 30.5.2000, to attend Benny's (PW10) marriage and then also they stayed in his house.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 29,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 42,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 59,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is a case where the assessee has paid the entire duty of Rs. 54,20,188 due for the period after the irregularities were detected during the audit from 8.12.93 to 31.3.94.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 156,
"end": 163,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 174,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Another letter dated 11.03.2005, Ex.P33 was sent to M/S. Tata Tele Services Ltd., Chennai, to provide call in and call out particulars of telephone number 54949236 for the period from 1.8.2004 to 24.10.2004.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 31,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 89,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 192,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 206,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fact that the name of Calvin Klein is well known in India is reasonably clear from the passage quoted above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 61,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In my opinion, this Article has no applicability to the present case, for, it cannot be said that the plaintiff deposited money with the Municipal Board in the present case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Brahmadeo Mandal, the only respondent in Government Appeal No. 10, is also one of the respondents in Government Appeal No. 11.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 65,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 125,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He submitted that the Legislature used the words \"such other material or information\" after the words \"on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of account or documents\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Supreme Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. Veluswami (AIR 1962 SC 1), made some observations, reproduced below, on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the non-applicants Rajendrasingh and the Insurance Company:--",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 71,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 203,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "it has been, inter alta, stated that a Bank Draft which was presented for encashment at the said branch was forged and that is why, the case being C.R.M. No. 429/97 under sections 420/4G7/468/471/120B of the indian Penal Code was registered in the Civil Line Police Station.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 147,
"end": 164,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 203,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 225,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sub-sections (3) & (4) of Section 5 are not relevant for our purpose and need not be read.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 35,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We do not think that the reasoning in Mohammedali v. Safia Bai, AIR 1940 PC 215 (Supra) can possibly apply to the facts of the present case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 79,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That the 3rd accused was working with PW21, it is significant, is not disputed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The State Government, or with the previous approval of the State Government, the Commission may determine the travelling allowance, daily allowance and other incidental expenses that may be paid to such assessors.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned trial Court has not committed any error of law while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "I do not know whether the Engine Driver Ram Sevak who was on duty or his associate Monsha who first noticed smoke coming out of the wagon could have adduced any useful evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 89,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendants have filed a copy of the lease deed which shows that a lease for a period of 10 years was granted by the Residency Area Authority, Indore, in favour of the General Secretary, United Church of Canada Mission, Indore on 31-7-1947 for 5.11 acres of land and the boundary of the leased-out area more or less tallies with the boundary of the land in dispute.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 152,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 229,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 242,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, he contends that the learned Single Judge was not justified In Issuing a direction to the State to collect the said tax from the Union of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 147,
"end": 152,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So, following the opinion of the Full Bench dated 3rd Oct. 1972 in C. R. P. No. 255/65 and batch.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 63,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 86,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The subsequent amendments whereby reference has been made to the VAT Act clearly show that the Legislature has at places retained and relied upon the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 even while introducing amendments containing reference to the VAT Act, 2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 72,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 191,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 267,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sub Inspector Satish Singh (PW11) deposed that on receiving information from Tili Hospital Sagar about burning of Suman Bai, he went to hospital and issued a requisition form Ex. P/4 for her medical legal examination.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 26,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 96,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 123,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Any attempt to equate the scope of the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution with that of the English Courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary form of Government to a vast country like India functioning under a federal structure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 80,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 100,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 282,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 345,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The resolution, in pursuance of which the petitioner was dismissed from service, must, therefore, be held to be illegal, and the order of dismissal of the petitioner must be held to be bad.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He was also instrumental in getting the two appellants arrested and of confirming the identities of the two appellants as being the abductors before the police.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The AO had issued the questionnaire to the assessed on 4.2.2003 asking questions regarding details of some transactions in the original return and revised return was filed on 28.3.03.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 63,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 182,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court while relying on E.P.Royappa case [1974 (4) SCC page 3] and also Maneka Gandhi's case reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 has propounded the constitutional position to the with effect that if there is any element of arbitrariness in action whether it is of a legislative or administrative quasi judicial exercise of power the Court must hold such action being unconstitutional.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 73,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 96,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 131,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Delhi case, it was, however, made clear that their decision had no application to a case where a student is guilty of fraud, deception or concealment of material particulars, while seeking and obtaining admission.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 12,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner was cross-examined and he further examined a witness Parveen Kumar whose affidavit evidence Ex. PW2/A was to the effect that Anil Kumar was the owner-landlord of property D1/232, Nand Nagri as he had purchased this property from Ramji Lal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 77,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 146,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 200,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 249,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the aforesaid case, the supreme Court observed as under :\n \"Para 12.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was informed by the complainant Parasram that around that time when after having food victim went to answer the call of nature, they slept thinking that she may have came back, but in the morning of 11th April, 1996 it was found that she was not there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 218,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The contradiction brought out in the cross-examination of P.W.9, in my opinion, has not rendered her testimony unreliable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In (S) AIR 1957 Orissa 42, also a claim had been rejected on the ground of limitation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 25,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He submits that the learned ASJ has not sifted and weighed the evidence to find out whether or not a prima facie case against the petitioner accused has been made out.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Even so unlike in 1966 (1) All ER 886, custody was refused to the mother for the reason that \"to take Diana away from her (the plaintiff) would be utterly disastrous for the child\". \n 13.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 37,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 107,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P. W. 1, D. K. Birla, admitted that canteen was solely run by an employee of the factory from its inception in 1958 till February 1959, when the Managing Committee was constituted by the factory manager.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 20,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The company and the crew members of the three trawlers have been charged with various offences including Sections 10, 11 & 12 of the MZI Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 125,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 140,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. D. P. Gupta has argued that some sort of proceedings were pending before the Regional Transport Authority in pursuance of the Notification dated 15-6-1965 for fixing or increasing the number of permits and, therefore, the R. T. A. had no jurisdiction to increase the permits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 158,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since then, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit shop. \n\n4.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It appears from the balance-sheet of the Balrampur Co. for 1956, that the company received Rs. 31,885 as remuneration for the managing agency.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As already found by me, the genesis took place when P3 was not properly accommodated in 1982 when he returned back from Saudi Arabia and the crisis which was brewing from 1982 took its deep route in 1985 when P3 was withdrawn from the Board of ARIL Saudi Arabia.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 132,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 261,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similar view has been taken by the Bombay High Court in Sam Fashion Wear Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 209 ITR 214.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 108,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Chandrasinh Laxmansinh Panch witness 67 78 15.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 28,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The other witnesses worth discussing are PW 2 Ugam Singh, father of Rajesh Jodha, PW 22 Kalyan Singh, Investigating Officer and the medical evidence in the case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 56,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 80,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 100,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Convict Adarsh Pal Singh, who has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489\u00adC IPC, was heard on point of sentence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 111,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 115,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "2. One of the assessee's business in which the assessee is engaged in the business of export out of India of goods and merchandise to which Section 80HHC applies. \n\n3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 105,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 153,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, the assessee was entitled to full relief.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the face of the legislative history underlying Article 220 of the Constitution, it would be impermissible for the Court to construe the words \"held office as permanent Judge of a High Court\" to mean \"held office as a permanent Judge or equivalent to a permanent Judge of the High Court\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 61,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 81,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, the Finance Act, 1987, inserted two provisos before the Explanation to the section with effect from 1-4-1988 to the effect that the second proviso dealt with liabilities falling under clause (b) of section 43B of the Act to the effect that no deduction will be allowed in the assessment of the employers unless such contribution is paid to the fund on or before the 'due date'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 30,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 117,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 218,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dataram (PW 8) is the father of the deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghunath G Panhale (dead) by Lrs V Chagganlal Sundarji & Co. (1999) 8 SCC 1 held that: \n \" a landlord need not lose his existing job , nor resigned it , nor reached a level of starvation to contemplate that he must get possession of his premises for establishing a business.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 21,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 101,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So, this is a law made by the Supreme Court with reference to the procedure to be followed by the Scrutiny Committee, on the basis of whose directions the community certificate would be issued.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendants arc her co-heirs and their legal representatives and alienees pendente lite except defendant No 43, the Jagir Administrator and defendants Nos 53 and 55, the States of Andhra Pradesh and of Mysore respectively.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 183,
"end": 197,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 211,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fact remains that the wife continued to look after the children and arrange their marriages.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The observations of this Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao's case (supra) have no bearing on the facts of the present case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We feel that in the facts and circumstances of the case before us, the said determination, cannot be made at this stage, applicable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However, in catena of decisions, the Apex Court has explained the meaning of these expressions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This decision of the Mysore High Court ultimately went up in appeal before the Supreme Court and was affirmed by the Supreme Court as (CIT v. Canara Bank Ltd.).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 38,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 92,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 130,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 158,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[Vide: Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2010 SC 762; and Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel (supra)]\". \n24.Thus, the appellant, in the instant case, has come with a totally false defence and he also failed to explain the said circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C. \n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 86,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 117,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 283,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 291,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Family settlement can be oral as well.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Shamsudheen v. District Collector (2000 (3) KLT 16), a Division Bench of this Court held that in exercising option under section 49 (1), the tenant has no voice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 54,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 138,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In a statement filed on behalf of the respondent it is stated that in respect of the purchases made in Calcutta the documents of title were received by post in Madras.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 111,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 166,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Consequently, his services were terminated by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 79,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This argument is noted to be rejected only, because if RPSC has for the reason best known to it, taken erroneous decision, that would not bind this court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 59,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before we proceed to appraise testimony of the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence including the injured-Jaibir, it is necessary to notice the plea of the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. \n\n Sahid, in response to the last question \" Anything else to say?\" has responded as under:-\n \"I am innocent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 115,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 213,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 221,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 230,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was so held in the context of Section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in S. Sankappa v. ITO .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 78,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 101,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to Clause 3 of the order, the service of 9, 18, and 27 years, was required to be counted from the date of first appointment in the existing cadre/service in accordance with the provisions contained in the recruitment rules.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 21,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence, convicted and sentenced the Appellant- original Accused No.2 as aforestated while acquitting the Appellant for an offence punishable under Section 177 of IPC. \n\n 4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 192,
"end": 203,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 210,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(2) I.L.R. \n\n(1911) 33 All. 51. \n\n(3) I.L.R. (1906) 29 Mad. 333. (4) I.L.R. \n\n(19271 Lah. 384. \n\n(5) A.I.R. 1962 Orissa 141. \n\ngiven on the merits, as for example, where the appeal court holds that the trial court had no jurisdiction and dismisses the appeal even though the trial court might have dismissed the suit on the merits.)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 30,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 63,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 93,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 123,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, the facts of the present case are similar to that of the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, viz., Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kovur Textiles Ltd. (136 ITR 61) and hence, we agree with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 117,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 187,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 260,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Society had sold/transferred the 1st floor of the premises to several persons including UCO Bank on the basis of ownership on March 31, 1992.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 100,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "181. H. R. Harmer Ltd., In re [1958] 3 All ER 689; [1959] 29 Comp Cas 305 is a decision of the Court of Appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 73,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That Act levied a tax on certain goods carried by road or inland waterways in the State of Assam and the validity of the levy of such a tax was in question in the Atiabari Tea Co. case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 96,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As pointed out above I.T.C. charges an integrated price that the cigarettes can be sold at.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Then he referred to the Charter creating the Supreme Court and analysed the extent of its jurisdiction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That, in our opinion is not the correct way of understanding the observations of the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 98,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After holding so in Partap Singh's case, the Supreme Court also added a word of caution in C.S.Rowjee's case, on the following lines:-\n \"It is true that allegations of mala fides and of improper motives on the part of those in power are frequently made and their frequency has increased in recent times.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 32,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 101,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It would appear that, what induced the Tribunal to take the view that there was use of or appeal to religious symbols, is the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner pertaining to the interpretation given by one Channappa Gouda Master, during his lectures, of the blocks printed in Exs. P-8 and P-9 (which are two pamphlets called 'Congress Mahatme' and 'Congress Padyavali').",
"entities": [
{
"start": 217,
"end": 232,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manklal Mansukhbhai v. Hormusji Jamshedji Ginwalla & Sons - AIR 1950 SC 1 has also been referred to here.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 118,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Smt.Radha (PW-2), sister of the deceased rather stated that injuries did not seem to be serious, therefore, her injured brother was not taken to the hospital.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They had been living together in a house at the place of occurrence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Reyes (supra) the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death under the laws of Belize he committed the murder by shooting.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 8,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, in my opinion, is not permissible.\" \n34.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 47,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is urged that this is the distinction between the ground under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and the ground under Section 100(1)(a), in the latter case, events subsequent to the date of scrutiny also being relevant but not so in the former.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 86,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 125,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both these appeals have arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 19.8.1996 passed by Sri S.K. Bhatt, then learned Judge, Family Court, Meerut in original suit No. 492 of 1989, Arun Kumar v. Smt. Indira.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 77,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 102,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 144,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 177,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 204,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As held by the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal by merely giving bids, the bidders had not acquired any vested right.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 28,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 86,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "26) Apart from the legal position with regard to compliance of Section 141 of the Act, in the appeals of National Small Industries Corporation, respondent No.1- Harmeet Singh Paintal was no more a Director of the company when the cheques alleged in the complaint were signed and the same is evidenced from the Sixth Annual Report for the year 1996-97 of the accused company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 74,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 142,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 182,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the High Court proceeded to make following further observations:\n \"The examinee is the person affected by miscalculation of totals, omissions to examine any answer, misplacement of the supplementaries of the answer books and misplacement or tampering with the said record in any manner, if any.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(3) Tanzania (12th July, 1992 to 16th July, 1992)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 14,
"end": 29,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This narrower class, as indicated by the language of section 34(1A) of the Act, consisted of assessees who had earned income during the war period and who had evaded payment of tax on incomes of one lakh of rupees or more, and the purpose of introducing this provision was to subject their escaped income to tax.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For a fact, the basic contention is that the papers in question were flaunted in the house of Paianetraiah.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 106,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Tribunal accordingly thought that a point of law did arise and on August 23, 1946, referred the following question to the High Court, namely:--\n\"Whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the order of the Bench dated 20th February, 1946, in the miscellaneous application is an appropriate order and is legally valid and passed within the jurisdiction and binding on the Income-tax Officer.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 249,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No doubt the recommendation of a Court is not binding on the State Government/State Legislature but still it should be seriously considered, and not simply ignored.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Though on examination by FSL, no blood stains were found on such clothes as the same were washed by accused Sohani.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 114,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Only the medical college or institution which is recognized by the Medical Council can so apply.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The college initially had temporary affiliation to the Gujarat University under the Gujarat University Act, 1949.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 73,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On examining the history of the legislation, the surrounding circumstances and the scheme of the Act which had been challenged there namely the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954 (21 of 1954) the Court held that the object of that Act was the prevention of self-medication and self-treatment by prohibiting instruments which may be used to advocate the same or which tended to spread the evil.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 208,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for having murdered Yogesh and Asha in furtherance of their common intention on the 14th June, 2010 between 1 and 5 am at House No. C-101, Gali No. 3 I.P. Colony, Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 64,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 85,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 89,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 125,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 189,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 258,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that it is stated :\nThe Chief Justice of India and I had a detailed discussion yesterday morning on the question of appointment and transfer of Chief Justices of the High Courts so that the position of the Chief Justice of a High Court is held by an outsider as a matter of policy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 49,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also pointed out that Section 7(2)(a) of the BRCA provides that \"no person shall claim or receive on account of any licence fee or charge for any premises anything in excess of the standard rent\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 55,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They imported the same and claimed that they were not liable Lo pay an additional duty of customs thereon because MEG was exempt from the payment of excise duty by virtue of a notification dated 4-5-1987 issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 195,
"end": 203,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 223,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 257,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(3) What is the offence, if any, committed by the accused?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We shall now notice the facts in LPA 21/88 Ex. Capt. Vijay Kumar Dewan in a brief compass.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 42,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The two discrepancies/omissions were noticed by the Income-tax two discrepancies/omissions were noticed by the Income-tax Officer while completing the assessment proceeding for the subsequent assessment year i.e. 1982-83 whereupon even though the assessment for the Assessment year 1981-82 i.e. year in question having been already completed on 5th April, 1982, the applicant had filed a revised return.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 345,
"end": 360,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the vendor did not convey the property as promised, the assessee filed a suit for specific performance which was ultimately decreed in appeal by the hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgement dated 22nd April, 1958.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 162,
"end": 175,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 217,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Where two views are possible, the court will decline to interfere.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Mitra told us candidly that it was an oversight on his part that in of definite instructions on the matter received from his clients, he had not distinguished between the payments made of ordinary disbursements on the vessel's account and the payments made as commission to the agents of the owners or for repairs to the ship.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Apart from this, the learned senior counsel while advancing his arguments has invited the attention of this court to one public interest litigation in W.P.No.28419 of 2007 which was dismissed on 26.11.2007.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 151,
"end": 171,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 205,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the Evidence Act may be defined thus: An offi- cer, by whatever designation he is called, on whom a statute substantially confers the powers and imposes the duties of the police is a police officer within the meaning of s. 25 of the Evidence Act.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 64,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 273,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 293,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "..36.. \n\n W.A.No.655/2012 & others Meaning thereby that except interview by the Commission, entire procedure for recruitment as emergency appointment was followed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 25,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the language of Section 68-C and Rule 3 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles (State Transport Undertaking) Rules it appears that a complete exclusion scheme in relation to any area or route would be a scheme which completely excludes the existing road services of private operators on the area or route in question.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 109,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He is asked to take a decision, because the Executive Coun- cil who is the appointing authority has no power to reject the recommendation of the Selection Committee and take a decision deviating therefrom.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to the learned counsel prosecution has withheld 2 other material witnesses i.e. Smt. Kamala and Sri Gaya Giri who are the close neighbours of the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 101,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 119,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The homi-' cidal death of deceased Abdul Karim on account of infliction of dharia blows by respondent A-1 Allarakha is established.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 115,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "CWP No.24581 of 2014 Vinod Rani and others V/s State of Haryana and others",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 20,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 63,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That application also was accompanied by a covering letter from the company and certain other documents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is true that a lock-out itself may be the subject-matter of a dispute which might be referred to an Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1) or 10(2), Industrial Disputes Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 151,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 176,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Furthermore, non-compliance of Rule 9 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003, will vitiate the prosecution case, since the principles of natural justice, have not been followed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 78,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The FIR was registered with the Police Station Uniara, Tonk being case No.121/92.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 59,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They have the potential of improved ride quality over a wide load range.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "N. Sudhakaran for Appellant in Crl. A. 218/76.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 45,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We do not propose to spend time on the trifles of their married life.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The incident occurred some 7 years back.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Considering the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, it was held therein that a public carrier is a common carrier.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 52,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The enactment of Cess Act is to augment resources of the Pollution Control Board for undertaking various activities for preventing water pollution in the State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 25,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to him, as per the merit list prepared by the Commission and recommended to the State Government, the following 6 S. C. candidates were recommended by Commission for appointment to the Class-1 post :\nSl. No. Merit No. Name Marks \n \n \n \n \n\n1. Gunvantrai C. Vaghela \n \n \n\n2. Rajendrabhai K. Parmar \n \n \n\n3. Jagdishbhai H. Sarwarkar \n \n \n\n4. Amrutbhai B. Parmar \n \n \n\n5. Manojkumar L. Makwana \n \n \n\n6. Bipinchandra M. Parmar",
"entities": [
{
"start": 259,
"end": 280,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 318,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 358,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 393,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 409,
"end": 430,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 446,
"end": 468,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the aforesaid circumstances, the aforesaid order dated 21 -2-1981, disposing of I. A. No. 14/1980 in the case of Devilal s/o Shriram Khadav (supra) cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 68,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 100,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 123,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 142,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under Section 197, Cr.P.C. only Government is competent to accord prosecution sanction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 17,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 19,
"end": 26,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "it is this aspect which has been considered at length by Sabyasachi Mukharji, j. (as the learned Chief justice then was) in M/s Dwarkadas Marfatia's case (supra) even though, that was a case of statutory exemption granted under the Rent Act to an instrumentality of the State and it was in that context that the exercise of power to terminate the contractual tenancy was examined.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 76,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 146,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 240,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even if the preamble was actually adopted by the Constitutent Assembly at a later date, no one can question the statement made in the Preamble that the Constitution came into force on the date mentioned therein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 152,
"end": 164,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In OM PRAKASH v. AMAR SINGH AND ANR., , the Supreme Court considering the case of the tenant under the provisions of Section 14(c) of the U.P. Cantonments (Control of Rent and eviction) Act 10 of 1952 has held as follows:-\n \"6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 27,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 130,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 189,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As no such unity existed amongst the erstwhile partners of the firm, it cannot be said that the Receivers represented an association of persons.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the affidavit, accompaying the petition, the respondent made again several allegations against Mohammed Mirza.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 112,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Indu Gupta vs. Director, Sports Pubjab, Chandigarh reported in AIR 1999 Punjab and Haryana 319 (FB).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 109,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 224,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the record it appears that on I7th and 18th September, 1969, the house of Sangram Singh was searched by the C.B.I. in the presence of Motbirs and a large quantity of paintings i.e. 2009 were recovered under seizure memo Ex. P. 204.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 64,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 92,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 119,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have earlier set out the relevant discussion in Subramanya Setty's case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 67,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In S. T. No. 717 of 2007 ( Crime No. 290/2007) the appellant Rajnesh along with Hansu has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 (2) G I.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 24,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 68,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 85,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 164,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 171,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Suit No. 544/11 Page 18 of 18 pages",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The deceased was taken in the autorickshaw to other places and finally returned to Kuthirakadavu.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 96,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I do not consider it necessary to repeat them here.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "From, Exts. J/5, J/3, 3/10, J/11, which are judgments and orders passed in T. S. No. 14 of 1967, it appears that in respect of a portion of the propeties in suit, one Ghasi Teli filed a suit against Pata Sao alone.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 95,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 177,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 207,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The source of power for providing Scheme of High Registration Plates by Rule 50 is traceable to Rule Making Power of Central Government contained in Section 64, clauses (a) to (e) of the Act which read as under:-\n\"Section 64. Power of Central Govt. to make rules. -",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 79,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 135,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 179,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 224,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 247,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All these petitions are under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the grounds urged by the respective petitioners being common and the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the parties also being common to these petitions, these petitions are disposed of by this common order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 41,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 56,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sinha, J., meant license for a permanent cinema for a temporary period, that is, during the pendency of the Rule, the ultimate position in law would not be altered.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After showing car hire and computer hire and receipt from M/s. Tulika Advertising under the head other sources, the assessee cannot be allowed to turn back and claim such income as business income for the purposes of set off against brought forward business losses under Section 72 of the Income-tax Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 81,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 281,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 303,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The assignment contained a convenant that the mortgagee-assignor \"shall not be liable for any defect in the claim transferred and assigned or for any sums of money that may not be recovered.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "73.To sum up : Claim No.3 [Labour rendered idle by the Railway Administration] and Claim No.5 [losses suffered owing to over-stayal of work] are set aside and O.S.A.No.247/2005 is partly allowed to that extent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 176,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The approach laid down is that the court should not start with the presumption that the testimony is a false one, but whether there is sufficient probability or truth in it and whether the statement given by the witnesses are satisfactory.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Reconnaisance is the early stage of exploration.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Bromley in his family Law (Fifth Edition) referred to a similar situation in a case arising in England and has commented thus:--\n \"Another type of case arises when one spouse is obliged to go away for reasons of business or health and has to go away for reasons of business or health and the other cannot or will not go too.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 102,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 29.1.1952, the Central Government constituted a Commission popularly known as \"Kaka Kalelkar Commission\" under Article 340 of the Constitution which was to \"investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India and the difficulties which they labour and to make recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the Union any State to remove difficulties and to improve their conditions\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 36,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 106,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 125,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 145,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 263,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These four appeals preferred by the assessee against four separate orders- of the Id CIT (A) -XVII, New Delhi dt 28.22003 involve common issue and the same are, therefore, being disposed off by a single order for the sake of convenience. \n\n2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 109,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 121,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For example, in Virendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh: (2010) 8 SCC 407, the Supreme Court, after referring to many earlier decisions, held as under:\n \"42.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 75,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 94,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Insurance Company has failed to explain why they have taken extra premium of four passengers when the statutory requirement of policy was already covered Under Section 147 of Motor Vehicle Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 164,
"end": 175,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 196,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, shall take necessary and effective steps, for complying with the judgement, with due promptitude, keeping in view the applicability of the provisions of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and submit compliance report, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a copy thereof.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 38,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 204,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 238,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At the level of super-specialities the rule of equal chance for equal marks dominates.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the meantime on June\t 16, 1977 on a\t complaint from\t one Mr. Rusi\tModi representative of TISCO, at Patna to the Chief Secretary to the Government\talleging harassment of TISCO officials by respondent 6 and requesting for appropriate\t steps,\t the cabinet took the decision to transfer respondent 6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 33,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 100,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 110,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 181,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Rao then placed reliance on yet another decision of this Court in the case of A-One Granites v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 537 to which one of us (Pattanaik, J.) was a party.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 7,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 139,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 169,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But it may be assumed that the order was passed on the 29th.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Date of Order ::: 22.04.2013 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Hon'ble",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 28,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 71,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court had an opportunity to consider the provisions of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Support for this view is also provided by the Proviso to Old Rule 136 (5) corresponding to Proviso to New Rule 19(1).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 116,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "2. Sushil \n\n3. Sanjay \n\n4. Parmanand \n\n5. Ganga",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 16,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court notices that Section 163\u00adA was inserted making a deviation from the common law liability under the Law of Torts and also in derogation of the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 36,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 189,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The burden to show that the order of the Jagir Commissioner was invalid for non-consideration of matters required to be considered was on the appellant and it has to be held that he has failed to discharge that burden.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Before filing of this O.P., petitioner has filed O.P. No. 153 of 1985 before the District Court, Thrissur under Section 22 of the Act for a decree of Judicial separation On the ground of cruelty and desertion of the third respondent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 69,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 105,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 122,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the land in dispute has been used for a long time as a public way, then it cannot prevent the competent authorities to declare it as a public way more particularly in the circumstances when the right of the petitioners has been extinguished in view of the provisions of Rule 115-Q of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 273,
"end": 283,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 332,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, it is submitted that section 34 Indian Penal Code cannot be invoked.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 60,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, the Secretary, RTA shall give notice to the concerned applicant as well as the APSRTC as grant of any permit shall not contravene the approved scheme under Section 104 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 163,
"end": 174,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused pleaded innocence and their main defence was that they had been falsely implicated due to factional animus.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "By means of a common judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal of the present appellants (Crl. A. No. 2623 of 1968) and allowed that of their co- accused Jagdish and Sugriv (Crl. A. No. 2648 of 1968).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 117,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 164,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 175,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 201,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Nine witnesses were examined on plaintiffs side of whom P. W. 9 Baidyanath Prasad, only proved a compromise petition not relevant for our purposes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 81,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The entire scheme of the rules posits a judicial procedure and the Central Government is constituted as a tribunal to dispose of the said revision.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 85,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The order of detention in the case before the Supreme Court was passed under the Act of 1950 as amended by Act of 1951.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The views expressed in the earlier decisions of this Court to the extent of inconsistency shall stand disapproved and over-ruled with prospective effect and consequently excepting the pending cases the adjudication of any dispute which has attained finality shall remain undisturbed and shall not be liable to be reopened.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "To implement the provisions of the amended Article 286, Parliament enacted the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 54,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 66,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 106,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "their Lordships reiterated what was said in Ram Sewak Yadav's case, AIR 1964 SC 1249.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 84,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The other case in Crime No.99 of 2002 registered under Sections 448, 427 and 506(2) IPC, on account of property dispute, which culminated in C.C.No.100 of 2003, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukottai, had ended in acquittal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 37,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 83,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 87,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 159,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 213,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An order under Section 209, Cr. P.C. for committing the accused to Court of Session and remanding him to jail custody during and until conclusion of the trial could validly be made only if the accused had either appeared or had been brought before the Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 26,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 36,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage by Bryan A. Garner, \"predatory\" is defined thus:\n \"Predatory preying on other animals.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In B.S Joshi and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675, the question that fell for consideration before this Court was whether the inherent powers vested in the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised to quash non-compoundable offences.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 194,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 202,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further held that the appreciation of evidence while considering bail application virtually amounted to pre-empting the judgment of culpability of the accused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is true that the case of respondent No. 1 is that the petitioner Express Bottlers is a subsidiary and/or associated of Parle Group of Industries and was incorporated in 1982.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 147,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Kameswar Prosad v. State of Bihar and O. K. Ghose v. Ex Joseph it has been held that the right to strike is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 36,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 65,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 165,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There can be no doubt that a principle of general application has to be tested with reference to the context in which it has to be applied and if it does not fit in the context, it has to give way.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the basis of the complaint of Mohammad Sabulal \u00a9 Sabulal, Chamarajnagar Town, a criminal case came to be registered as Crime No.74/2004 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Chamarajanagar Police Station, against accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 506, 307, 302 read with 149 Indian Penal Code. \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 79,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 138,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 200,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 314,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 332,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The madam who had earlier talked to them was there and she again explained.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "An altogether illusory dispute about a matter that it is not the property of the plaintiff is sought to be raised by the State of Rajasthan in this suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 139,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused No.1 in his statement recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., though denied that P.W.4 Ruksana was not residing in the said building near the house of the accused, it has come on record that Ruksana was residing near house of the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 61,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 95,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 199,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to him, the finger print expert was at Nagercoil on 17.09.1984 and carried out the work of comparison and issued a preliminary report.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 58,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 72,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "on 15th July 1949 another order was passed by the Chief Justice that all cases under the following Acts throughout Uttar Pradesh shall be heard at Allahabad and not at Lucknow :\n1. Indian Divorce Act, 1869. \n\n2. Special Marriages Act, 1872. \n\n3. Indian Companies Act, 1913. \n\n4. Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922. \n\n5. Indian Succession Act, 1925. \n\n6. Indian Matrimonial Cases (War Marriage Act, 1948.)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 17,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 128,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 156,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 175,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 205,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 239,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 272,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 306,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 340,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 395,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the records of the case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Respondent No. 1-IIM is directed to make payment of backwages and other benefits to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of this judgment and order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 20,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In India, as has been shown there is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authorities, and it would, at their Lordships think, be an unfortunate result if it should be held possible to interfere with those statutory rights by an exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 8,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above decision was subsequently followed by the same Bench in Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. CIT .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 103,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"It seems your mother too had affairs with her own brother-in-law (sister's husband) i.e. Mr. Vasant Revankar and so they got married even against the desire of your grand parents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 109,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was introduced by A-1 to one Vikas Nanda (D-1) on the evening of 27.02.1999, while D-1 was sitting beside A-1 outside Iguana Restaurant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 78,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The aforesaid decision of the Constitution bench was directly concerned with the admissions in medical colleges.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In other words, the respondent company by adopting this mark to its goods after the registration in its favour would be able to present to the members of the public its own goods as the goods of Kipre and Co.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 195,
"end": 208,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as the last two decisions of the Andhra High Court are concerned, with respect.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is in the light of this principle that the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India has stated in its guidelines that such interest may be capitalised.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 89,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel for the State also relied on the definition of the rules under the Standard Weighment and Measurements Package Commodities Rules to contend that complete address should include State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A learned Single Judge of this Court in Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. M/s. Metal Goods Pvt. Ltd., reported in Allahabad Rent Cases, 1992 (1) 508,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 136,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, as we understand, the Apex Court has held that if the insurer establishes the defence available to him under Section 149(2) of the Act, he has a right to avoid the liability and he is under no obligation to pay the third party and then recover from the insured.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 134,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter the Superintendent and the party made a through search in the presence of the independent witnesses , the occupants and the accountant of the hotel , Mr. Jayaprakash.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 176,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question is when does the statutory liability cease?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Justice Gajendragadkar and Mr. Justice Vyas, while hearing a second appeal, have referred a certain question to this Pull Bench and the question conies to be referred under the following circumstances.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 47,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. and Ors. was cited by the learned Counsel for the proposition that the High Court is bound to follow the principle of law Laid down by the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 98,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 251,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first one arises out of Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 of 1969 of the Calcutta High Court dismissed on February 3, 1972, relying upon its earlier decision in Kalyani Dutt vs. Pramila Bala Dassi since reported in I.L.R. (1972) 2 Calcutta 660.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 121,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 195,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 242,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is signed by respondent Subodh Chandra Bose just after the words \"...... my ward patient No. 5356 Sri Sanat Chandra Bose\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 48,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 125,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 6th defendant (Moran Mar Baselius Paulose II) was appointed by the then Malankara Metropolitan and Catholicos as the Metropolitan of Kandanad diocese.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 48,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This cause of action in favour of the society is quite different from one being considered by us and would not appear to be covered by the requirements postulated in Kalavati's case C. A. No. 1699 of 1969 D/- 26-4-1973 (Bom).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 174,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 204,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 218,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "accused has submitted that CW\u00ad1 who is the AR of the complainant in his cross examination admitted the amount having been received qua the cheque in question.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Coming to the delay in both the writ petitions, it is the claim of A. Obaidhullah, petitioner before the Tribunal that there had been inordinate delay on the part of the department/ Government and in the absence of proper explanation or the delay had been caused at the instance of the petitioner himself, the charge memo cannot be proceeded.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 81,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A compensatory tax is outside the purview of article 301 as the tax is intended to create facilities for trade and promote the free-flow of trade and not to impede it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 56,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Relying on the decision of the Division Bench in Bhagwat Narayan's case (supra), respondent No. l Manmohan Bajaj also claimed that the executing Court & bound to stay its hands until conclusion of the investigation of his right.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 64,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 112,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On appeal reversed the decree and remanded the matter holding that Lusiana statute of limitation being prospective and the remedy though barred, right to recover is not extinguished, the Supreme Court of U.S.A. held on certiorari, that the limitation as interpreted in Rodrigue's case being prospective, the remedy was not extinguished and the claim was not barred as the action was controlled by Federal Law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 187,
"end": 210,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 277,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 4th November, 1977 of the Rajasthan Tribunal Court in C.A. No. LC-3 1976. \n\nSoli Sorabjee Addl. Sol. Genl. (for the intervener in CA 2820), Anand Prakash, H. K. Puri & Lakshmi Anand Prakash for the appellants in all the appeals and applicant intervener M/s.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 76,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 108,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 130,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 147,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 195,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 211,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 223,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 247,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "C.M.A. No. 534 of 1987 is filed by the claimants in the said O.P. No. 166 of 1984.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 22,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 81,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though the petitioner was unwilling to take over that sick unit, it had to yield to the pressure of the financial institutions as they were also financiers to the petitioner-company.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The rate of interest on Government of India bonds for a period of 30 years in 1972 yielded 5.75% per annum.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 43,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent No. 1 has examined Dr. Kantilal Patel who treated respondent No. 1 for quite sometime for his fracture injury.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 48,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This order being violative of the guarantee embodied under Article 301 of the Constitution is illegal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 70,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 90,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "J.N. Bhatt, J. \nPrelude (Focal Point) Let us at the very outset, evidently record, remember, and recollect that ;\n \"A civilisation is judged by the way it treats its criminals.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There was also s. 31 of the Amending Act of 1953, which made s. 34 of the principal Act (which meant the Income-tax Act as amended till that date including the amendments made by the Amending Act of 1953 in the second proviso to s. 34(3) ), applicable to any assessment or re-assessment for any year ending before April 1, 1948, where proceedings were commenced after September 8, 1948.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 20,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 48,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 66,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 119,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 203,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 237,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 327,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 385,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In a suit under Section 180 also, as was pointed out in 1951 All LJ 290: (AIR 1950 All 407) (A): \n \"But, as will be seen from its language, the section contemplates a suit by a person \"entitled to admit the defendant as a tenant\" and speaks of the suit \"of the person so entitled\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 27,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 91,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "General principles against tax avoidance are, it was claimed, for Parliament to lay down.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 76,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In order to see what the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is, it is open to the Court to see what dispute was submitted to him.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "From the above discussion the following facts emerge :\n Part II Qptional Subjects ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Maximum Marks: 150 Maximum Marks: 150 Maximum Marks: 150 Minimum Marks 45 Minimum Marks 45 Minimum Marks 45 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PHYSICS CHEMISTRY BIOLOGY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pager I Paper II Pratical Pager I Paper II Pratical Pager I Paper II Pratical 24 55 48 33 50 48 35 52 42",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It may be mentioned that the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijay Textile Mills v. Union of India rendered its decision on 24th January, 1979 on this aspect of the matter.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 100,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Announced in the open court (Balwinder Singh) on 13th day of January, 2014 Metropolitan Magistrate\u00ad01, Traffic, South District, Saket, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 74,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 144,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The site of 2nd defendant is purchased by defendant No.3.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Sri Arvind Kumar submits that in any case, the interest of the Appellant-Insurance Company as against the owner of the vehicle in question (respondent no. 3 herein) should have been properly secured so that after making the payment of compensation under the impugned Award, the Appellant-Insurance Company would be able to recover the same from the owner of the aforesaid vehicle in question.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As scheduled in the tender notice, the bids received were opened on 25.07.2009 at 4.30 p.m. and the amounts quoted, in so far as it is relevant, are as follows: (1) Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.22631/2009 - Rs.1,03,32,000.00 (2)Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.21443/2009 - Rs.1,01,05,555.00 (3) Sri.Baburajan V.K. (4th Respondent in W.P.(C)No.22631/09 & 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No. 21443/09) - Rs. 95,00,000.00 WPC .Nos.21443/09",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 78,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 200,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 259,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 302,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 340,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 381,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 402,
"end": 419,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "ship them prior to their evacuation which was effected on the 21st February, 1942 pursuant to Orders of appropriate authorities.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 81,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dharampal Sharma deposed that on 25.07.04, his maternal aunt (Mausi) and grandmother of accused Sonu passed away and he accordingly went to Noida where all the relatives gathered.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 41,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 100,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 145,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The language of s. 437 (1) may be contrasted with s. 437 (7) to which we have already made a reference.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 26,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Committee concluded that three of the tenderers namely M/s H.D.C., Mukand and Bharatiya who had quoted identical rates without any cushion for escalation between 1.7.91 and 1.9.91, have apparently formed a cartel.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 172,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 183,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They contained detailed accounts of vast payments made to persons identified only by initials.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "While the mere plausibility of an explanation given by the accused in his examination under s. 342, Cr.P.C. may not be enough, the burden on him to negate the presumption may stand discharged, if the effect of the material brought on the record, in its totality, renders the existence of the fact presumed, improbable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 107,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now in this case one test of the pecuniary limit is satisfied because Sanyal draws more than Rs. 500/- per month.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 76,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[270E-G, 271D-F]\n 2.5\t Section 8(4)\twould be inapplicable\tto minority institutions if it had conferred blanket power on the Direc- tor to grant or withhold prior approval in every case where a management proposed to suspend an employee but it is\t not so.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 39,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, passed order which reads as follows :\nOrder Presented by the complainant's power of attorney on 27-12-2001.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 152,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Looking to the Indian economy, fiscal and financial situation, the amount is certainly a fabulous amount though in the background of American conditions it may not be so.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 21,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Chief Engineer (Personnel) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board 800, Anna Salai Chennai \u0016 600 002.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 93,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also submitted that the provision in D.C. Regulation 16 regarding public interest 1 Decided on 10th August, 2011 in WP No. 840 of 2011 2 AIR 1936 Privy Council 253 (2)\n\n\n\n\n \n KPP -14- WP No. 2859 of 2006 cannot be construed in any other sense and the said Regulation is to be \n interpreted by giving appropriate meaning of public interest as mentioned in \n Regulation 16.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 125,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 147,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 184,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 336,
"end": 355,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rohit Kumar (accused No. 8) and Kewal Krishan (accused No. 9) were acquitted by the Trial Court and their acquittal has been upheld by the High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 45,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Certain examples have been given in the counter affidavit.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "( 2 ) In London and North Eastern Rly. Co. v. Berriman,(3) Lord Macmillan observed: \"Where penalties for infringement are imposed it is not legitimate to stretch the language of a rule, however beneficent its intention, beyond the fair and ordinary meaning of its language.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Turning to the first letter dated December 7, 1980, in which a proposal is made for transfer of Shri K. B. N. Singh from Patna to Rajasthan, there is not the slightest reference to any earlier discussion oral or in writing between the Law Minister and the Chief Justice of India on the question of transfer of Shri K. B. N. Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 50,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 115,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 126,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 139,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 278,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 329,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as the concept of \"manufacturing\" is concerned, there are catena of judgments in the said respect even of the Supreme Court pronounced in the context of various legislations like Transfer of Property Act, Central Excise Act and the State Sales Tax Legislations.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 130,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 210,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 230,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That, however, means only this, that he was in possession at the date of the preliminary order made in those proceedings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Under the Income-tax Act, 1922, by s. 31(2) the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was given the power before disposing of any appeal, to make such further inquiry as he thought fit, or cause further inquiry to be made by the Income-tax Officer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 30,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 80,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of the purchase from Ramkumar Ramnarayan under exhibit P-19(a) the accused produced the invoice, exhibit P-20, but exhibit P-20 did not bear the full address of the seller such as his door number, telephone number, telegraph address, etc.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It cannot he accepted that a purchase tax must be always levied on goods generally and never with reference to their use, consumption or sale.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to this view, an indirect or incidental benefit to traders by reason of stepping up the developmental activities in various local areas of the State can be brought within the concept of compensatory tax, the nexus between the tax known as compensatory tax and the trading facilities not being necessarily either direct or specific.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Nek Chand and other petitioners are placed in the same situation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No other witness was examined on behalf of the Department, not even the complainants, Rajpal Singh and Radhey Shyam, though their names were mentioned in the charge-sheet for being examined as witnesses against the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 98,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 115,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Rahimtoola relics on a judgment delivered by me in Alkam Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Alchem (India) Ltd. (Judgment dated 27th November, 1990, in Notice of Motion No. 3028 of 1988 in Suit No. 3198 of 1988).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 106,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 142,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 205,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Looking to the rival contentions of the parties, the first point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the land in dispute was in exclusive possession of the deceased Balu and the accused-appellants Jeeva, Bhanwar, Gopiram, Hanuman and Kana s/o of Balu, or half of the land in dispute is in possession of the informant Prabhu PW 8 and his brother Heera. \n\n27.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 186,
"end": 190,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 223,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 232,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 241,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 250,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 259,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 271,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 344,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 371,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the better use of treated water, the P.H.E.D. was required to transfer the substantial amount collected in the name of Sewerage to the Municipal Corporation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is also proved that you had misutilised and diverted the loan amount credited in you S.B. a/c on 17.01.2004 & 27.01.2004 by opening of F.D. A/c No.11497/91 (ME-16) on 29.01.2004 instead of utilizing the fund for the purpose of renovation of your house, for which loan was sanctioned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 110,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 123,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 180,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In my opinion, this decision of the Supreme Court is of no help to either of the parties, inasmuch as their Lordships were not considering the scope and effect of Section 69 (2) of the Act \n\n 20.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 49,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 177,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In so far as G.Ram Babu, Regional Manager in the Agro Chemicals Division of the Corporation is concerned, his services were also terminated on 22.11.1997 and he filed W.P.No.35924 of 1997 before this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 23,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 153,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 187,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The liability arises from being in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the instant case if the respondent No. 3 filed a suit against the petitioner for cancellation of the agreement of 8th June, 1977 on the ground that the condition precedent of the Agreement was not fulfilled in that suit the decision referred to above might have been helpful to the said respondent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 131,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This application dated 14.5.1975 has been proved by defendant No.1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 32,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case, the plaintiff has proved on record the legal notices dated 16.09.2007, 12.05.2008 and 29.05.2008 whereby the tenancy of the defendant has been terminated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 90,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 102,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 117,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In these circumstances and in view of the material on record, Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that original plaintiff Sh.Gauri Shankar had the locus standi to file the present suit before the said court .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 122,
"end": 135,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 4 placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SDO, GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. Timudu Oram reported in 2005 (6) SCC 156.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 114,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 198,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further averred on the directions of hon'ble Supreme Court of India, MCD, on the basis of the survey of Monitoring Committee, which was constituted by the court, the unauthorized constructed pandal on the suit premises, was sealed on 22.12.2006 and the information was received by the representative of the plaintiff society by way of letter dated 2.3.2007.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 250,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 362,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The business in question of the assessee started in Burma in 1861.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 57,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to witness Neogy, the contractor was coming daily to the office to enquire whether the tender had been accepted, though it is not clear from his evidence whether the contractor came after 31-10-1952.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 26,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 208,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We also directed a copy of that Rule to be served on the fourth respondent Subodh Chandra Bose.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 94,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 21.05.2014, management filed reply to notice under Order XII Rule 8 of CPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 70,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 77,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "With great respect, we are of the view that the above conclusion is based on a misappreciation of the decision of the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 131,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, the respondent-Delhi Administration shall keep the petitioners on a panel and, if they are registered with the Employment Exchange and\t are qualified to be appointed on the relevant posts shall",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 48,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That decree is passed against the guilt party.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On receipt of the death memo, the I.O. filed a report to the jurisdictional court seeking to alter the offence to Section 302 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 125,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 129,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The third defendant Dhaniram was at the relevant time driver of the truck.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He identified the persons from the photographs and said that he had seen those persons 2 to 3 days prior to Holi of the year 1999 in the hotel of the accused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the said truck, cement bags were ioadeci and it was tied with \\ Z 9'.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "She further stales that her counter filed in support of Application No. 331/64 was obtained by-fraud and coercion, although she has mentioned no facts relating to coercion These charges are emphatically denied in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent according to whom defendant No. 26 is only attempting to extract money by black-mailing.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In these cases, the mere proof of accident raises the presumption of negligence unless rebutted by the wrong-doer.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(K.S. GAREWAL) (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE JUDGE 27.01.2009 Amodh",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 13,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 16,
"end": 27,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of JANARAJAN @ KRISHNAMURALI .v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU ([2005] 5 CTC 762 (Madras), it is reiterated by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that if bail is granted to persons who have violated the provisions of the Foreigners Act, such person cannot stay in India even for a day without valid passport and visa.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 91,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 142,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 232,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 266,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to this reckoning, the plaintiff has continued in service for nearly eight and a half months beyond the due date of his retirement, and there is no prospect of the case being disposed of expeditiously, as, a number of issues have been framed and no evidence has been led so far.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "While going away the accused had given threats that in future he would be killed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the contrary, the plaintiff-society's own witness Kantilal gave a complete go bye to any such alleged case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 61,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also specifically averred that the deceased plaintiff No. 1 -K. Rama Murthy and his son K. Sitaraman, who is arrayed as plaintiff No. 2, have received and encashed four cheques, each dated 1-3-1990, for a total value of Rs. 7-70 lakhs.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 81,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 106,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 203,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Tribunal inferred from the said facts that this was a payment by the said company meant for the benefit of the assessee.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, in Sajan Abraham, the facts were different.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts of the case are that the assesses had claimed that during the previous year relevant to Asst.Year 1990-01, it begun to manufacture article or thing in the backward area as provided in Section 80HH and therefore, if claimed deduction Under Section 30HH in Asst.Year 1990-91.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 194,
"end": 206,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 261,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The next case on which reliance was placed on behalf of the applicant was AIR 1940 Cal 28 (L), wherein Panckridge, J., relied on the decision of AIR 1932 Bom 516 (K). \n\n \n\n96.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 93,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 113,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 165,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also escaped with Sivarasan and other Sri Lankans.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 30,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This petition is filed by Mr. Haydevbhai G. Shukla, Advocate, Rajkot, challenging the order dated 31st August, 1994 cancelling his vakalatnamas in the cases pending before the Labour Court at Rajkot.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 50,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 68,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 115,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 198,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court had also upheld the validity of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. in the case of U.O.I, v. Paliwal Electricals Pvt. Ltd., 1996 (83) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 172,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, in my opinion, this contention would be available to the appellant even though leave under Section 170 of the M.V. Act was not sought in the compelling circumstances.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 113,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 129,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is still further contended that there is no clause in the insurance policy that in case the claimant is to get any benefit under the social security scheme, the said amount is to be deducted while awarding compensation to the LRs' of the deceased.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Bose, J. had observed as follows: \"the Government may not be bound by the contract but that is a very different thing from saying that the contract was void and of no effect and that it only meant that the principal (Government could not be sued but there will be nothing to prevent ratification if it was for the benefit of the Government.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 4,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "C.N. Parvatha Raj Assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87 S/",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even in the complaint, dated 24.11.2001 lodged by the mother of the appellant, which forms part of Ex.P.4, the alleged removal of Thali by the respondent/wife has not been referred to.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 39,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Twelve persons were mentioned in C.M.P. No. 1990/72 as the legal representative of Askar Nawab Jung.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 51,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 99,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The grant of a permit is entirely within the discretion of the transport authorities and naturally depends on several circumstances which have to be taken into account.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 159 of 1951.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 216,
"end": 244,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent, Kanhaiya Lal was a firm.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 28,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pursuant to the notice Ex.CW1/6, company accused had SEBI vs. Timber World Resorts & Plantation & others sent a letter dated December 12, 1997 (Ex.CW1/7) wherein company accused had furnished terms and conditions of schemes launched by it from time to time, detail of fund raised under the said schemes, copy of offer documents of the schemes and details of promoters/sponsors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 97,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has submitted that the labour Court has given the findings which are based on the evidence on record and no jurisdictional error has been pointed out.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Nair was the one to whom the respondent approached in his dire necessity of money to pay the bill of the German Hospital and even though Nair did not have the necessary cash he went out of his way to request PW 14 Krishan Kumar Tiwari to lend the amount.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 4,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 141,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 234,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not the practice of Courts to decide in a writ peti- tion disputed questions which\t cannot\t be satisfactorily decided without taking evidence.\n Rashid Ahmed v. Munsicipal Board, Kairana, (1950) S.C.R. 566 and K.\tS. Rashid and Son v. The Income-tax Investigation Commission (1954) S.C.R. 738, relied on.\n (2) Tile Indian Evidence Act",
"entities": [
{
"start": 176,
"end": 236,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 339,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We shall refer to the terms of Article 311 and discuss the rights of the civil servant holding office under the Union of India, a little later.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Arvind Yogindra Rasesh Hemant (Died on 16/08/1971) Atulya Pradeep Miheer (Born on 27/05/1958) Padmanabh Hrishikesh",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 29,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 49,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 92,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 114,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While it is not necessary to state the facts in Civil Appeal No.2849 of 1977, it is sufficient to state that in this decision the Bombay High Court followed the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Virmani Industries (P) Ltd. [(1974) 97 I.T.R. 461].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 76,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 147,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 197,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 281,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On receiving a call from Sweety, she immediately returned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 31,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Again in AIR para 9, the Court held: \n\"We, therefore, hold that normally petitions solely praying for the refund of money against the State by a writ of mandamus are not to be entertained.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After completion of investigation, the police filed challan against the accused and charges under Sections 302/34, 307/34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act were framed against all the accused, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 121,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 125,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel for some of the respondents relied upon the order passed by K.N.Basha, J., vacating the interim orders originally granted ex parte.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 89,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is no scheme of Government in practice to guarantee a job against a minimum salary, even if a person acquires professional qualification.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The petitioners have themselves constructed a huge compound wall towards the land side on their private land and respondent No.3 would be constructing the retaining wall parallel to the land of the petitioners, therefore, there is no question of their deliberately cutting off the private properties of the petitioners from the city.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This is the true, attested copy of the computerized policy.\" \n\n PW-1 Babu Lal in his examination-in-chief has admitted that he was one of the traveller of the offending tempo bearing no. DL-1LB-1175.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 77,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "M/s Rathore Investments Deposits 1,11,971 \n \n \n \n \n \n\n3. 204/Ahd/1997 M/s Rathore Finance Co. \n\nDeposits 5,05,796 \n \n \n \n \n \n\n4. 205/Ahd/1997 M/s Mahi Trading Co. \n\nDeposits 69,396",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 32,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 102,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 180,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The market price of\t the ,shares of Albion Plywoods on or about the date of sale\t was not known to the Central Government when the order was\tmade and does not show that the transaction was fraudulent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 51,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 121,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "31. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, 5th edition, specifies :\n \"Document : An official or formal paper, form, book etc., giving information about evidence or proof of, or a record of, legal documents; documents of ownership; travel documents; Documents detailing government meetings were leaked to the press.\" \n32.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Reliance is also placed on a unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 14-2-1994 in Appeal No. 109 of 1994 in Summary Suit No. 1618 of 1991, in the case of Classic Strips Pvt. Ltd. v. Arrow Convenors Pvt. Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 100,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 126,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 159,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 229,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is the argument of Mr. Chatterjee that principles of natural justice are clearly attracted in the passing of any order by the Management of the Bank, if the order affects in any way the interests of the employee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is informed that criminal proceedings against Monica's father-in-law for offence under Section 498-A and 406 IPC and against her mother-in-law under Section 498-A IPC were quashed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 27.07.2009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 111,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 115,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 165,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 169,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 203,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 231,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the directions contained in the above judgment the award amount is to be disbursed as follows:\n\na) The share of the petitioner No.2 Smt. Birmati be transferred into her savings account in UCO Bank, Patiala House Court, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 148,
"end": 155,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 207,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 239,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On return to the town, accused No.1 and his two sons started objecting for putting up construction on the said site by said Shivamma on the ground that he had not received his share of the sale consideration in respect of the said site.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The decision of the Privy Council in Sir Sunder Singh Majithia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, C. P. and U. P. (1) was also referred to by the Revenue in this context.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 113,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Questions to be decided by us are whether conviction of the appellant Balbir on the three counts noted above are not proper and he deserves to be acquitted of all the said charges.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 76,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The legislative competence of the State in respect of mines and minerals was held to be denuded to the extent that the field was covered by section 9 of the Central Act, namely, Mines and Minerals (Regulations and Development Act), 1957.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 149,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 236,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since we have held that the imported goods are not rivets, but snap fasteners, the benefit of this exemption notification is not available to the appellants.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Witness Bhikhubhai in his deposition Exh. 17 did not support the prosecution and was cross-examined by the public prosecutor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are as hereunder:-",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He had promised to repay the same within a short span of time.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It appears that in the usual course on 6.2.1997, the Chief Minister asked for two files pertaining to the Report sent to the Government on 29.3.1996 by the Director General of Vigilance Bureau concerning Shri Bikramjit Singh as also the file pertaining to the allotment of 15 acres of Government land by the Sports Department to the Punjab Cricket Association in Mohali.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 47,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 148,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 224,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 359,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 369,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case on consideration of different cases particularly the Full Bench decision of Madras High Court, the Bench held: \n \"Hence it is obvious that a claim for accounts in a partition suit is implicit in the original suit for partition by metes and bounds and it ought to be settled at the time of the preparation of the final decree.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W.3, Narottam Kumar Saha, who subsequently took over the charge from the Appellant as Post Master, deposed that it was a \"Single Post Office\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 26,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Temple filed an appeal before the District Judge, Coimbatore which was dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such an employee shall draw pay in the revised scale of pay of the post with effect from the date of his appointment. \n\nNote: 2. The aforesaid option shall be applicable only in respect of the existing scale of the employee as on the 1st January, 1986.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 234,
"end": 251,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": ".P.C. for the offence under section 138 NI Act was framed against the accused persons on 28.07.2012 to which accused no.2 on behalf of himself and accused no.1 pleaded not guilty CC No.1194/2012 Satish Chander Sadh Vs M/s New Kapoor Furnitures Page no. 2 of14 Pages and claimed trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 39,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 46,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 99,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 194,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 243,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The ratio of the judgment is what is set out in the judgment itself.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On this aspect Sri P.S. Misra led his most vocal contention that the identity of the corpus delicti has not been established in this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 29,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of the respondent, Rajeswaran, the decision and recommendation of the Review Committee was not placed before the Full Court meeting.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 41,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The same would have influenced the learned single Judge in the said case to express the view that all the Courts functioning within the districts allotted to the Permanent Bench at Madurai are subordinate also to the Principal Bench at Chennai.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 188,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 243,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been proved by the person who made it, that is, Headmaster Giriraj Prasad P. W. 7.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 80,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that this view of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Brahman's case has been held per incurium in Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and Anr. AIR 1906 Supreme Court 1931.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 101,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 212,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All that Section 115J(2) does is to preserve this right, viz., to carry for ward the balance of the unabsorbed deductions in the relevant previous year to the next assessment year.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 24,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the four appellants claim that they were implicated falsely, they ought to have come up with the reason as to why they would be falsely implicated.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The need for a more intense and anxious judicial scrutiny in administrative decisions which engage fundamental human rights was re- emphasised in in R. v. Lord Saville ex p (1999) 4 All ER 860 (CA), at pp.870,872) .",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Tribunal also considered that it was only after the filing of the claim petition on 26.11.2009 that the appellant Malti Devi (widow) filed 3 of 19 FAO No.156 of 2012 (O&M) [4] applications before the SSP alleging that the Police did not act properly regarding the incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 98,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 128,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 169,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sub-rule (6) thereto reads as under:\n \"Recruitment on post encadred in Panchayat Samit and Zila Parishad services as per Sub-section (2) of Section 89, shall be made districtwise through District Establishment Committee as per provisions of Sections 80 and 90 of the Act.\" \n\n86.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 150,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 259,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The obstructions in the form of trees, electric poles etc. be removed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "38.The Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, Shri Bhuneshwar Ram PW 76, on the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, recorded the confessional statement of Ram Sagar PW 3 as stated earlier from 19-12-1984 to 21-12-1984 which was marked as Ext. 28/1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 34,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 55,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 169,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 208,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 222,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not in dispute that, until at any rate 1956, appellant Raghunath and the other members of the family formed a joint and undivided Hindu family of which Raghunath, on the death of his father Laxman in June 1954, became the karta and the manager.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 70,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 167,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 202,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision in Advocate General. State of Bihar v. Madhya Pradesh Kh^air Industries, is that of the Supreme Court rendered under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 84,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 114,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 162,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As aforesaid, the appeal is directed against the said impugned judgment of ,he Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1427 of 1982 dismissing the Writ Petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 120,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW1-Vimla in her cross-examination has stated that now the matter has been compromised with the accused-appellant although, she denied that she gave that statement because of such compromise.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He identified the negatives of the said photographs (exhibit 49).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Ex/D1W2/3 is the copy of the rent receipt issued in favour of Mohd. Arafin, proprietor of M/s Seema Lodge, for the period from 1.6 to 31.6.75.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 74,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 105,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 141,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the revised agreement peel posed to be entered into between the two States, the route Tirupathi to Tiruvannamalai which is included as Item No, Q in Appendix B to the said GO., is allotted to the State of Tamil Nadu.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 98,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 116,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 218,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The wife of the deceased, (P.W. 9) Sundaramma told him that the deceased was in P.W. 5's house and that he may inform him there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 45,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellants Dalip Singh and Battan Singh are said to have assaulted the two dead men Rattan and Bawa about twenty years before the occurrence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Having given our anxious and solicitous consideration to this question, we are of the opinion that the procedure prescribed by Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act for removal of encroachments on the footpaths or pavements over which the public has the right of passage or access, cannot be regarded as unreasonable, unfair or unjust.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 138,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 178,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application has been filed by the accused petitioner under section 438 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 56/2012 registered at Police Station Laxmanagarh, District Sikar for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 341, 342, and 427 IPC. \n2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 99,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 107,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 183,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 257,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 261,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the purpose of considering a preliminary objection, the averments in the petition should be assumed to be true and the court has to find out whether those averments disclose a cause of action or triable issue as such.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Shankar submits therefore that the quantification of the compensation is not left completely to a simple discretion of the learned trial Judge but that the learned Judge in his turn is limited to the percentage parameters that are required to be indicated in the medical evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the first case, AIR 1941 Cal 41, it was held by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that: \n \"The statement in the school register about the age of a person in absence of evidence to show on what material's the entry in the register about the age of that person was made has not much evidentiary value.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 34,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 94,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": ". \n\n 5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of damages and mesne profits, as prayed for, if so to what extent?OPP 6) Relief. \n 4.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Reference was made to 'KASSIM EBRAHIM SALEJI v. JOHURMULL KHEMKA', 43 Cal 447.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 77,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this context, we would refer to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Kannappan v. R.T.O., 1988 (1) KLT 902, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court declined to follow the decision of a Division Bench, which was directly in point and ordered to refer the matter to the Full Bench.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 115,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Although both the defendants had filed their affidavits, however none of the witnesses appeared for cross\u00adexamination and thus their affidavits cannot be read.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "These conditions have not been fulfilled in this case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW1 stated that he got fracture in left acetabulam and left pubic rami fractured.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There is nothing to suggest that the Chief Justice of India was ever apprised of the much more serious allegations contained in the letter of May 7,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 59,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that event, it would not violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, rather saved by Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 78,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 109,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 138,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There can not be any dispute as to the general principles enunciated in that decision, Bhagwati, J. at p. 328 has, inter alia, made the following observations:\n \"The absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice must however unite in order to produce liability.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 95,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They reached Botad Hospital at 6-30 a. m. and the injured were admitted in the Hospital.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "23, He submitted a comparison of the service records of the applicant and the third respondent which clearly discloses that the third respondent has shouldered more sensitive responsibilities and that his work has been acclaimed not only by the State of Karnataka, but also by the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 254,
"end": 263,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 317,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In any event, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 843 at 845.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 34,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Bashir v. State of Haryana, , the decision depended upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the question that fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was, whether a person, who has been released under the Proviso to S. 167(2), could later be committed to custody merely because a challan was subsequently filed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 29,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 169,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 245,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "it may be noted that 'religion' is not necessarily theistic and in fact there are well known religions in India like Buddhism and Jainism which do nor believe in the existence of God or of any Intelligent First Cause.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 111,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P. W. 1 Basappa states as follows: \n \"Defendants 1 to 4 and the guardian of the 5th defendant sold the suit land in favour of the plaintiff.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the instant case we are not concerned with this section.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In June 1951 he became the Vice-Principal; and from 1st December 1951 he was appointed the Principal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 69,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "4. Of the 8 witnesses sought to be examined by the prosecution to substantiate its case against the accused persons ,all of them were examined.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As per the statement of these witnesses, five accused who had fired bullet shots had proceeded towards IIT, Powai from the Padmavati road in an auto rickshaw.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 113,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We find that neither the ITO nor the CIT(A) nor the Tribunal has examined the matter by applying the functional test.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Secondly, even if any services were performed, such services are not performed outside India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court of Andhra Pradesh also rejected the plea of the Banks.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 32,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Heard on I.A.No.3501/2014, an application for urgent hearing.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 25,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The owner insured who had also valid licence did not know that nor it has been established that he consented to its being driven by D.V. Chandrashekar, a person not holding a driving licence or a permanent driving licence and who was only holding a learner's licence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 150,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Per.R.M. Sahai, J. (Concurring) 3.13.-Power to tax is a sovereign power.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the matter was taken up for consideration by the Three-Judge Bench on 1st September, 2004, it was brought to the notice of the court that two other decisions had a direct bearing on the question sought to be determined.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 94,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This infirmity and non-application of mind in the appreciation of the evidence is equally applicable to his appreciation of the evidence of P.W. 4, Tukaram Dashrath Jagtap.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 148,
"end": 171,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "ix) Furthermore, in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Brij Mohan & Others24 while holding that insurance company has no liability, however, invoked Article 142 and 136 of the Constitution in directing the insurer to pay first and recover from the vehicle owner, like in several other cases within the power of the Apex Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 69,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 172,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 192,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 329,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In MFA No.491/2009 claimants have sought for enhancement of the compensation by contending that contributory negligence as apportioned by the Tribunal to the deceased at 25% is erroneous and same is liable to be set- aside.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To use the words of the Privy Council in 'Russell v. Reg', (1882) 7 AC 829 at p. 839, we must find what is \"the primary matter dealt with\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "And we direct, as Mr. Bhattacharjee wants us to do, that the said amount of court-fee i.e., Rs. 10/-be put in by the appellant Ranada within one week from today.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 133,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The evidence comes from such persons as (1) A compounder, Desai, (2) Gangaram, who is really a shop keeper and who calls himself as a Merchant, (3) Sachnindra Nath Dey, a smoker for 3 years, (4) Sanat Kumar Bhattacharya, another shop keeper, (5) Md. Jaffer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 63,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 77,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 167,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 219,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 256,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This view finds support from what was said by Beg. C.J. in paragraph 40 of the judgment in Rajasthan case (AIR 1977 SC 1361) (supra), which is as follows: \n \".....",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 49,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 123,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words, by prescribing the point of time at which the working experience has to be acquired, the State Government can get over the applicability of rule 10(ab) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, which alone was the foundation of the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Sirajudeen v. Kerala Public Service Commission (supra) and in W.A.No.1643 of 2007.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 156,
"end": 167,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 187,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 352,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 387,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On same night at about 10:00 PM, at the instance of accused Pushpender, the police team reached Ekdil police station at Etawah in search of co-accused Kuldeep and on next morning at around 07:00 AM co-accused Kuldeep was arrested from his village at the instance of accused Pushpender.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 116,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 126,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 158,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 216,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 284,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The private educational institutions have to and are entitled to charge a higher fee, not exceeding the ceiling fixed in that behalf.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In view of the discussion aforesaid, the appeal is partly allowed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Whenever there is a basis for a reasonable suspicion that a cognizable offence has been committed the officer should arrest the person concerned, unless for reasons recorded in the diary he wants him to let him be free so that he can be watched secretly to find clues about the property.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Based on the said memo, the learned Master ought to have permitted the applicants to be added as co-petitioners in the EP.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The assessee had not taken any steps in this regard to find out how its interest are secured.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Order on sentence will be passed after hearing the convict. \n Copy of this order be given to the convict free of cost. \n\nAnnounced in the Open Court (PANKAJ SHARMA) today on 11 day of August, 2014 MM : Dwarka : Delhi th CC No. 67/12 u/s 138 of NI Act",
"entities": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 163,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 196,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 216,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 232,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 240,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 250,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In ILR 0960) 10 Raj 180 (supra), Bapna, J., sitting singly took a contrary view of rule 15 and held that it was mandatory.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 23,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 90,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On a request made by the petitioner the Government of Rajasthan secured the services of Mr. Dutta to inquire into the affairs of the Mills and to report how far the working of the mills was economical under the present conditions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 63,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 97,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The following passage from the judgment of Cornish. J., at page 359 of the report is worth quoting :-- \n \"The notion of a trust in the ordinary sense of that word is that there is a person, the trustee or the entrusted, in whom confidence is reposed by another who commits property to him; and this again supposes that the confidence is freely given.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 50,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whatever the merits of the norms, violation of which constituted 'conspiracy' in English law, it is a problem for creative Indian jurisprudence to consider, detached from anglo-phonic inclination, how far a mere combination of men working for furthering certain objectives can be prohibited as a tort, according to the Indian value system.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus it is clear that the respondent No.1 had stated before the IO that at the time of the accident the vehicle was being driven by one Abhay Singh who had expired on 11.12.2005 whereas before the Tribunal in the written statement he had stated about the vehicle being taken by the respondent No. \n\n2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 147,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 177,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This was based on past experience which is re-inforced by the observations of the High Court that even in non-bailable cases courts of Sessions and High Court do grant bail.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The appellants preferred only one special appeal (No. 234 of 1966).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 65,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"......in a taxing act one has to look merely at what is clearly said.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW 6 is HC Ram Sultan who deposed that he was posted as HC at B Shift IGI Airport.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 21,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 165, this Court, after taking note of the decision in Deokinandan Prasad (supra), has said :\n\"Pension to civil employees of the Government and the defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 57,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 126,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 243,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The chemical analysis report dated 16th November 1998 confirms that the samples were of diacetyle morphine (heroin).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 53,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Here, the error is of a kind which goes to the root of the matter.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The second piece of circumstantial evidence, which goes against the accused is the Post Mortem Report (Ex.PW9/A).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He also relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Waizir Chand and another Vs. State of Haryana- AIR 1989 SC 378 in which Supreme Court has held that when from the evidence on record it is not established with certainty that wife committed suicide, her husband and in-laws could not be convicted under section 306 of the IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 49,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 129,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 152,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 330,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 341,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner who is the accused in Crime No. 446 of 2010 of Panangad Police Station seeks to quash the proceedings before the Court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, (ACJM for short), Ernakulam, on the ground that the said proceedings have been commenced pursuant to Annexure - A1 notice issued by the Sub Inspector without any authority. \n\n 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 45,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 131,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 247,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff claimed in the present suit general damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the ground that the plaintiff has been injured in his character, credit, and reputation and in the way of his business and has been brought into the public hatred, contempt, and ridicule.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The suit was contested by the defendant/respondent Kalyan Kumar Roy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also not stated by the accused if he had made an application U/s 156(3) Cr. PC or a criminal complaint CC No.250/13 ANIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. RAMESH SHARMA page no. 13 of Pages 19 U/s 200 Cr. PC in respect of the alleged offence done by said Raj @ Gajraj and Nitesh Kumar @ Vicky.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 77,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 84,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 155,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 187,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 194,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 254,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 279,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the premises your petitioners humbly request that in order to maintain the dignity, prestige and the fair name of the country and the ideals enshrined in the Constitution no rogatory letter be issued on the formal request of the CBI unless the allegations against named persons are established to the satisfaction of this Hon'ble court:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 161,
"end": 173,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 235,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioners also contend that S. 63 (3-A) empowers the concerned States under the agreement only to fix the number of permits which are permitted to be granted or countersigned in respect of a particular route.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We may add here that there does not appear to be any relevance of these rules herein as we are not concerned with the sale of any land but with only the exchange of the land.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff has further relied on the judgment Mrs. Winfired Nora Theophilus Vs. Mrs. Lila Deane and others, AIR 2002 Delhi 6; wherein it was held by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri as follows :\n\n On the other hand learned counsel for the defendants submitted that in Delhi no probate was required in respect of a Will to administer the property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 127,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 182,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 274,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The trial Court negatived the contentions which are sought to be raised before this Court also and convicted alt the six accused persons for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. \n 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 170,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 192,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 217,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The sovereigns were weighed in the Indian Government Mint, Alipore and a sample was drawn in presence of Shri Jay Krishna Saha for assay on 24-8-73 to ascertain the purity of the gold sovereigns.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 57,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 66,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 126,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 147,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The strike was also illegal for want of adequate and proper notice as required under Section 22 (1) (b) of the same Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, it stands proved that accused Hiren Tokas indeed made complaints against Palji Fast Food Corner i.e shop being run by PW\u00ad5. \n\n 61.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 102,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Subsequently the solicitor acted as a clerk to the justices who tried the case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 5.5.2009 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Goa in Civil Revision Application No.3 of 2009. \n\n3. Appellant No.1 and respondent No.1, Erasmo Jack de Sequeira (now dead) were sister and brother, hereinafter referred to as appellant and respondent respectively. \n\n4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 63,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 112,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 155,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 221,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel with reference to the evidence of Domai Thakur and Shambhoo Prasad Mehta, P.Ws. 15 and 16 submitted that both the witnesses had seen Anil Yadav, Harish Chaudhary, Amar Yadav and one unknown in Harda market over read bullet and black motorcycle taking rounds of the market in the afternoon prior to the occurrence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 62,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 88,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 159,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 177,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 189,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 214,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The articles recovered contained gold teeth cleaner Ex-14, Galpatia of gold Ex-17. gold Surliya Ex-18, Kara Ex-19, 7 gold buttons with chain Ex-10, gold chain Ex-22, gold watch Ex- 20, gold 'Churries' Ex-21 Gold Patri Ex. 11 pair of 'Lung' Ex-12, gold rings Exs. 15 and 33, 'Challa' Ex-16 and necklace Ex-34.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(P.W.6) Gulaichhi is mother of the deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 17,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Announced in the open court Dig Vinay Singh on 16th day of December, 2014.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 73,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Jafruddin deposed on the lines of prosecution story being the witness of the accident who was present at the spot at the time of accident in question.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That was reported in 2005(1) Crimes 423 ( Ravi Kumar & another ..vs.. R.Ramalingam rep.by Power of Attorney).\n\n\n 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 39,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 52,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 87,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Unreported judgment dated 20/7/2011 in W.P. 5332 of 2004 delivered by Division Bench at Nagpur (to which one of us viz. J. \n B.P. Dharmadhikari is party) considers a case where the vigilance cell report was in favour of petitioner and though claim of a scheduled tribe candidate was being looked into, research officer was found not associated with vigilance inquiry.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 35,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 56,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 94,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 143,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh getting rid of her by putting her on fire.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Chief Justice goes on to say that: \n \"If it is found that the statute has laid down a policy or principle for the guidance of the exercise of discretion by the Government in the matter of such selection or classification, the court will uphold the law as constitutional as it did in Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of Saurashtra, \". \n 6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 295,
"end": 336,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh.Uttam S/o Sh. Ram Nath Prasad 42. Sh. Chunnu S/o Sh. Ravinder Chaudhary 43. Sh. Rakesh S/o Sh. Lakhi Ram 44.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 8,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 108,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision of the Delhi High Court in Fouress Eng. (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration & Ors., on which reliance has been placed by Shri Sharma, does not throw much light on the meaning of the expression \"full wages last drawn\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 36,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 95,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 152,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Per contra, learned senior counsel for the defendant-NAC submits that suit land was vested in NAC under the Pepsu Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1954 ( Pepsu Act' for short).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 56,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 97,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 157,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Chapter is headed \"Standards and Performance\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The question that arises is for the purposes of Section 20 (c) CPC, in such circumstances, is what is the extent of the burden on the Plaintiff to show prima facie that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the forum court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 62,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 66,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Times lead article for the 4 July 1955 (at 9d) stressed the Bill's importance for Parliament:\n\"They have the casualty lists - 5,000 or more killed on the roads every year, 10 times as many killed and more than 30 times as many slightly hurt\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 42,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 96,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "6) The petitioner has filed a reply to the application for Leave to Defend along with counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit the petitioner has denied the defences taken by the respondents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The accused informed that he will get back in 5 minutes.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Subordinate Judge had come to the conclusion that the claim described in Sch. C, was beyond the arbitration agreement, and no reasons were given by Khosla, J., for disagreeing with that view.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 152,
"end": 158,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "MCD next pointed out that even the impugned judgment of Delhi High Court while exhaustively covering the roles of the Licensee, Vidyut Board, the licensing authority, Delhi Fire Force, makes only a passing reference to MCD.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 3,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 72,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 140,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 183,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 222,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But under this second head the Implied requirement may be wide.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is, therefore, to my mind, futile to try to give a definition of the words 'case decided' which would apply to all facts and circumstances, or try to limit the same to the question whether the matter is distinct and separable from the main suit or has intimate connections therewith.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel pointed out that the Tribunal in the aforesaid case has held that the payment made to the assessee, a non-resident English company for the recoupment of the expenses incurred by the technical data for which a research Department was maintained by the assessee-company in London did not constitute income assessable to tax.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 291,
"end": 297,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel contended that the Objection by the plaintiffs before the sub-divisional officer itself was not maintainable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "CHARGE:\n(4) Charge under Section 325 and also 325 read with 313 read with 34 Indian Penal Code was settled against the accused Bunty, Vinay and Vimal to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 76,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 94,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 132,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 139,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 149,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The remaining portion which is situated on the other side of the road admeasuring about 696 Sq. Mts., belonged to other private parties.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(The `due process' clause was adopted in s.1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights Act, 1960.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Palaniappa 9 Gounder v. State of T.N. Reported in (1977) 2 SCC 634 in para 9 relying upon the said judgment held as under :-",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 107,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It cannot be ruled-out that the application Ex P 1 was with Shiv Kumar and he could have passed it on to Sita Ram or could have himself planted this application when the complainant and Shiv Kumar had gone inside the Patwar Bhawan for getting the chair for the Dy. SP and a cot for other persons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 113,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 196,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of the aforesaid submission the learned counsel have placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597) (supra) and Francis, Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi (1981) 1 SCC 608 : (AIR 1981 SC 746).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 116,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 169,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 285,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The aforesaid appeal had been filed by the plaintiff Sheoji Bhai against the order of the Additional District Judge rejecting his application under Order 40 Rule 1 C. P. C. for the appointment of a receiver of the income of the suit property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 64,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 163,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 172,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has not stated anything about the confession made by the appellant Yadav which has been seriously commented upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 75,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Once that Gram Panchayat was notified as reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes no elector, not belonging to the said category, could possibly seek election either in that village as Mukhiya or in any other village and constituency if he aspires for that office.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "She has further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajinder Prasad v. Bashir and Others, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3524, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 143,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 175,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this decision also, reliance was placed on the decisions reported in CIT v. Dhadi Sahu [1976] 105 ITR 56 (Orissa) and Radheshyam Agarwalla v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 196 (Orissa).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 116,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 176,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the submission made by Mr. Sen on behalf of the appellant that S. 20 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act should be interpreted a, intended to cover all claims in respect of minimum wages or overtime payment for days of rest though there may be no dispute as to the rates at which those payments are to be claimed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 120,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 145,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question whether a person has the locus to file a proceedings depends mostly and often on whether he possesses a legal right and that right is violated.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "S. N. kaeker Sol. General and A. V. Ramgam for the Respondent in C.A. No. 1144/73 and for the Appellant in C.A. No. 1201/73",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 81,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 123,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Another individual, the first respondent before the Supreme Court, claiming to be the working president of the organisation applied before the first appellate court for deletion of the name of the first appellant and for the appeal papers to reflect that the organisation was the sole appellant with such individual being shown as its working president.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case of Sharma Roadways, 1965 Raj LW 340, on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the respondent before me and to which I was a party did not relate to a case where there was patent lack of jurisdiction in the body.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 44,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S.N. Jha, J, speaking for the Court in S.S. Ghosh's case 1985 (1) SLR 31, observed as under:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 72,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before leaving this case, I should state that a number of decisions were cited before us in which it had been held that an order of detention based on a criminal charge which is still to be tried may not be invalid and that an order granting bail by a criminal court cannot be a bar to the passing of an order of detention.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The petitioner filed a representation before the State of U.P. through Secretary Home Secretary, State of U.P. and before the Union of India through Home Secretary and also before the District Magistrate, Banda on 12.08.2014.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 62,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 110,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 140,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 210,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 224,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this fog of authorities, however, a beacon of light is to be found in the decision of the Privy Council in Sunderabai v. Collector of Belgaum, 21 Bom LR 1148 : (AIR 1918 P.C. 135).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 182,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The judgments relied upon by accused/respondents shall have no bearing in the light of the observations made by this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which have been referred to above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 152,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the first respondent, the Schemes published by the State Government notifying the routes under various pocket schemes in the State are applicable only to stage carriages and not applicable to contract carriages.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In fact, this aspect is further put beyond doubt by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharmeshbhai Vasudevbhai and others v State of Gujarat and others, (2009) 6 SCC 576, where the Court held as under :-\n \"6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 184,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears, therefore, that though we are concerned with seeking of intention, we are rather looking to the meaning of the words that the legislator has used and the true meaning of what words as was said by Lord Reid in Black-Clawson International Ltd. v. Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg A.G. 1975 AC 591 at p. 613.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It appears from the record that in connection with Civil Application No. 4477 of 1994, this Court issued a Rule on 30-3-1995.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 85,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 124,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The possible obstacle in adopting this interpretation is that while the assessee's appeal gets revived when the Commission rejects an application, the I.T.O.'s appeal is not resuscitated under s. 245M(7).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 193,
"end": 203,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They are as a rule directed against the State and its organs.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Section 14A and 25A of the Rent Control Act contained non obstante clauses but in Section 54 of the Rent Control Act it was expressly provided that nothing in the said Act shall effect the provisions of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 19,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 43,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 92,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 116,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 255,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The following conclusions were arrived at by the two-Judge Bench in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (supra) :",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 99,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The mother lived separately, and two deeds were executed by which the two grandsons agreed to pay Rs. 15,000 per year to the mother, (1) (1940) 8 I.T.R. 236. \n\n(3) (1945) 13 I.T.R. 512. \n\n(2) (1938) 6 I.T.R. 206. \n\n(4) (1948) 16 I.T.R. 294.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Even, if therefore, the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act which was a personal law applicable to Hindus only were to create a right of maintenance also in favour of a woman who was a party to a null and void marriage, such right of her, if any, shall have to be restricted to the provisions under the said Act only.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accountability of the public sector to the Parliament is ineffective because the Parliamentary control of public enterprise is 'diffuse and haphazard'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 57,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These notices were also published in two newspapers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In AIR 1954 SC 39, the facts were that a dacoity had been committed in the house of one Namdeo Moti Ram in the night of the 11th of December 1950.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 17,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 145,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The power to grant injunction in personum was thus legislatively curtailed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In support of these contentions, judgment in case of CBI, Hyderabad Vs. K. Narayan Rao (supra), A.K. Ganju Vs. CBI 2014 I AD (Delhi) 349 and K.R. Purushottam Vs. State of Kerala (supra) have been relied upon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 86,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 136,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 177,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The tenor of the show cause notice in this petitions shows as if a decision has already been taken.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this behalf, our attention was invited to the decisions of this Court in K.V.Jesudasan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1989 Crl.L.J. 637; H.C.P.No.1459 of 1999, decided on 23.4.1996; as also the H.C.P.No.1672 of 1998, decided on 17.3.1999, to the last judgment one of us (V.S.Sirpurkar, J.) was a party.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 131,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 154,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 176,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 211,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 233,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 280,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is thus clear that the Nagpur High Court was not ppn -33- fa-922.13 wt 923.13 (J).doc abolished but by a legal fiction it became High Court for new State of Madhya Pradesh in view of section 49 (1) of the said Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 174,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 200,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, reliance is placed on decisions of our High Court in the case of Hassem Imran Mohd. Siddik - 2001 Cri. L.J. 1619 and Shashikant Ramjidas Chawla v.The State of Maharashtra (unreported) in Criminal Writ Petition No. 349 of 2008 decided on August 4, 2008.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 124,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 182,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 237,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 263,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The enquiry officer has neither the power to produce nor compel the employer to produce witnesses for being cross-examined by the employee.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Sessions Judge found that prosecution has established the following circumstances: (1) Sunil (1st accused) had taken the child from the house of PW8 Tara by about noon on 5.9.1992.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 96,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 157,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 183,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the preponderance of the authorities, we are unable to give effect to the argument of the Id. representative for the assessee based on the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Addl. CIT v. Laxmi Agents (supra) that the assessee should be allowed depreciation under Section 32 in respect of the properties, the rental income from which is assessed under the head \"income from house property\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 184,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 213,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 287,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the legislature has defined the expression licensee then it means the direction must be addressed to the person to whom the licence has been issued or in whose favour the licence has been issued.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "JUDGMENT:\n CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1402 of 1979.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 70,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Legislature has made the following improvements in section 6B of Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1982.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 97,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The wound was starting 6 cm behind the right ear lobule and 1 cm below it; going across below it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But mere non-explanation of the injuries by the prosecution may not affect the prosecution case in all cases.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thereafter Kamal Kumar, Armourer, Police Lines, Patiala (PW-12) checked the Pistol/Mauser .30 bore and he submitted his test report dated 18.07.2003 (Ex.PZ).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 22,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 55,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 148,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We expressed no opinion whatsoever regarding those aspects.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The petition under article 228 was heard on April 12, 1950, by a Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Chagla C.J. and Bavdekar and Shah JJ.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 30,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 58,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 95,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 116,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 134,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 143,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That, in my most respectful opinion, would not denude the petitioners of their obligation of coming with clean hands before this Court with a full disclosure of material facts while seeking to invoke the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 261,
"end": 272,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 301,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for petitioner has cured the default as pointed out by the Registry.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Their meaning is not confined to games of a gambling nature alone.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Announced in Open Court on 15.03.2014 (Narinder Kumar ) Additional Sessions Judge(Central) Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 37,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 53,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 96,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Amongst these regularly selected candidates, there were also some candidates who while working on ad hoc basis came to be selected by the G.P.S.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 138,
"end": 146,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Consequently, offence under Section 498-A IPC is not attracted in the present case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 45,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The apex court concluded that the subsequent First Information Report on the same set of facts is not in conformity with the scheme of the Cr.PC for reasons stated therein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 144,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW. No. 7, Sanjaybhai Rimabhai, in his examination-in- chief has stated that he was a resident of Uchapan village.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 30,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 105,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has urged that since 1938, the State has had to make five orders to deal with the problem of advancing.the",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Then comes Rule 16 which has come in for considerable criticism.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 18,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sessions Court has at Exh.197 taken document produced by the witness during cross examination on record.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The writ petitioner K.R.Palanisamy is an assessee on the file of the Income-tax Officer, Tirupur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 34,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 96,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On receipt of the complaint, the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Hyderabad directed the Inspector of Police, Administration to register a case and entrust the case to Sri Shaym Rao, the Inspector of Police, East Zone, Team-I.C.C.S. Hyderabad for investigation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 106,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 212,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 273,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[873D-F]\n Maru Ram\tv. Union of India,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 44,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Jaideep Sirpurkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 21,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Plaintiff's counsel during the course of arguments submitted that in the event of this issue being decided against the plaintiff, liberty be given to him to approach the Court again in the event of Supreme Court reversing the decision in Santosh Vaid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 198,
"end": 211,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 250,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": ".D.15 is the Certified Copy of that Memo.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is no doubt RCA No. 108 /2013 Shri Padam Singh & Anr. Vs. Shri Ramesh Chand & Ors. Page8/23 that u/s 50 of the DRC Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court are barred in the matters of eviction where the act applies.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 32,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 78,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 106,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 121,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As an administrator of the firm, it is his duty to see that the business is carried on and in that regard he might have promised the de facto complainant that he would see that the arrears are paid and requested for supplies.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the MCOCA contemplates a situation where a group of persons as members of organized crime syndicate indulge in organized crime.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 20,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "inspite of award having been passed more than five years prior to coming into force of the Act of 2013 i.e. w.e.f. 1.1.2014, the award of compensation has not been paid to the beneficiaries as required under law and therefore, in the light of legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court as referred to herein above, entire proceedings lapsed. \n\n10.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 123,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 290,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Additional District Magistrate, Bankura erroneously referred to Section 4(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 in his notice dated the 6th May, 1970 (vide. Annexure 'B' to the writ petition) as Section 4(1) has no application to minor minerals.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 80,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 145,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 183,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 241,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per the Executive Magistrate, if the vehicle is carrying the goods in excess of the permissible limit, then he has to take action as per the procedure established under the said provisions and also under Section 134 to 136 of the Cr.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 207,
"end": 225,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 240,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The argument before the Court was that although Congress has absolute discretion to choose the one or the other mode of ratification, there was an implied limitation upon that discretion when rights of individuals would be directly affected and that in such a case the amendment must be ratified by convention.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is strange as to how the petitioner could claim knowledge of the recommendations of the Chief Justice of India and Chief Justice of Delhi High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 113,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 151,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendant is due from November 2007 to till date in respect of the monthly rents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "All the accused were examined U/Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure after completion of evidence of complainant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 39,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 69,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the Government did not accept the said demands, the Sangh gave and a call for an indefinite strike commencing from December 2, 1977, in response to the said call about 90 per cent of the teachers in recognized institutions went on an definite strike from December 2, 1977.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 134,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 274,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The acceptance of such deposit from the members of the public with unreasonable power to determine the terms, rate of interest and manner of use of the monies so collected are completely repugnant to the accepted modes of public saving and investment thereof for generation of goods and services contributing to the economic growth of the country,\n \n\n27.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We have already adverted to the decisions of the Apex Court directly on the point.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case First Information Report was lodged by Warden, Kurukshatra University.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 81,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Interest may also be awarded in lieu of compensation or damages in appropriate cases.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "14. PW10 Sh. Dipanker De produced computerized print out of the statement of account no. 03951000121039 in the name of Mr. SC NO. 44/14 Page No. 15/52 Javed Chaudhary as Ex. PW10/A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 24,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 166,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The bone of contention between the two parties, both of whom are respectable and were erstwhile friends, is two aircrafts viz. VT-CRA & VT-CXR, which originally belonged to M/s. Indamer and Company (P) Limited, Customs House Road, Bombay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 178,
"end": 209,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 237,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Justice Chinnappa Reddy, as His Lordship then was, took note of all the relevant cases that were decided by that time and held in Hindustan Shipyards case (4 supra) as under:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 23,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 149,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The term \"Regulation\" has now a different meaning under clause (50) of the General Clauses Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 94,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Singh v. Ramnandan Prasad Singh, (1916) ILR 43 Cal. 694 PC and Narbharam Jivram v. Jayvallabh Harjiwan, AIR 1933 Bom. 469, approved.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 56,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 122,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On adjudging the cancellation of an instrument the Court may require the party to whom such relief is granted to make any compensation to the other which justice may require'.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "20. In Bhartiraj v. Sumesh Sachdeo, AIR 1986 All 259 held as (Paras 28 and 32):-\n \"Discussing the evidentiary value of blood tests for determining paternity, Rayden on Divorce, (1983) Vol. \n\n1) p. 1054 has this to say:-",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 52,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Point (a) :- The contention of the BDA is that the petitioner sold the land in question to one Nirmalanand Annaiahachar way back in the year 1952.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 119,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, the case-law rather than establishing a practice of separate maintenance proved the contrary.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Considering the submissions made by both the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and authorities cited by them in support of their version, it is now necessary to consider the relevant provision of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Clause (bb) thereto.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 215,
"end": 228,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 259,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 281,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly a notice under Section 8A of the Taxation Act was issued to both the parties to show cause why tax at the higher rate be not levied in terms of Clause 5(a) of the Schedule treating the vehicles as contract carriages.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 57,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 167,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Through the witness Shashikant Dattatraya Kale, Exhibit 67, who was serving in LIC at Bombay, it was elicited that the deceased clement had insured his life under the said policy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 46,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 82,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now it is to be considered that whether the overt act of the appellant comes within the purview of Section 107 of I.P.C ? \n\n18.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 110,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 119,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench consisting of Bapna and Bhandari, JJ. on the 7th of November, 1959.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 75,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 88,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 122,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Acts/Rules, as the case may be, the \"service\" and the \"posts\" which are governed by such Acts/Rules",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It appears that having considered several criteria which may be relevant in determining which classes are backward, the Committee ultimately decided to treat the status of caste as an important factor in that behalf, and it is on that basis that it proceeded to make a list of backward communities which were specified in Volume II of the Report,\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As noted in para 43 above, even during the pendency of the Death Reference and the Appeal, full indulgence was shown to the appellant and he was got examined by a Board of Experts at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, a premier medical institute in India; the appellant has been certified as a sane person.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 187,
"end": 226,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 264,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(b) that complainant company transferred/sold 97,000 handsets of ZTE mobile phones worth Rs.13.81 crores to the DIESL.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 68,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 117,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sri Abhijit Day, P.W. 28 Senior Scientific Officer-II, CFSL, C.B.I., New Delhi submitted report no.690 dated 23.12.1998, Ext. 9 with regard to three fired cartridges recovered at the spot stating that shots were fired from single 7.62 M.M. assault rifle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 67,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 78,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 119,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of the contentions, ld. counsel has relied upon authority in case of R. Balakrishna Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Another (1996) 1 SCC 478 in which the criminal conspiracy alleged against the appellant was that he sold electricity to an industry in the State of Karnataka without the consent of the Government of Kerala.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 150,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 283,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 331,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Yet another move in the game was this Veerappa Pillai filed a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbako- nam, on 3rd October, 1944, for recovery of possession of the original five buses from Messrs. Raman and Raman Ltd., on the strength of his purchase from Balasubramania Pillai.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 53,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 140,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 229,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 289,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The company may also compete for business travel customers with businesses that provide short term rentals of cellular telephones capable of operating in specific countries or regions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O.K. Ghosh, supra, and Smt. Damyanthi Naranga, supra, notices that Article 19(1)(c) steps in not only in the matter of forming an association, but even while taking away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 34,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 133,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All these conclusions are conclusions of fact based on material on record and, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse so as to give rise to question of law, which may be required to be considered in this appeal under Section 260A of the IT Act,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 219,
"end": 231,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 245,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It may be noted that accused Chhagan has admitted his presence in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 97,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 106,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W.1, Sebastiana Monteiro, widow of deceased Felix Monteiro states that the deceased had retired from the service but was working as the President of the Chapel at Bastora.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 26,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 172,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It may be imparting such instructions and may have students learning such knowledge that do not stand in need of any recognition.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Sheo Mahadeo Prasad v. Deva Sharan, A. I. R. (1955 Patana Si, disapproved.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 63,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under such circumstances, there is no evidence as such against the appellants Gopi Bai and Ramanbai by which they could be convicted for offences punishable under section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act or Section 498-A of I.P.C. \n\n13.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 86,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 99,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 172,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 201,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 218,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 228,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The call list of the later number was also obtained and it was found that many calls from this number as well, were made to Motihari. \n\n5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 132,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If his contention that he was denied promotion when he was entitled was found to be justified by the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal is 57 Criminal Application No.258.13 (APL) always empowered to grant him all the reliefs including deemed date of promotion.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 182,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "J.R. MIDHA, J NOVEMBER 18, 2010",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 14,
"end": 31,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "'this is what is mentioned in the judgment of the Tribunal:- \"At the end of the hearing of this appeal on 25th of November, 1949, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal requested the departmental representative to produce for the examination of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal the gross profit rates shown or assessed in the cases of other similar cotton mills.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 128,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Lord Wilberforce added that as a matter of general principle a taxpayer had no sufficient interest in asking the Court to investigate the tax arrears of another taxpayer or to complain that the latter had been underassessed or overassessed; indeed there was a strong public interest that he should not.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to me, therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the ordinary course, as a contrary view was being taken, the learned Judge would have referred the matter for decision by a larger Bench, but finding that the decisions in AVALA REDDY RAMAPPA v. STATE OF MYSORE, 1960 Mys.L.J.315 and JAN MOHAMMAD NOOR MOHAMMAD BAGBAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT, are binding decisions, the learned Judge took a contrary view and decided the petitions on merits. \n\n10.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 175,
"end": 231,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 289,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The next question is whether the insured-appellants, namely, Kantilal and Brothers have any status or occasion to prefer any appeal to challenge the propriety or validity of the award passed by the Tribunal in the present case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 69,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Carat Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (1989) 2 SCC 132: (AIR 1989 SC 885: 1989 Cri LJ 963).\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 90,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even on the assumption that the portion added by Act 25 of 1947 into the definition of 'sale' was subsequently declared ultra vires by this Court in the Gannon Dunkerley case,\t the suit to set aside or modify an assessment on the assumption that the definition\t was wholly\tinvalid, was\t not maintainable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 65,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ramaswami J., who gave the judgment in that case, Rai J. agreeing,with him, observed that the statement of law made by Dhayle J., in 1938 Pat 529 (AIR V 25) (P) was inconsistent with the ratio of the decision in 1926 PC 46 (AIR V 13) (A) and could not be reconciled with the judgment of Lord Macnaghten in 25 Bom 332 (PC) (C).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 53,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 125,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 160,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 237,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 292,
"end": 302,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 325,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Counsel would also support the stand taken by the State authorities in WP No.4548 of 2000 and maintain that if the power of the State Government to limit the number of NOCs in a locality is not recognised, that would result in no-good to everybody in the event of the NCTE not according recognition to an applicant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 101,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 284,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Announced in the open Court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 13.01.2014 ASJ (NW)\u00adII: ROHINI State Vs. Rakesh @ Nipal etc., FIR No. 40/2013, Police Station : Maurya Enclave Page No.70 of 70",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 107,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 162,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant Lakhiram Kalita and the first respondent Bhanurani Pegu, amongst others, had submitted their tenders for the settlement of the shop.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On that land right from 1981 buildings were constructed without any permission or has been kept reserved from the concerned authorities and the buildings so constructed weren handed over to the purchasers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Babu Ram Chaudhary, P.W. it, has also supported P.W. 37 and there was a rumour after this occurrence that appellant Tripathi had also hand in the murder and when enquired about the same appellant Tripathi denied and said that he cannot be involved in the case because he was in Jail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 124,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 204,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They have deposed before the Tribunal that their husband were an agriculturist and having business of milk and at the relevant time they boarded in the Isher truck from Songaon Check post (Gujarath State) and were coming with the plastic bags to their place of residence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 169,
"end": 176,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is necessary not only to protect the employees but also to safeguard industrial peace in which the society at large has a vital interest.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Wadia's case (1), also an income- tax case, it was held that a law imposing a tax cannot be impugned on the ground that it is extra territorial, if there is a connection between a person who is subjected to a tax and the country which imposes that tax.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 8,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I have read the said judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court very meticulously and I do not find so.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 62,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is submitted that in similar circumstances, the Apex Court in Jiju Kuruvila and Others v. Kunjumma Mohan and Others [(2013) 9 SCC 166] granted Rs.1,00,000/- each to two minor children.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 61,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 137,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It also appears from paragraph 4.6 of Chapter IV of Part III of the report of the Fourth Central Pay Commission that the Commission could not undertake a detailed study of the job contents and different functions in the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 111,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 233,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as the foreign tour of H. P. Gupta was concerned, the AAC held that his tour was in connection with the new business which was to be started and, therefore, the ITO was justified in disallowing the foreign tour expenditure incurred for him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 41,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That apart, if he alighted from the foot-path and walked at a distance of about 8 feet from the foot-path on a road which was 28 ft. wide and was knocked down, from behind, it could hardly be inferred that his conduct was culpable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The plaintiffs Kaki and Har Kaur filed a suit for joint possession of the property of deceased Chanan Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 19,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 107,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "D.O. Letter No. 2088/ 94-3 TNLAS (BI) dated 17-2-1994",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 53,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The lower appellate Judge seems to have completely ignored the question of nullity and in fact he does not seem to have considered that aspect at all.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The observation in regard to life insurance is based on what Lord Watson said in the case of Jennings (1888-13 A,C 800) on the basis of Lord Campbell's direction in the case of Hicks.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The contentions raised by the different Advocates are some-what conflicting if not mutually destructive.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But the employer is bound under the Statute to make an equal contribution up to a minimum prescribed under Section 6.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 116,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The observations of Hinch Cliffe, J. in the case of (1970) 1 WLR 114 (supra), referred to in the case of Hindusthan General Insurance Society Ltd., (1970) 40 Com Cas 796 (Pat) (supra), are worth quoting.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 175,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was suggested that during the Mahazar, he came to know that the lady was throttled and murdered.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Further, when the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax directed acceptance of the cheque for Rs. 97,67,233, at least then it should have occurred to him not to accept it from him but to insist on payment by the appropriate authority.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On 25.03.2009, accused M. Darvish, Yash Sharma, Lekh Raj and Madan (the present accused), were charged under Sections 393/397 read with Sections 511/398/506/120-B of IPC and under Sections 186/353/307/34 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 125,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 162,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 169,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 203,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 207,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel also cites De Smith's Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Fourth edition, page 423, which is also relied on in 1964(1) Mys LJ 318, and he also cites Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth edition, Vol. I, para 71, \"Waiver and acquiescence\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 151,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 197,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioners - Balbir Singh and Shakeel Ahmed claim to be in occupation of garages No.11 and 9 respectively at Naval Officers Mess Annexe, Kota House, since 1963.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 44,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As observed by this Court in Kraipak and Ors. v. Union of India \"the aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 63,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears to us this is one of those exceptional cases where the correct conclusion recorded by the Assessing Officer, and affirmed by the appellate authority, has been reversed by the Tribunal on account of perverse reasoning, as we shall presently see.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Mookerjee who. appears on behalf of the State of Karnataka contends that the High Court ought not to have exercised its; powers to quash the proceedings against the respondents without giving to the Sessions Court, which was seized of the case, an opportunity to consider whether there was sufficient material on the record on which to frame charges against the respondents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 62,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner by their letter dated 13-4-1951 stated that as desired by the respondent they were ready to ship the goods per S. S. Hoegh Silver Spray and were arranging accordingly.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 46,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A First Information Report (for short, \"FIR\") under Section 380/120B of the Indian Penal Code was registered.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 93,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus it is not in dispute that FIR had been registered against Yogesh and criminal trial was also pending against him in the concerned court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be misconceived.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Even though such a consent memo was filed by the respondents, the learned District Judge thought it advisable to examine the parties to find out whether tbe petition was or was not vitiated by collusion.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Writ Petition No. 169 of 1999 apparently appears to be misconceived and filed in a hurry without approaching the appropriate authority for the grant of relief in accordance with jail manual applicable in the matter.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 33,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was held that the income never became a part of the income of the family or of the eldest member but was a kind of a charge on the estate.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "prosecutrix is an adult, married and working lady.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, this objection is liable to be upheld and the question is liable to be deleted. \n\nQuestion No.58 of C-series (Question No.85 of A-series):-\nQ.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The scheme is being introduced in response to the competitive environment on the one hand and the desire of employees on the other.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned Single Judge who heard the Writ Petition referred the case to the Division Bench, doubting the correctness of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Rural Education and Social Trust v. University of Calicut [2007(2) KLT 609].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 174,
"end": 249,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Announced in open Court today on this 21st day of October, 2014 (R.K. GAUBA) District & Sessions Judge (South) Saket/New Delhi",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 63,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 75,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 126,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "( S.K.Katriar,J) Patna High Court,Patna Dated 12th September 2008. \n\nAFR / mrl.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 13,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 65,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(A.M. THIPSAY, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (APPA-1087.11)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 13,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 31,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Oriental Leather Industries being respondent No. 6 which was already cleared and delivered to the said Export House after completing all the formalities of acceptance of valid import licence and of Customs formalities inclusive of payment of assessed Customs duties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 27,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 485 and\t2205 of 1969 held licences for the retail sale of foreign liquor for consumption on the premises of their\t respective establishments.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 57,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The power to legislate in respect of treaties lies with the Parliament under Entires 10 and 14 of List I of the Seventh Schedule.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 70,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 128,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of D. Gopalakrishnan v. Sadanand Naik, , at page 87 : \"There are no statutory guidelines in the matter of showing photographs to the witnesses during the stage of investigation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 49,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW 10 Dr. Indrajeet Singh in his statement has testified that there was a fracture in the jaw bone of Prashant which had to be stitched by putting a wire splint and may result in the twisting of the face if the stitching is not proper at the point as he grows.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 25,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 110,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But when the Income-tax Bill was referred to the Select Committee, the Select Committee's recommendation was that an order made under Section 216, which is more or less equivalent to Section 18A(7) of the 1922 Act, should be made appealable and, accordingly, under Section 246(m) of the 1961 Act, an appeal was provided against an order charging interest in a case falling under Section 216.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 145,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 197,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 279,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 390,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though P.W. 2 has been treated hostile by the prosecution, the fact that the child was following the mother finds corroboration in their (P.W. 2 and P.W. 4) evidence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Adverting to departmental instructions, the Supreme Court was however, prepared to loosen the rigour in Khet Singh v Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 380 and said the departure from departmental guidelines must be based on justifiable and reasonable grounds.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 148,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As a general rule, it is true, that partners suing in their individual names ought all to join as co-plaintiffs or co-petitioners",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "provisions in section 317 are also supplementary to the provisions of section 231 and emphasise the position of the secured creditor as one outside the winding up, the secured creditor being, in regard to the exercise of those rights and privileges, in the same position as he would be under the Bankruptcy Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 25,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 81,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 310,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But, so long as the approval lasts, the assessing officer is bound and cannot challenge the correctness of the approval or take up the position that the contract itself falls outside the purview of the section.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Section 114 sub-section (1) lays down that property taxes shall be levied on lands and buildings in Delhi and shall consist inter alia of a general tax of not less than 10 and not more than 30 per cent of the rateable value of lands and buildings within the urban areas.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 27,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 105,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of this contention he invites my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. G.M. Kokil and others, 1984 (Supp) SCC 106, to contend that the power to condone the delay in exercising the power of review is not available to the State Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 177,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case, after the proceeding which was pending by the initiation of the notice dated the 9th May, 1968, the Registrar in deciding this controversy in my opinion, was acting as a tribunal and therefore, was competent to take action as a tribunal contemplated under section 56(4) of the Act.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 108,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 283,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The opportunity to cross examine was again denied during the remand proceedings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The ticket numbers of the respondent Mulani and that of Mr. Shikalgar is an admitted position as reflected from the Annexure-I & Annexure-II to the said settlement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 43,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated 25th January, 1972of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 3788/70.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 61,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 86,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 118,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The right of free speech is guaranteed to every citizen so that he may reach the minds of willing listeners and to do so, there must be opportunity to win the attention.......Opportu nity to gain the public ear, is not by objec tionably amplified sound on the streets.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & Anr. JT 1998 (8) SC 585, which has been decided by Brother Jagannadha Rao, J., was also a case where the services of a probationer were terminated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 92,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 142,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further in this case the defendants offered the vacant land for sale only after final statement was issued under Section 9 of the Act on 13-4-1977.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 122,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 146,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, the plaintiff was allegedly thrown out of the premises after taking forcible possession thereof without due process of law by the defendant which sent its demolition squad with police force on 7th August, 1976 for t his purpose.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 202,
"end": 218,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the order in the instant case of Mallick J. appointing the Arbitrators was passed without jurisdiction, the said order is void and is a nullity and the Arbitrators appointed by the said order, therefore, acquire no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As far as a property in Sadar Bazaar is concerned, firstly, the petitioner has denied having any such property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 36,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned surveyor also summarized the procedure followed by the respondents for disposal of the salvage by giving advertisements in arbp778-12 the newspapers and obtaining the tenders.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It would also be in the fitness of things to mention here that under the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations and particularly under Regulation 9 the circumstances under which penalties may be imposed have been described.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 144,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 180,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Prime Minister nominates the Law Lords, the Lords Justices of Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Probate Divorce and Admiralty Division.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Hon'ble President 229 Gowri Shankar, Member (T)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Admittedly, the survey took place in the year 1954 and their case is that plaintiff No. 1 Mali Ranchhodji Khetaji and one deceased Parshottam Chunnilal were in possession of land admeasuring 2 acres and 24 gunthas.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 113,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 151,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the decision reported in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2010(2) KLT 802 (SC), the Honourable Supreme Court had considered all the decisions, including the one in Susamma Thomas's and Trilok Chandra's cases (supra) and evolved a formula for adopting the multiplier for each age group.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 92,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 192,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 213,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case, High Court upheld the order passed by the trial court, while granting interim maintenance to the wife on the basis of an assumption raised regarding the capacity of the husband to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month and on the basis of such notional income of the husband.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This conclusion was however not accepted by the learned Chief Justice with whom Coutts Trotter, J.. agreed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 94,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was held that when a police officer gives evidence in Court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused, it is open to the Court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that by not putting the question under Section 313, Cr.P.C. to the accused is not fatal to the prosecution and has relied on cases reported in 1989 RCC 343, Rijumal v. State, 1990 RCC 374, Laxmilal v. State of Rajasthan and 1973 (2) SCC 793 : (1973 Cri LJ 1783), Shivaji Sahab Rao v. State of Maharashtra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 90,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 99,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 195,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 227,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 301,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 344,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The word 'public' does not mean only the inhabitants of the country, in any specific context; it may mean for practical purposes only those as would be interested in any particular matter as held in (1941) 2 K.B. 194.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 199,
"end": 216,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At 10.30 p.m. Ranganath (A-26), Mrudulla (PW-65), Suresh Master (DA), Nero, Subha, Amman, Driver Anna, Sivarasan left for Konankunte house.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 23,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 40,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 63,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 74,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 81,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 101,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 112,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 132,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He said if the assessee does not claim depreciation or does not furnish particulars for claiming depreciation as prescribed under Section 34 of the Act in his return of income, depreciation cannot be thrust upon him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 140,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They cannot survive without public funds or private aid.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the current year (1963-64) the Registrar of Mysore University was a Member of the Selection Committee appointed for selecting students for admissions to the Colleges affiliated to the Mysore University.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 64,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 204,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Their Lordships of the Punjab High Court after hearing the appellant and the Union of India, dismissed the application on December 4, 1961.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 91,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 138,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The application came up for hearing before one of us sitting singly and as some important points of law were raised in course of the arguments, the case was referred to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench and has thus come before us.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Lastly even otherwise, the issue relating to destruction of records does not form a part of the single part or series connected together so as to form the same transaction as contemplated under Section 220 & 221 Cr.P.C. the said persons cannot be summoned or tried in the present FIR nor the said charges can be invoked against the accused already facing trial in the present case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 194,
"end": 211,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 219,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He is required not only to examine the records submitted along with the final report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., but also to examine the accused for ascertainment as to whether a case is made out for framing charge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 102,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 111,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused No.1 went near the van and told the police officers that he had used the said van on 15.2.2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 102,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But, P.W.1 was taken to Aravind Eye Hospital, Coimbatore instead of Government Hospital, Erode, where she was given further treatment and referred to Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 56,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 94,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 197,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No distinction can be drawn in a private and public transport or insurance companies.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The question, therefore, is whether the transferor has received the sum under protest.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "When a debtor makes a payment, he has a right to have it appropriated in such manner as he decides and if the creditor accepts the payment, he is bound to make the appropriation in accordance with the directions of the debtor.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus, the second ingredient of the ground of eviction under Section 14 (1) (d) of DRC Act of period of absence has been admitted by the respondent herself in both the pleadings and her evidence also.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 78,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 89,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The way the assessee has refrained from issuing receipts to so many patients gives a clear indication of the fact that similar suppression has been carried out at least throughout the financial year 1995-96, if not in the preceding or succeeding years.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "High Court\t was clearly in error\tin observing that either Dr. Raman (petitioner in R.P. No. 80/76) was not hopeful of getting the job or he had some other reasons for not applying for the same and therefore his grievance cannot 205 be entertained.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 68,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 98,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even Deshpande, J. in Amarjit Kaur's case (1969 Acc CJ 286) (Delhi) (supra) concedes: \"the English law of Torts has been applied by the Indian Courts on the ground that in the absence of any other rule of law, the Courts are to follow the principles of justice. equity and good conscience\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 14,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 67,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Not only this, Nand Lal, PW2, father of the deceased stated that he was in service in Sahibabad, in Atlas factory, which was at a distance of 58 kms from the place of occurrence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 23,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 95,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The settlements provided for revised scales of pay, the method of their fixation and dearness and other allowances as well as bonus.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is now well settled that though special leave is granted, the discretionary power which vested in the Court at the stage of the special leave petition continues to remain with the Court even at the stage when the appeal comes up for hearing and when both sides are heard on merits in the appeal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was argued that the statements recorded by the authorities would indicate that the petitioner had no role in smugging of goods, whereas the duty evasion is attributable to Arun Gupta, who is the brain behind the unlawful activity, and the petitioner has merely purchased the goods imported by him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 175,
"end": 185,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On this aspect, the views expressed by Kirty, J. of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Hakim Singh v. Shiv Sagar, AIR 1973, All 597 at p. 647 (FB) are apposite.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 151,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Singh Raj respondent was married to Smt. Bimla Devi at village Bhareri Khurd, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala, on 8th November, 1968.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 76,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 95,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 112,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 135,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Ordinance No. XX could not be challenged on the grounds on which the Ordinances Nos. I and XII have been successfully challenged but the amendments made by it in the Ordinance No. XII could not and did not remove its constitutional defect.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 20,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 98,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 187,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The observations of Sastri, C. J. in Kathi Raning Rawat's case (supra) may be extracted thus:\n \"All legislative differentiation is not necessarily discriminatory..",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 26,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Vidya Ram Mishra v. Managing Committee, Shri Jai Narain College, [1972] 3 S.C.R. 320, 326. followed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 89,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:\n There is severe faction and political rivalry between the family of A.1 and one Gangula Pratap Reddy, who is the cousin of de facto complainant by name Subhash Reddy (PW1) in the erstwhile Allagadda taluq.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 155,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 220,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 253,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Bank, in the present case before us, could not, by merely stating that there was non-supply of goods by the appellant, use the words \"fraud or misrepresentation\" for purposes of coming under the exception.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW 11 - Atmaram Govardhan Patil, was witness to discovery and disclosure made by accused Dipak Balkrushna Patil on 2nd June, 2001 vide. Exh.80 and 81.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 31,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 111,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 129,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under the provisions of the Mineral) Conservation & Development Rules, 1988, framed under Section 18 of the Act, the Indian Bureau of Mines is also required to furnish relevant information to the Central Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 75,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 100,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 139,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 214,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.K. Bahri, J. \n (1) This judgment shall dispose of both the appeals brought under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 96,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 126,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is futile to make a point of the omnibus about to overtake the train-car.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If Naresh Kumar was standing outside the house of appellant Subash, then how could he see that a paper puria was recovered, from a cupboard lying inside the said house, is again a big mystery.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 15,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 68,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "as distinguished from the motive of the order, is infliction of punishment or casting of stigma, Article 311 would be attracted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 108,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Their Lordships agreed unhesitatingly that the case fell within Section 7(v), Court-fees Act, and on the analogy of this case the High Court of Patna also agreed that the case of a licensee suing for possession of immovable property on the basis of the licence also fell under Section 7(v).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 76,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 92,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 149,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 289,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Where a trying Magistrate adjourns a case by an order in writing but there was nothing in writing on the record to show that he made an order remanding the accused to custody, the detention of the accused after the order of adjournment was illegal.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Chancery Division of the High Court held that the Commissioner had a statutory jurisdiction to decide whether or not the road verges should be registered as common land and for that purpose it had to determine the question whether or not the land formed part of the highway, which was again a mailer in its jurisdiction.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "C. M. P. No. 2143 of 1967 :",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 25,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No other mark of injury was found on the body.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In that case, a Division Bench of this Court considering the same G.O.Ms. No. 580 dated 20-10-1984 held as follows (at p. 1681 of Cri LJ) :- \n \"'The other lifers' mentioned in Clause 2(b) are those who, in the first instance, are sentenced to death and which sentence is commuted under S. 433, Criminal Procedure Code to one of imprisonment for life.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 98,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 188,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 293,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 318,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The doctor says- \"I consider the head injury on the head of Smythe was of a very serious nature and was likely to result in fatal consequences\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Consequently, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has duly established beyond reasonable doubt that on the day of incident, the accused obstructed the police personnel in discharge of their public functions and used criminal force on them to deter them to discharge their public functions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "CA @ SLP (C) NO.16171 OF 2006 18.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 29,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That was again a case where the proceeding against the plaintiffs was initiated by the defendants on certain circumstances on which they could have well believed about the truth of the accusation made by them against the appellants.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Wakf Board also advised the Tanzeemi Committee to approach the Civil Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff has prayed for attachment of all amounts payable to or receivable by the defendants, from any person or entity in India, including the amounts payable under the consent terms filed by and between the defendant No. 1 and the respondents in Company Petition No. 185 of 2001 in the Madras High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 128,
"end": 133,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 285,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 310,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Into this constitutional pattern of unity woven by the Founding Fathers was fitted Article 141 which gave to every declaration of law by the Supreme Court a binding supremacy throughout the territory of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 154,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 208,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the motor accidents resulted in fetal injuries to the employees who were either driving or were being carried in the goods carriage as cleaner whatever liability was incurred by insured owners of the goods vehicles in connection with proceedings arising out of the Compensation Act was covered by the statutory liability of the respondent-insurance companies.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 268,
"end": 284,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection it will also be well to remember the observation of Mahajan J. in The State of Bihar v. Maharajadhiraj Sir Kameshwar Singh of Dharbangha (3), namely, that \" the legislature is the best judge of what is good for the community, by whose suffrage it comes into existence.......",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 78,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 155,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have to read and understand this Court\u201fs order dated 11.12.2009 as a whole and taking all the observations made therein together in order to appreciate the true scope and tenor of the order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 66,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It, however, must be made clear that Co-operative Society in West Bengal is not a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 and is also not a public undertaking.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 78,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 128,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly where a husband misuses or even appropriates any property exclusively belonging to his wife within the matrimonial home he hardly comes within the ambit of criminality under Section 406, Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 184,
"end": 195,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 214,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has a factory at Sunder Baug, Deonar, Bombay, which is equipped with machinery and plants for processing of man-made grey- fabric The machinery and equipment installed in the petitioners factory?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 39,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 47,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sri Jagdish Singh on 8.6.1994 when he was incharge Sessions Judge, Moradabad, granted bail to accused Dinesh Tillu in Crime No. 332 of 1994 under Section 302.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 29,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 114,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 139,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 157,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Indian Constitution provides for an independent judiciary in the States and in order to place the independence of the subordinate judiciary beyond question, provides in Article 50 of the Directive Principles for the separation of the judiciary from the executive. \n\n312.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 23,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 183,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "mis aspect of Chari's evidence, therefore, cannot be said to be reliable evidence against Gavai.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the matter of :\nState Versus Mahadev @ Chintu, S/o Sh. Jaidev, R/o H. No.6/209 & 210, Dakshinpuri, Delhi. \n\nFIR No. : 178/2014.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 48,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 107,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[See M.S. Narayana Menon (supra) and Mahadeo Laxman Sarane & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (7) SCALE 137].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 109,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent Pradeep has stated that he was in service in NOIDA and was residing separately from the respondent Kuldeep.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 18,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 61,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 117,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In both the cases, no power has been given to the authorized person to sub delegate his power to any other person for filing complaint with the written consent of the person authorized to file a complaint.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The first issue in the appeal of the Revenue is that the CIT(A) has erred in holding that sum of consideration for sale of technical know-how to a foreign company received in India by the assessee is not liable to tax under Section 9 of the IT Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 175,
"end": 180,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 233,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 247,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though the question did not directly arise for consideration in Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 578, His Lordship Bhagwati, J., in delivering the judgment in the case, has made certain observations regarding the freedom of the press as understood in the United States of America which directly touches the point.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 131,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 154,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 310,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In my opinion there is no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The FIR (Ex.PL/2) in the case has been registered on the statement dated 19.5.2003 (Ex.PL) of Sarpanch Gurmeet Singh (PW5) son of Niranjan Singh, resident of village Faridpur Gujran, Police Station",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 82,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 116,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 144,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 181,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned trial Magistrate shall proceed with the complaint and dispose of it in accordance with law expeditiously.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "These being: Johars (mass suicides or self immolation) of ladies from the royal houses to avoid being dishonoured by the enemies; Sati (self-immolation by the widow on the brning pure of her deceased husband); Samadhi (termination of one's life by self-restraint on breathing); Prayopaveshan (starving unto death); and Atmarpana (self-sacrifice).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Under :S. 37 of the Act, the Central Government has made rules called the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter to be referred as the ,Rules).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 12,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 47,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 100,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(iii) Whether the word \"evidence\" used in Section 319(1) CrPC has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during in- vestigation or the word \"evidence\" is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 56,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 61,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In compliance with this order, respondent No. 1 deposited a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- on May 3, 1976, vide challan No. 18 (Bank) dated May 3, 1976 and by his letter of the even date, he requested the Sub- Divisional Officer, Sahibganj, to issue the Patta of settlement of the Jalkar for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78 in his favour.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 96,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 142,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 230,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Council of Ministers in the cabinet discussed the proposal for the appointment of Shri Banerji (respondent No. 2), The Chief En-.gineer of Irrigation Department, to the post of Chief Engineer, Kosi Project and it was further ordered by the Cabinet that Shri B. D. Pandey, the Chief Secretary should examine the matter thoroughly and then give his recommendation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 98,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 274,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Kennedy, C. J., expressed his view at page 32 that it was impossible to say that the meaning of the expression \" legal proceedings \" was in itself and by itself clear and unambiguous and followed the dictum of Lord Esher in Rex v. City of London Court(2):-",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(h) Bruise 1\" above left patel 1\" x 1\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Against this order, appeals were preferred by 18 claimants for permits before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called \"the Appellate Tribunal); amongst them was the appellant Syed Yakoob and respondent No. 1 K.S. Radhakrishnan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 194,
"end": 205,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 245,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not as a rule wise to express any opinion on points which are not strictly necessary to the decision of a case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the case of Madhu Bala v Suresh Kumar and others, (1997) 8 SCC 476, the Supreme Court held that the police is duty bound to register a case and then investigate into it at once and an order under Section 156(3) is made as the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to ask the police to register a case and investigate the same in accordance with law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 69,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 213,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The shop of PW-19 is by the side of the house of D1 and D2.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There is no scope for, and no room for the exercise of any discretion by, the Court to say that, there articles of the Constitution notwithstanding, they would treat the legislation to be valid for a certain period or for certain purposes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 131,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, PW-8 [Babu Singh] also stated as under:-\n \"... In order to avoid a conflict, Kharak Singh, Malkiat Singh and Chanchal Singh tried to intervene.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 27,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 100,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 115,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 134,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In order to support this, it is stated that as per Clause 9 of the General Power of Attorney, the plaintiff no.1 was empowered to sell the suit property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 59,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Evatt J. in a separate judgment dissented from the view and held that under the guise of executing the powers under section 96 of the Constitution, the legislature had really violated the constitutional prohibition laid down in section 51(ii) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 126,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 146,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 242,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 262,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is pertinent to note that the complainant Om Parkash Bhardwaj has examined himself as CW\u00ad1 and has specifically stated in his evidence affidavit Ex. CW1/A that he has got issued the legal demand notice Ex. CW1/3 to the accused through registered post and UPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 64,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The reasoning adopted by Shri Shailesh Gandhi, the learned Central Information Commissioner for taking a view contrary to that taken by Sh. A.N. Tiwari in his order dated 12.04.2007 (which has been extracted hereinabove), does not appeal to me.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 45,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 151,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 181,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 7.2.2011 and 8.3.2011, the first respondent issued a show cause notice for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 under the CST Act proposing to complete assessment among others on the products on which advance ruling was sought proposing to levy a tax on a net turnover of Rs.19,54,24,967/- and Rs.30,15,59,241/- respectively at the applicable rates.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 16,
"end": 24,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 124,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One such candidate, appellant\tV.M.\nBansal, who had initially indicated his first preference for the post of Excise & Taxation Officer, intimated to\t the Commission, but undisputedly before the declaration of\t the result, that he wanted change of his preference so that\t his first preference was of Punjab Civil\t Service (Executive Branch).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 41,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 311,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also clear that on 17th May, 2011, a tender notice was issued for the remaining two works, namely, maintenance and operation of IT system and supply of manpower for the purpose of recording of transaction details.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 39,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the circumstances, the petitioner made an application for permission to proceed on leave available to him, but his prayer for leave was also refused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Since the direction, as contained in order, dated 12.03.2008, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10863 of 2005, were not complied with, the appellants filed an application seeking drawing of proceeding of Contempt of Court against the respondent University.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 98,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(g) Details regarding the assessment of hand writing, done by the outside agency, who had evaluated the hand writing of the candidates.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "they would be interrogated at length by the police, and when the interrogation cannot be completed within twenty Jour hours of arrest, the police will file cm application hejbre the Court for remand to police custody.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That petition was directed against an order of the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, dated 8th February, 1957, whereby its own earlier order dated 15th February, 1951, confirming the sale of malik-makbuza plot No. 32 of village Gorakh-pur, together with a house standing thereon, was reviewed, the confirmation of sale was set aside and a fresh confirmation of that sale was interdicted. \n 2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 83,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 109,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 166,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 238,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, while applying the decision to a later case,\t the Court which 18 dealing with lt\t should carefully try to certain the true principle laid down by the previous decision.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(xi) Contusion 1 c.m. x 1 1/2 c.m. on right index finger.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Appellant Raj Pal attempted to lift the body but could not and then Gurbachan Singh brought a bamboo ladder and with the help of ladder they dumped the dead body in the sceptic tank situated on the southern side of the bungalow compound of Suresh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 17,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 83,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 246,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A liquid state was not an essential characteristic of a vegetable oil ; the mere fact that hydrogenation made it semisolid did not alter its character as an oil.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 498 of 1958.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 205,
"end": 233,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It obtained seven permissions from the Government of India under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 and its activities involved around Rs.200 Crores.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 58,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.10017 of 2011 and connected petitions 51 them i.e. Pawan Kumar petitioner No.2 has served from 1st August, 1999 to 16th March, 2000 when he was terminated but returned with a Labour Court award dated 18th April, 2006.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 76,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 125,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 174,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 194,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 279,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Among those cases, the Deceased was convicted on 03.06.1997 in a case relating to Section 3 and Section 5 of the TADA Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 105,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 121,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At page 2 of the order of the Transfer Pricing Officer it records that the assessee has recorded international transactions with two of its associates, namely, principal \"NGC Asia\" and \"FOX\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 171,
"end": 179,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 189,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[80B-F]\n The abrupt observation of this Court in (1990) 1 SCC 109 was without a preceding discussion, and inconsistent\twith the reasoning\tadopted by this Court in earlier decisions from which no dissent was expressed on the point.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 68,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the date of the death, P.W.5 also accompanied the others to the village where she found the deceased with injuries and the accused were not available then.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The following hundi loans were not investigated by the ITO : \n Rs. \n\n (a) Lakhmichand 15,000 \n \n (b) Narayandas 15,000 \n \n (c) Ramchand 10,000 \n \n (d) Narsumal 16,000 \n \n (e) Bhagwandas P. \n\n 10,000 \n \n (f) Mohan Singh 15,000 \n \n (g) Bhagwandas S. \n\n 10,000 \n \n (h) Dondaram 5,000 \n \n (i) Narayan Singh 20,000 The records should be examined carefully and investigations also completed quickly for taking action Under Section 147. \n\n Asstt. yrs. 1960-61 and 1961-62 :",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 85,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 113,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 139,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 165,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 196,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 228,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 259,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 288,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 318,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 444,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 3.5.1991 Arivu (A-18) met Sivarasan in India and at that time deceased accused Gokul @ Nero and Murugan (A-3) were also with him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 12,
"end": 17,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 47,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 106,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In response, one Rosiah Radrigo who is P. W. 3 and who had experience of this route, was sent and Ibrahim and Rosiah joined the boat at about 3 p.m. on 3-1-1946.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 31,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 160,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The view that expression by means of motion pictures is not included within the free speech & free press guarantee of the Amendments was expressly overruled in the case of 'Burstyn' (C).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Provident Fund Act, 1925 is a Central Enactment and it extends to the whole of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 28,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 88,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Other States in India also enacted similar Acts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 21,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A suit can be filed by the title holder for recovery of possession or it can be one for ejectment of an ex-lessee or for mandatory injunction requiring a person to remove himself or it can be a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act to recover possession.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 205,
"end": 214,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 241,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He shall, in addition, pay ` 15,000/- as fine, which shall be given over to the victim, as compensation, by the State.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "P. W. 3 Jhinku Jadav, who was the driver of the lorry belonging to the respondent and who was present at the time of accident, also corroborated P. W. 7 when he said that the bus came from north and entered the Estate towards west when the accident took place.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 20,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In a case of this nature this court should not even exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India on misplaced sympathy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 95,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 124,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We would, however, like to add that the com- pany being an artificial legal person cannot, as held by this Court in The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., v. Commercial Tax Officer Visakhapatnam & Ors.(1),claim the benefit of the provisions of Art. 19(1)(g) though appellant No. 2 Balasubramanian can do so.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 200,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 263,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 302,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Where neither clause (a) nor clause (b) applies, either because there is no agreement or because there is no controlled price, the seller has to be paid, as per clause (c), a price calculated at the market rate prevailing in the locality at the date of the sale.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was observed by the AO that entire property No. G-14, Hauz Khas, was taken on rent by Stanley International Holdings Inc., a foreign company which paid total sum of Rs. 1.20 crores to Rajhans Developers (P) Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 66,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 124,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 214,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Kashmirasingh Kalusingh Sikh, resident of Nara had given shelter to the intruders in return for money, out of which he had spent a five hundred rupee-note at the shop of Mallucksingh Gurdayalsingh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 46,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 196,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thai what was done by accused appellant Dhruvendra Singh in the house of accused appellant Shivmuni, it was done with the help of accused appellant Shivmuni and hence, he abelted the commission of rape.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 56,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 99,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 156,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is apt to quote the following observations from judgment of Apex Court:\nThe Kottayam Bank not being a party to the deed was not bound by the covenants in the deed, nor could it enforce the covenants.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 92,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Article 329(b) of the Constitution reads as under:\n \"329.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 34,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But once the statute prescribes the minimum penalty without giving any discretion in favour of the adjudicating authority, then one has to go by the provisions of the Act.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The issues framed give an idea of the cases set up on behalf of the two sides.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Any information sought by the manufacturer may be given to him at the hearing in terms of what we have said in the judgment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is, prima facie, clear to me that during the interregnum period when the application of the plaintiff is Pending for consideration by the registrar of trademarks, the dishonest persons cannot be allowed to make use of the said trademark in order to get themselves illegally enriched earning upon the reputation built up qua that trademark by the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Vijayan (A-12) took photographs of Subha, Dhanu and Sivarasan together.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 40,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. \n\nMay 14, 2009 VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. mb/da",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 48,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar dated 13.3.2003, the petitioner was directed to appear in the office of the Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation on 2.5.2003 at 11.00 a.m. on which date he did appear, which fact is not in dispute.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 74,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 90,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 212,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further trite that despite an extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily would not pass an order, which would be in contravention of a statutory provision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 103,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 132,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We accordingly reject the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(v) The trade or business of the firm is controlled and there is no scope for the firm to carry on clandestine business year after year.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In both the cases the assessees were non-resident companies and followed the system of accounting that obtained in the American commercial world.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs in this case cannot be granted advantage of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.\" \n 16.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 95,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 127,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While climbing a slope the appellant No. 1 Dattu Nathu Kudekar, who was driving the vehicle lost control over its motion, as a result of which the truck fell back in a ditch and Makna Siska and Magan Mansing Chhobla died on the, spot; while other claimants received injuries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 62,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 189,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 215,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The view taken by learned Special Judge that notice under Section 50 was not a notice in the eyes of law is clearly an illegal view.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Examining the material on record, the Tribunal held that the claimants have proved that deceased person, that is, Sampath died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident which did take place on 2.2.1988, on Bangalore-Madras road.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 114,
"end": 121,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 212,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 226,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 233,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "affidavit referred to in the proviso to sub-section (i) of section 83 shall be sworn before a Magistrate of the First Class or a notary or a Commissioner on oaths and shall be in form 25\". \n\n20.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 69,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They have been directed to inform the Resident Welfare Association representatives of the programme before actually commencing the tree trimming activity.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is based on the English principle emanating from the dictum of Lord Justice Tindal in the trial of Frost and eleven others in the Monmouth Special Commission, 1839 reported in R. v. Frost, (1839) 9 C and P 129.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is only when the order is passed by a Special Officer in discharging of his statutory public duty, a Writ can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 129,
"end": 140,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 169,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the matter was heard by Verma, C.J., on a reference occasioned by the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges on the Division Bench, it was again argued that both Articles 16(1) and 311(2) had been infringed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 206,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, the equity, fair play and justice demands that respondent Laxmichand should be allotted an alternate plot and probably that weighed with the appellant U.I.T. and, therefore, it decided to offer a plot in Saraswati Nagar, Jodhpur to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 74,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 163,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 234,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Per contra, Mr. Sakya Sen, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/opposite party also referred to a decision in case of Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express & Ors. reported in (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 100 and invited my attention to head note 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 25,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 251,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Powers of the Union and the States are further curtailed by conferring the right to enforce fundamental rights contained in Part III by moving the Supreme Court for a suitable relief See generally, Kania C.J. in A.K. Gopalan v. The State [1950] S.C.R. 88 at pp. 96-97, Article 32 itself has been constituted a fundamental right.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 147,
"end": 160,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 203,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 254,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 279,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Ld. Amicus Curiae had submitted that as per the rukka Ex.PW11/B the incident took place at the house of accused at 1/733 Rehman Building, Shahdara.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 150,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In March, 2001, Late Ram Pyari had injured her back before traveling to United States of America but despite that she undertook twenty hour journey primarily because of the love and affection for respondent No.2 and her faith that respondent No.2 would get her better treatment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 30,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 96,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pradeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar & Anr., AIR 2007 SC 3059, and came to the conclusion that in the event that the accused's promise is not false and has not been made with the sole intention to seduce the prosecutrix to indulge in sexual acts, such an act(s) would not JUDGEMENT 8 | P a g e State Vs. Dildar amount to rape.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 62,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This appeal arises out of the following facts:\nOne Sheo Janam Prasad happened to be the owner of a shop for miscellaneous articles (Parchun dealer) in Arrah town near Gopali Chawk.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 68,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 156,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the last general election the appellant Kidwai was a candidate from the constituency on Congress ticket.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 49,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ranjit Singh and Co. v. State of Punjab, 2006 (13) SCC 130, also held that dying declaration, can be sole basis for conviction, if reliable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 30,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 92,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Magistrate on the said application discharge them/.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A piece of flesh was taken in possession from point-B vide recovery memo Ex.PL.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In considering the scope of the word \"industry\", as defined in the Act, the Supreme Court observed in the case of State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, : \n \"Prima facie if the definition has deliberately used words of such wide import, it would be necessary to read those words in their wide denotation.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 155,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner sent the following reply to the above letter, on July 5, 1963: \n \"With reference to the above I have to state that I have already submitted to you a letter from Messrs. Benson Watch Co., 31, Dharamtolla Street, Calcutta regarding the purchase of some watches from them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 76,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 200,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 234,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since only copy of these documents have been placed on record which to my assessment do not establish any legal title of plaintiff even prima facie. \n16.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Payment vouchers of Lilavati Hospital Trust confirmed that it was dubious transaction 8 WP1937.10.doc as the Trust had nothing to do with the purported Deed of Assignment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 43,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision of such questions is for the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and the decision must be sustained if there is evidence upon which the Tribunal could have arrived at such a conclusion.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned Magistrate has chosen to adopt the latter course and has treated the protest petition filed by the Appellant as a complaint under Section 200 of the Code and has thereafter proceeded under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and kept the matter with himself for an inquiry in the facts of the CR No. 104/14 Satinder Singh Saini & Ors Vs GPS Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 153,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 212,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 221,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 358,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Then, the exact point as to the interrelations of these two provisions had been the subject of an express declaration of law by the Supreme Court in a previously decided case to which Bhagwati J. himself was a party.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 145,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 192,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General had frankly conceded and voluntarily produced the documents before the court for inspection in order to judge whether the disclosure of the documents would injure the public interest.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There must be an order of the Court setting aside an award or there must be an order of the Court declaring that the arbitration agreement shall cease to have effect, and the period between the commencement of the arbitration and the date of this order is the period that has got to be excluded.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "For Gujrat view see Naren Anappa Shethi v. Jayantilal Shah, .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 58,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Particularly, it is contended, it is not open to the assessee to take up the contention that the CIT did not independently apply his mind before taking action under Section 263 and had acted on the dictates or instructions of his superiors, viz., CBDT.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 176,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 251,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "CAB further stated that purely in deference to DD's sensitivity about taking signal from TWI, CAB would be quite happy to allow DD to produce its own picture of matches and DD may like to buy rights and licenses from CAB at 'a price which will be mutually agreed upon, and that these rights would be on nonexclusive basis on Indian territory.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 3,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 51,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 97,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 130,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 175,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 220,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 331,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When even the Revenue Department is unable to establish clarity of title or possession, the police cannot come out with an accusation that the petitioners have wrongfully dispossessed any tribal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The finding given as a result of the preliminary inquiry will not be res judicata between the parties and would be liable to be questioned collaterally either by a civil suit or by a writ petition.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In 1971, respondent No. 1 was promoted to the cadre of Rajasthan Administrative Service.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Section 46, Provincial Insolvency Act, and section 47, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, deal with this matter in the way indicated above.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 12,
"end": 37,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 53,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 86,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "CW-5, Rajkumar and CW-6, Mariappa Reddy were working in the seminary and they are competent witnesses.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 14,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 39,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PAVITHRA K D/O LAKSHMAN PUJARI K BANERE COMPOUND, ULLANDI PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 201 69.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, in Gujarat State Financial Corporation Vs. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1983 SC 848, the Supreme Court held that the State cannot commit breach of a solemn undertaking on which the other side has acted and then contend that the party suffering by a breach of contract may sue for damages but cannot compel specific performance of the contract.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 93,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 112,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The selection committee interviewed the remaining 17 candidates and finally recommended Dr.Sravanthy and Dr.Gowda for appointment to these posts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 100,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 113,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "v. State of Haryana was given by G.C. Mittal, J. in R.F.A. No. 985 of 1981 decided on 18.5.1982 pertaining to the acquisition of 8.59 acres of land situated in village Patti Mehar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 19,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 74,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 95,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 179,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The contention of the appellant was that by the order dated 29th November, 1971, the forest department had dereserved the said land from the reserved area and had allotted the land for the quarrying purpose to the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 79,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After perusal of the record it appears that after filing of the appeals in the year 2008, the prayer for bail of appellants Manish Kumar, Chandan Kumar and Pankaj Kumar Thakur was rejected Patna High Court CR.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 136,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 151,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 175,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 205,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So the statutory provisions and judicial decisions are so clear that under Christian law in India a child does not include illegitimate child and therefore such child is not entitled to a share in the property of the deceased parents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 97,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sri Siva Subramanium appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu supported the Mandal Commission Report in its entirety.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 58,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 90,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Prior to October 1, 1953, the area wherein the appellants carried on business formed part of the State of Madras, and on that date the- State of Andhra was constituted, and the area in question fell within that State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 24,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 112,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 151,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Tribunal doubted the presence of PWs 1, 3 and 4 and rejected their evidence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The expression 'other purpose' were construed wide enough to include various illegalities.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned single Judge of this Court while deciding the above case placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 255 of 1989, Barki v. State, decided on 14-9-1989.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 128,
"end": 161,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 177,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 199,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Feeling aggrieved by that order, Sri Kamal Kumar Jain filed a civil misc. writ petition No. 23703 of 92.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 53,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 103,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "10: T herefore, if an institution which has already been registered and recognized by the NCTE only for the purposes of running the college for Bachelor of Education and Bachelor of Physical Education courses and have not obtained the sanction for additional intake after the specified date, they are not to be subjected to the condition of obtaining a certificate of accreditation from the NAAC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 94,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 395,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "the ground that\t they could not pass\t the prescribed tests for their permanent\t absorption in\t its service.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the rules set out in the Schedule (hereinafter referred to as \"the Rules\") shall have effect in relation to and in connection with the carriage of goods by sea in ships carrying goods from any port in India to any other port whether in or outside India.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 240,
"end": 245,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 291,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This amount, multiplied by 12, would come to Rs.24,000/- per annum.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In that ease the only evidence given during the trial to connect the accused with the act of murder with which they were charged, was their own confessions contained in statements voluntarily made by them under Section 164, Cr. P. C., which confessions were retracted before the trial commenced.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 211,
"end": 222,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 233,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent banks is that the nationalised bank is a corpora- tion established by a Central Act, viz. the Banks Nationali- sation Act, and the premises belonging to a nationalised bank are 'public premises' under Section 2(e)(2)(ii) of the Public Premises Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 151,
"end": 178,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 277,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 304,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But this assumption is hot justified by the language of Article 31, clause (2), because all that this clause requires is that the purpose for which the acquisition is made must be a public purpose, or, in other words, the, acquisitions must be made to achieve a public purpose.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 78,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "]\n (15) The Public Premises Act deals with Government property as well as property belonging to other legal enti- ties mentioned in clauses (2) and (3) of Section 2(e) of the Public Premises Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 37,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 177,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 204,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The M.A.C.Ts are constituted not only to allow the claim petitions which are genuine in nature but,, at the same time, the Tribunals also will have to keep in view that, compensation should not be awarded mechanically in every case and to accept the case of the claimant as if all that, the claimant says about the accident and the injuries is a truthful one.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The order passed by Mr. Justice B.P. Singh reads thus:-- \n\"Heard.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the light of the aforesaid propositions, we may now refer to the facts in the present case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In that case, Bhagwati, J., points out that the word \"individual'' has not been defined in the Income-tax Act, and there is authority for the proposition that the word \"individual'' is wide enough to include a group of persons forming an unit",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 22,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 109,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both the appellant and the respondent, along with certain otner persons with whom we are not concerned in this appeal, stood as candidates for election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Mahuwa Constituency.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 189,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 205,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There was no information in PS Mussourie, however, on inquiry from local people, it was revealed that in the intervening night of 23/24.05.2003, two SC No. 01/01/11 14/42 cars i.e. one small car and other big car had come and a dead body was thrown out of the car.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 40,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW-31 Sannappa and PW-32 Venkatesh \"are the panch witnesses to Exhibit P-23 (seizure mahazar of chopper) regarding recovery of sword r*\"'% is _35_1 based on the voluntary statement of PW-32.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 14,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 34,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What opportunity may be regarded as reasonable would necessarily depend on the practical necessities of the situation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The defendant has examined Sh. Amrik Singh as DW1 and Sh. Darshan Singh as DW2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 42,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 71,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now, we take up D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 28/79, filed by the Union of India and Ors..",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 51,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 80,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At this juncture, I called upon the learned Advocates in the open Court, to make their submissions as regards grant of backwages.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "For the foregoing reasons, we hold that there are no merits (1)[1955] 2 S.C.R. 1140.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(36)DBCWP No.9665/2008 Lohia Automobiles Division Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 72,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been averred that the plaintiff, after passing judgment & decree dated 03.07.2010 passed by Ms. R.Kiran Nath, the then learned Additional District Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, collected BRICKS, BADARPUR, CEMENT and other building material to partition the portion, to be given to the defendant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 185,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(B) If the initial appointment is not made by following the procedure laid down by the rules but the appointee continues in the post uninterruptedly till the regularisation of his service in accordance with the rules, the period of officiating service will be counted.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Sudesh had concealed the knife and tiffin in his Village Uhlawas at his house about which he knew and none else knew about it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 64,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 3rd accused Kishore Singh met the 2nd accused Rameshdevji Shah, in connection with the export of cargo to USA.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 29,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 113,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question in all the three cases is common and a consolidated statement of the case has been drawn up by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, which has referred the case to us.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 155,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was held that there was only mis-description of the plaintiff.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As was rightly done by Rajasthan High Court in this case at the instance of the directors of the company, wisdom lies to keep the hands back and relegate the accused to pursue the remedy under the Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr.Chhotaray then relied upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Baroda vs. itxa538.12 Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. Vol.135 ITR 546 in support of his contention that in order to qualify for deduction under section 37(1) certain conditions must be satisfied which included positive and negative tests inasmuch as expenditure must be in the nature of revenue and not capital expenditure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 168,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 256,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of E.D. Sassoon & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax need not detain us and this decision of the Supreme Court came to be considered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in its judgment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 102,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 160,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 215,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now, in Gannon Dunkerley's case(1), the actual decision was that the legislature had no power under List II, Entry 48, Sch. VII of the Government of India Act, 1935 to impose a tax on the supply of materials under an entire and indivisible contract for construction of buildings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 127,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 164,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In WP No.2157 of 1995, however, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the operator following the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No.5650 of 1987.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 21,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 172,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Serious criticism against the provisions of Sub-rule (2) has been that it contains an arbitrary, uncertain and unreasonable power to put a Government servant under suspension without considering the reason behind the detention in custody and other mitigating circumstances.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 56,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even though there were four respondents, charges were framed only against the first respondent who was the then Minister for Local Self Government, Government of Kerala for violating the directions of a Full Bench of this Court in People Council for Social Justice v. State of Kerala (1997 (2) KLT 301 (FB)).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 162,
"end": 168,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 306,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the matter of Devender Pal Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2002) 5 SCC 234, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that there is a statutory presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 78,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 102,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 186,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 206,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "11213 F-Hl Per Fazal Ali, J. (Concurring)-",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 24,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, it is held that at the time of alleged incidents, the age of the prosecutrix PW 2 Monika was above 16 years and the findings of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) in this respect are liable to be confirmed one. \n\nMedical Evidence in respect of rape \n\n19.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 94,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above judgment and order of the Honble single Judge in the said writ petition was taken to Division Bench making an attempt to prefer appeal [W.A. (SR) No.86859 of 2013] by filing an application for condonation of delay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 172,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Orders made by the State Government later on and right upto the 31st of October, 1961 when the direct recruits were appointed Assistant Engineers did not improve the position of any of the promotees in any manner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has also referred to the order passed by the Calcutta High Court dated 7th October, 2005 upholding the said decision and has submitted that the petitioners inspite of the said orders have even in the review DPC rejected his case for promotion to Sr. Administrative Grade without recording any reasons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 67,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 91,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, the said position is obtained from Exts.X7 and X8.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "During the course of his inquiry under Section. 202 Crl. P C., the learned Magistrate was requested by the police officials to examine the complainant's advocate, and some other witnesses, and to refer to some records which would show the complaints to be false and frivolous. \n The learned Magistrate rightly refused to do so at that stage.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 51,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 61,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Simultaneously, w.e.f. 1st April, 1976, the measure of penalty became \"tax sought to be evaded\" and this phrase was defined by cl. (a) of Expln. 4 below s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as under :",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 38,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 165,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Defendant No. 10 Satyanarain Prasad died on Gth January, 1975.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "appellants were not entitled to the declaration prayed for.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He deposed that moped was totally damaged and was converted into scrap and was not fit for road test.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is her further contention that the complainant along with his wife and son-in-law and (husband of deceased), filed C.D.No.40 of 2003 before A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad making self same allegations of medical negligence and claimed compensation of Rs.one crore and after enquiry, the State Commission by a reasoned order dated 29-8-2008 dismissed the said complaint holding that there is no negligence on the part of A.1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 135,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 202,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 370,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He denied the suggestion that after the third marriage and particularly after the birth of his son out of the third marriage, Ram Narayan stopped taking care his other children from earlier marriages.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 137,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Subsequently, with the permission of the Court, but without filing any application for impleading, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Karnataka Electricity Board and Bangalore Telecom District were impleaded as respondents 4 to 8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 130,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 173,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 202,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 233,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, the medical evidence cannot stand against entries made in birth register, which are properly authenticated.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Similar is the position in terms of Section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from possession of illicit articles.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In B. A. No. 105/50-51 the respondents filed a suit O. S. No. 37 of 1949 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Coimbatore against the appellant who is a merchant in Arsikere in Mysore State and obtained an ex parte decree on 28-3-1949.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 22,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 72,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 124,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 176,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 186,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 237,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "was affirmed by this Court in Bhut Nath Mete v. State of West Bengal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 68,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "allowed the petition on the ground that the notice was barred by time under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules because the notice was held to be fully covered by Rule 10 and by no other rule.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 85,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 114,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 174,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Considering the definition of 'owner' fa499.13.odt under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Court has held that the person in possession of the vehicle under the agreement with the financier, shall be the owner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 70,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 102,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We formally appoint her as Amicus Curiae for appellant Vidhya Lal and fix her fee at Rs.5,000/-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Judging the dishonest intention of accused from his elicited acts, as aforesaid, in terms of legal maxim \"acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta\" suffice it would be to say that dishonest intention of accused for misappropriation of aforesaid entrusted sum of cash Rs 6,20,000/\u00ad in question is writ large on face of record and stands proved.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, the non-obstante clause in the Explanation is said to indicate that, apart from cases covered by the legal fiction, the passing of property in the goods is to determine the place of sale.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "See also the observations of K.N. Singh, J., in R.S. Dass v. Union of India, [1966] Suppl. SCC 617 at 633.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 39,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 105,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He immediately reported the matter to the police and on the basis of his statement (Ex.P1), formal FIR (Ex.P1/2) was registered under Section 302 IPC against unknown persons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 145,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 149,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The next decision referred to on behalf of the assessee is of the Madras High Court reported in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., arising under the Super Profits Tax Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 83,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 157,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 198,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He contended that it was not permissible for the Court to look into the report given by Sri Ram Pal Singh to the General Manager as the same was confidential in nature.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 105,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fourth ground pressed into service by Mr. Naik is in reference to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the SAFEMA Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 116,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 134,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Wakf Board published another notification, A.P.Gazette No.14, dated 06.04.2006, by way of addendum/errata to earlier notification (hereafter, errata notification) correcting columns 10, 11 and 12 of the Registration Form.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 82,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have already stated hereinfore that P.W. 4, Gurbachan Singh, P.W. 7, Surjeet Kaur have clearly stated in their depositions about the ill-treatment, torture and the cruel behaviour meted out to the deceased Ravinder Kaur which instigated her to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life by sprinkling kerosene oil on her body and setting fire.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 62,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 84,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 222,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 5-3-55 Thakur Mukand Singh instituted a suit on behalf of Rao Dhir Singh, who was minor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 9,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 10,
"end": 29,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Kantilal Vrijlal Joshi, PW4, exh.18, had a shop in the same locality.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 22,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He underwent surgery on 4-4-1979 for the brain injury.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 32,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Narayana Pai J., sitting singly, held in the above-referred case that an \"undertaking\" was not, in its real meaning, anything which may be described as a tangible piece of property like land, machinery or equipment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In these circumstances, we find no semblance of valid doubt to conclude that Mos 6 and 7 ornaments belong to the deceased and that they were found missing when she was found lying dead in the morning on 03/12/1997.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 203,
"end": 213,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He thereafter entered into correspondence with overseas buyers for the export of this material and ultimately, entered into a contract, with Messrs. J. C. Gilbert Ltd., London, for the supply of Bone Meal, subject to the specifications laid down in the contract.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 149,
"end": 167,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 175,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The usage of the words \"any act\" is important.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In State of Punjab and Ors. V. Ram Lubhaya Bagga and Others, (1998)4 SCC 117 It was held by Supreme Court that it is not normally within the domain of any court to weigh pros and cons of the policy except where it is arbitrary or violative of any constitutional, statutory or any other provisions of law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 76,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 105,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It held: \n \"The extra payment depends not on extra profits but on extra production.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "True, it is that flood of cases never concerns the Courts and should not result in stopping them so long as the law warrants the same and dictates of justice and equity welcomes them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MOOL CHAND GARG) JUDGE AUGUST 25, 2010 mm",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 18,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 65,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, in paragraph-17 of the plaint, a specific statement has been made that the defendant is carrying on illegal trade activities clandestinely in Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 151,
"end": 158,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 169,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 179,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Lok Ayukta issued notice informing him that a complaint had been filed by one Dr.Mudholkar challenging his appointment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereupon the requisition slip would be processed and a delivery challan/order would be made out.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Injured witness claimant, Shantaben Govind, claimant in (M.A.C.P.) No. 427 of 1981 is examined at Ex. 44 and injured claimant H.J. Vyas, claimant in (M.A.C.P.) No. 428 of 1981 is examined at Ex. 264.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 42,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 82,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 135,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 175,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "27. Bhajan Das Swami v. State of Punjab and others, 1977 SDWR 289, is a case in which appointment of respondent No. 4 as Assistant Professor (Pathology) was challenged on the ground that he did not possess the qualifications prescribed in the Punjab Ayurvedic Department (Class-III) Technical Service Rules, 1963, inasmuch as, he did not possess the knowledge of Sanskrit of Shastri standard.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 65,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 312,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was resolved to allot 45 flats to them and re-advertise the remaining vacant Units after getting the revised costing approved by its finance Member.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He appeared on 12.11.2013, but failed to supply any document and promised again to produce it on 16.11.2013 but on that date he did not appear.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 25,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 107,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd v. Venkata Swamy and Ors. 1976 LIC 1313 it has been held that the gardert-Mazdoor and Malis working in the gardens attached to the bungalows occupied by any officer of a Mining industry cannot be said to be persons employed in a mine.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 70,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the instant case, there is no delay whereas in the aforesaid decision, as noted by the Apex Court, there was delay in exercise of statutory function and no plausible reason was given.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 100,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Convicted) 3) Vimal S/o Raj Kumar R/o H. No. 35, Rajeev Nagar Extn. Begumpur, Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 84,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of Jyoti Ltd. (supra) and State Bank of Patiala (supra), after considering the facts of those cases, the Hon'ble apex Court held the provision made for bad and doubtful debts in those cases to be reserve.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 25,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 59,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 135,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reference in this connection may be made to Sheridan v. New Quay CO. (1858) 4 C.B.N.Section 618 which has been followed in Eagleton v. E.I.R. Co. (1872) 8 Beng LR 581, 606. \n 65.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There are no geographical limitations to the Bill of Rights.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As regards signatures appearing at point A on the shipping bill Ex.PW2/A, Surat Kumar stated that these were of the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 85,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The version of the witness Rosiah is that after unloading the goods at Tuticorin he reached Trivandrum in time to he there on the 2nd and that Ibrahim Kutti met and took him to Kolachel, leaving Trivandrum on the 2nd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 33,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 80,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 102,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 156,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 185,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 205,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As such, it can be safely concluded that the school was established by a Hindu and not by a minority community or any individual of a minority community.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Coming to the facts of the case one Syed Jalal was owning extensive properties died leaving wife and two sons and three daughters and vast extent of landed properties in S.Nos. 10, 11, 15 and 71 of West Marredpalle Village in the Cantonment area, Secunderabad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 214,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 259,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In so far as the arguments and allegations of the assessee to the effect that it was tortured and harassed by the Revenue during the course of search and thereafter, are concerned, we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the assessee.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The other partners of the said M/s.Drego Enterprise who are alive and were continued to be the partners no such alleged power of attorney could be executed without their consent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 51,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The\t appellant was\t the president of the Panchayat Samithi of the first village.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "These directions, Shri Jethmalani sought to urge before us, have been given in the presence of the parties and the clarificatory order of April 5, 1985 which was made in the presence of the appellant and his Counsel as well as the Counsel of the State Government of Maharashtra, expressly recorded that no such submission was made in connection with the prayer for grant of clarification.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 151,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 277,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As pointed out in Chainrup Sampatram v. CIT and Indo-Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 22 (Mad), merely because the new method adopted by the assessee was detrimental to the Revenue, that alone can never be the basis for denying the right to change the method.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 43,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 103,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Oh' behalf' of to 4 were examined.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "lt is correct that Shri Vashisth PW 10 has disclosed in his cross-examination that the relatives of the deceased were present when the dying declaration Ex. P 15 was recorded by him,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 32,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though the main witnesses turned hostile, the admissions given by some of them were considered by the trial Court in establishing the presence of the accused at Washi on 11th and 12th of May, 1983.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 161,
"end": 166,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 196,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This was followed by a protracted litigation with regard to mutation of names in the Revenue Courts, and ultimately an order for mutation was passed in favour of Mohammad Umar defendant No. 1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 162,
"end": 175,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is a discretionary jurisdiction and notwithstanding that a judgment may not be wholly correct or in accordance with law, this Court is not bound to interfere in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 70,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "was registered on the statement of eye witness Kali Charan aged around 40 years who stated that he alongwith his uncle (Sarvan Singh) when reached near Sapna Cinema at around 05.30pm on 01.09.2005, one scooter bearing no. DL\u00ad3S\u00adA\u00ad1048 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner hit his uncle due to which he fell down and suffered injuries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 58,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 132,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 196,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendants also rely on the reference in the report to Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act which provides for rescission in certain cases of contracts for sale or lease of immovable property despite a decree for specific performance.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 96,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Indeed in paragraph 7 of the respondent's statement filed in the High Court on February 2, 1955 this letter has been stated to have \"conveyed the sanction of the Chief Commissioner of the grant of license to the 5th respondent\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 95,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is to be noted that no seizure memo was prepared by Shri Jain, P.W., in respect of the seizure of that Dasti Bahi, from there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 64,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court dismissed, in limine, the appellant's writ petition, under Article 226, challenging the proceedings dated March 30, 1985, of the Summary Court- Martial imposing the punishment of dismissal from service and a sentence of an year's rigorous imprisonment on the appellant. \n\n 2. Appellant, Ranjit Thakur, joined the Armed Services on September 7, 1972, and was, at the relevant time, a Signal Man in \"4, Corps operating Signal Regiment.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 85,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 135,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 315,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 346,
"end": 363,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The investigation was taken over by PW39, an inspector attached to the SPE/CBI Kochi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 84,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Division Bench was of the view that the said circular dated 21st July, 1966, which the Division Bench of the Mysore High Court had set out in the said judgment, was not correct.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 79,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 130,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Aggrieved by this final order passed by the High Court of Karnataka [in Criminal Appeal No. 1367/2005] dated 26-10-2005, the appellant-accused has approached this Court by way of a petition seeking special leave to appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 67,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 101,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 119,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fact that the respondent refused to sign the police visit book of the Lodge, though requested by the Manager PW 5 Manohar Dhote, on the pretext that he was in a hurry and would sign it later, which he never did, speaks for itself.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 131,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The limitations as also the full amplitude of the meaning of the word \"tribunal\" are thus to be found on a consideration of Art. 1 3 6 in all its parts, with such aid as may be derived from other Articles of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 134,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 224,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Their Lordships went on to observe that :-\n 56 Cri.Appeal 972-12 \"unless the law was so, the accused person who was on his trial with the confessing party, might be considerably prejudiced by exclusion of that evidence\" .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 64,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To justify his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the following judgments Krishna Janardhan Bhatt Vs. D.G. Hegde (2008) 4 SCC 54 and Sajay Mishra Vs. Ms. Kanishka Kapoor 2010 (5) RCR (Cri) in which it was observed that failure to disclose the amount in ITRs or Books of Accounts of the complainant may be sufficient to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 148,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 208,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 368,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J.-This is an appeal by certificate of fitness granted by the Allahabad High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 51,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 135,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "More attention should be on the bona fide and genuine sale transactions as guiding star in evaluating the evidence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no direct and indirect evidence against the appellant regarding the alleged offence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Hence, payment made to the foreign companies cannot be treated as royalty, as per the provision of Section 9(1)(vi) r/w Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA for short) between India and USA, India and France respectively.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 115,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 187,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 195,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 202,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 213,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The time that lapsed between the injuries and death, was within few minutes and between the death and post-mortem was within 48 to 72 hours.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The petitioner admitted that he had placed on record the OPD Ticket of DDU Hospital dated 17.10.2013 which shows that he was fit to join the duty.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 83,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 100,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have also examined their testimony and find that findings of the learned trial court in this regard are based on proper appreciation of evidence and their testimony has rightly been discarded by the learned trial court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this Court examined the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution and also the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which it said could be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 56,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 119,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 139,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 186,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There are also cases wherein regard to some fully developed revenue clusters (constructed areas), BDA has shown taking of possession only on record, by drawing a nominal mahazar that it has taken possession, but did not in fact take actual physical possession and permitted the occupants to continue in possession for decades.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The other depondent Virendra Mohan Roy who is a partner in M/s. Roy Tractor Company, Somania Gate, Patiala, has also stated to the same effect and further pointed out that the tractor as understood in the trade did not include accessories such as hour meters and wheel weights.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 38,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 83,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 106,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "And it was in those circumstances that they were committed to jail custody.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The words \"new plea cannot be allowed to be raised without effecting amendment of pleadings\" in the said decision connote that there shall no new plea, but here only additional admitted facts and happenings are relied on by the husband.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 1983 thus came to be instituted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 31,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the aforesaid decision, it was realised that the discrepancy regarding water content could be on account of presence of water in the container used.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is also an admitted position that the TADA Act was applicable in the area where the accused was apprehended.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 49,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the above conclusion the court felt that the case should be placed before Constitution Bench for hearing the questions relating to the constitutional validity of the Act.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus it cannot be said that there is no basis for distinction between the aforesaid two classes of persons, rather there is a reasonable basis for the classification of temporary tenants into the aforesaid two different categories and to deal with them differently in the matter of extent of allotment of land as well as the payment of price of land so allotted to them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Such being the situation investigation and further proceedings in respect of an FIR, where eventually only Crl. M.C. No.1628/2007 page 20 of 21 non-cognizable offences can be pressed, would not vitiate the entire proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 129,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "M/s IVR Construction Ltd. challenged the decision of the Board in a writ petition filed in the High Court of Bombay,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 25,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 19-4-1991 the learned Magistrate forwarded the said complaint to the Station House Officer, II Town Police Station, Kakinada under S. 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for investigation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 127,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 143,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 158,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW4 also identified the cash bill (Ex P1) and the warranty card (Ex P2).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "24. Raina, J., does net read into the judgment the answer to the third question.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The findings of the Hon\u201fble Supreme Court are as under:-\n \"The decision in Kasturilal' case has apart from being criticised (See Constitutional Law of India by Seervai), not been followed by this Court in subsequent decisions and, therefore, much of its efficacy as a binding precedent has been eroded.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 85,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 167,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On January 29, 2007 the plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that he be permitted to amend the plaint.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 19,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 77,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 108,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, we hold that the prosecution has not been able to establish that a conspiracy was entered into by the appellants to murder to the deceased.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall, until Parliament by law otherwise provides, prevent any authority within a State from levying any tax on any property of the Union to which such property was immediately before the commencement of this Constitution liable or treated as liable, so long as that tax continues to be levied in that State.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 49,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[ VIVEK RUSIA ] JUDGE (AKS) Writ Petition No.800 of 2016",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 13,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 56,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In my view, a plain reading of S. 173 of the Code shows that every investigation must be completed without unnecessary delay and as soon as it is completed, the officer-in-charge of the Police Station shall forward a report to the Magistrate in the form prescribed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His colleague Zahid @ Phuppa (deceased) accompanied him keeping cash of Rs.65,800/- in a bag for going to Bank.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Ajay Kumar Pandey, In re, (1996) 6 SCC 510, the Apex Court held as under : \n22.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 45,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We, therefore, direct and order that Sanat Chandra Bose at present residing at the Harrington Nursing Home and now before us in Court be set at liberty forthwith.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 106,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was submitted that it is the case of the claimants that the original respondent No.2 - Ajitkumar Dahyabhai Patel who was alleged to be riding the scooter of the opponent No.1 - Somabhai Gandabhai Patel which was insured with the appellant herein, rashly and negligently, knocked down the deceased who was crossing the road in the company of his son.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 115,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 204,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In regard to deduction of duty payable from the price, this came up for decision before Tribunal in the case .",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The FI Suniti Kumar Gupta divided the sample then and there into three equal parts by putting them in three clean and dry glass bottles.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At his request Santhan (A-2) was taken to the house of Gowri Karunakaran.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) WITH Writ Petition Nos. 324-25 of 1989.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 17,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 46,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 86,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Plaintiff no. 1 immediately filed a complaint against the defendants on 28.09.2003 before the SHO Alipur and the plaintiffs 1 to 3 also filed a detailed complaint before the ACP PS Alipur on 30.09.2003 against the defendants.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 82,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 104,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 187,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 201,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Present claim petitions were filed u/s 166/140 M.V. Act by injured petitioner Ravinder and LRs of deceased Raghuveer and Shailender Sharma. \n\n 3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 55,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 86,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 138,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The relationship of lessor and lessee cannot subsist beyond the mortgagees interest unless the relationship is agreed to by the mortgagor or a fresh relationship is recreated.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If the power is abused and the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are given favoured treatment to the extent not warranted by their legitimate claim, the courts are not rendered helpless.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The two Hon\u201fble Judges wanted an authoritative pronouncement from a Larger Bench on the question of applicability of the multiplier and whether the inflation was built in the multiplier.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Their statements also corroborated the fact that the present consignment of charas was brought to BSF, Koteshwar Camp and there the Charas was weighed in presence of BSF Officers and Officers of the Customs Department.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 101,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 112,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 169,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "16.6.2000 morning turned out to be a horrifying one to the people of Neeleswaram Kara, Kalady Village.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 85,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 93,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Resort may be had to these sources with- great caution and only when latent ambiguities are to be resolved.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Direction to the encroacher under Section 55 to remove the encroachment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to him, after 10 days of the aforesaid occurrence, he met Ramakanta Paul (PW-10) at Bagan Bazar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 82,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Objector's witness No. 8 Chimanlal who was an Accountant of the Syndicate and was summoned with the Account Books admitted that there was no entry relating to the sale of this coal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 34,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": ".PW1/A certainly relates to a developed area of industrial sheds, thus would not be completely comparable instance.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Shah, J., after reading the relevant portions of the document, came to the following conclusion :-\n Whatever may be the protestations made by the petitioner in his evidence before the Court, it is impossible to accede to the contention of Mr. Jethmalani that his letter was merely the outpouring of an anguished heart.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 4,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 253,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondents claim that even if she had fallen from the lift, no tortuous liability can be fastened on the respondents as in the circumstances, the possibility is that she must have fallen in the pit due to her own negligence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Advocate General was asked by the Court as to what led the Governor to pass the impugned order, but he (Advocate General) conceded that the order had been made by the Governor after consultations with the Chief Minister and he had been instructed not to disclose the reasons.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As decided by the Supreme Court in Chameli Wati v. Delhi Municipal Corporation 1985 ACJ 645 (SC), this sum will carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 31,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 96,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, the question squarely fell for the consideration of the Supreme Court in two decisions reported in Howrah Municipal Corporation v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. [(2004) 1 SCC 663] and Municipal Corporation, Shimla v. Prem Lata Sood [(2007) 11 SCC 40].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 189,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 260,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner is seeking the eviction of the respondent in order to pressurize him to enhance the rent manifolds.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is evident that the others were at least suspected, especially as one of the points made against the appellant is that he was seen sharpening an axe on the evening of the murder and Meraman, P.W. II, says that not only was the appellant sharpening an axe but so was Dewayat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 192,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 276,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, Balbir Singh @ Balli (appellant) is indeed not the owner of the truck from which the contraband was recovered.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Certain categories of teachers appointed already were protected by the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We do not close our eyes to the direction in the first three Supreme Court cases referred above for payment of wages to the employees during the period of suspension.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 74,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They added before Somasundaram J. another ground, viz., that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain transfer applications, and that Act XXXIV of 1955 only transferred to him the Original side jurisdiction of this Court to try eases committed to it, and not the Appellate Side jurisdiction of entertaining applications For transferring cases from one Presidency Magistrate to another.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 162,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The power of the State to levy taxes on sale or purchase of goods under that Entry was not the subject matter of discus- sion by this Court,, although in paragraph 86 of the leading judgment of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. as he then was, there is a reference to sales tax.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 194,
"end": 213,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The relevant portion of statement of Inspector Dalip Singh (PW23) on cross-examination reads as under : \"APPLICATION for obtaining the police remand of the accused persons was made for the first time to the court of Shri V. K. Malhotra, Metropolitan Magistrate on 3-5-1979.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 58,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 235,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 272,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "the facts may be summarised as follows:\n Appellant Ramsagar Singh and his brother Dasrath Singh were full brothers being sons of Maharaj Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 65,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 142,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1915) ILR 37 All 557 equivalent to AIR 1915 PC 96.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 21,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 50,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the view as contended by the State is accepted, the provisions of S. 167(2) or to say S. 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code can always be circumvented by the prosecution and the apparent legislative intents under those provisions would not only be not effectuated but undoubtedly stultified. \n 26.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 78,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 95,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 126,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the persons who got the stanom properties are collectively in the position of universal donees, they are personally liable to discharge the debt or liability of the stanom to the extent of the properties got by them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is against the said order that the appellant has preferred Writ Appeal No. 1318 of 1991.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 90,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Question of discrimination would arise only if one of the procedures available at the two forums is more drastic or prejudicial to the party concerned.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is true that Article 265 of the Constitution directs that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law, but the Constitution does not make it obligatory that the procedural provisions for assessment, which depend upon the nature of the tax imposed by the statute, must be detailed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 27,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 47,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 145,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, fiscal statutes cannot be classed as such, operating as they do to impose burdens upon the public and are, therefore, construed strictly.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(5) The Controller may in his discretion direct that compensation not exceeding fifty rupees \u00ad (a) be paid to the landlord by the tenant, if the application under sub\u00adsection (2) was made frivolously or vexatiously;\n (b) be paid to the tenant by the land, if the landlord had cut off or withheld the supply of service without just and sufficient cause.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this regard he has relied upon Roop Deol Bajaj Vs. K.P.S. Gill, AIR 1996 SC 309, Samar Singh vs State Cri. Revision 129/2009 passed by Delhi High Court, Shakuntla Devi Vs. Suneet Kumar 1997 Crl. L. J 335 (Del). \n\n4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 82,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 127,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 154,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 212,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further referring the judgment of Dular Singh Vs. Ramchander (supra) held on the analogy that the attachment before judgment terminated with the dismissal of the suit, any transfer effected by the judgment-debtor subsequent to the dismissal of the suit and before the passing of a reversing appellate decree, it would not be void.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 60,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The change did not affect the sanctity and validity of the provisions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Introduction of the maxim \"res ipsa loquitor\" in motor accident cases has simplified the law of evidence to great extent but the introduction of \"no fault\" theory in motor vehicle accident cases and unlimited liability of insurance companies are found to be a social necessity. \n 6. Parliament following the 85th Law Commission Report had introduced Chap.VIIA to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 incorporating Sections 92-A to Section 92-E therein.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 284,
"end": 294,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 392,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 436,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The lands are Government Poramboke lands and the Government has every right to alienate the same to Neyveli Lignite Corporation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 127,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In order to be consonant with Section 15 (h) of the Act, a regulation imposed by the Gaon Sabha on the private persons holding the hat on their own land must also be (a) reasonable and (b) must also be regulative of the market character and conducive to the marketing activity, meaning thereby, the necessary facilities should be provided as would promote the purpose of holding the hat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the High Court in FAO No. 2368 of 1998 deserves to be set aside.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 82,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These provisions should make it plain that an essential preliminary to a satisfactory trial is the settlement of full and precise issues.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The presumption as to power of attorney U/s.85 of the Indian Evidence Act is available.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 73,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is averred that the State Government introduced a scheme in the name of Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Pathshala vide notification dated 23rd April, 1999.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 153,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This note sheet has been placed on the record of the writ petition.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The two applicants Suresh Chandra Mishra and Neeraj @ Raju Mishra without disclosing fact of filing and pending of their earlier Application, filed another(second) Crl. Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 24792 of 2009 through another counsel.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 40,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 65,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 204,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 212,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 271,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What he contended was that though it was within the legislative competence of Parliament to impose income-tax in Part B States, the provisions levying the tax would be unconstitutional and unenforceable against the petitioner inasmuch as they infringed the right secured by Article 295(1)(b) in the matter of exemption from taxation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 88,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 291,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "From the entire evidence it has been clearly established that the Appellant at the relevant time, in his capacity as the sub-Post Master of Ichlabad sub-Post Office, being a Public Servant, accepted the sum of Rs. 7,000/- towards deposit in the Savings Bank A/c No. 756591 of Rekha Chakraborty (P.W.6).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 148,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 293,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence oral hearing is by necessary implication excluded, though nothing prevents the Board or the Government to give oral hearing to all or any of the representationists.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The conduct of witness Jivkubhai was assailed as unnatural, because as a father of Hareshbhai, he did not even react when his son was being seen by him assaulted by six persons with knives and a gupti.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 32,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court in Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu held that the question as to whether the court has a territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition, must be arrived at on the basis of averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise whereof being immaterial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 69,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The French court also considered the effect it would have on the public at large in France who could access Yahoo!\u201fs website and who were targeted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 90,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 116,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": ". Order IX, Rule 9, as well as 13, confer a right on a party as well as jurisdiction on the court to set aside an earlier order or decree ii it is passed under Rule 8, or if the decree is ex parte, that is, when the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be, had failed to appear.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 33,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 166,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We, therefore, reject the contention urged by counsel for the State.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Apex Court noted that a tendency has developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the wives, which will ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He further submitted that during investigation the school bag was not got identified by the deceased's parents and her relatives in accordance with law.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In a reply affidavit filed by the petitioner in O. P. No. 3532/1982 on 31-1-1983, he has stated that he has secured admission in the Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical College at Bangalore and that he is prosecuting his studies there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 67,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 80,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 179,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That one of his associates, namely accused No.12-Mohd. Hussain, resident of Moradabad District, Uttar Pradesh, deposited the amounts in his bank A/c. No. 0293010469883 of United Bank of India, Kaliachak Branch, Malda District; bank A/c. No. 91001009337929 of Axis Bank, Patancheru Branch, Medak District, of accused No.2-Mohd. Anwar Sheik and; bank A/c. No. 20048612045 of SBI Ramachandrapuram, Medak District, of accused No.3-Mohd. Anwar Sheik.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 94,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 109,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 209,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 225,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 287,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 303,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 338,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 393,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 409,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 427,
"end": 444,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Broadly speaking it was there held that a proceeding in which a person's right to property of any kind, reputation, status or office was involved was a civil proceeding.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In none of the cases, the HUDA officials tried to find out whether the applicant or his family member has been allotted a plot under the discretionary quota in any other urban estate or the allottee or the applicant or his family member has got a' house in the concerned urban estate or Chandigarh or Mohali.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 30,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 297,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 307,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, the said file contains the original letter sent by Mr. Shivagangappa, Advocate, in which he made certain suggestions after going through the draft Rules as per the notification F.D.5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the aforesaid law, the presumption under Sec. 139 NI Act works in favour of the complainant once he files the necessary documents like the dishonored cheques, returning memo, legal notice and delivery proof and avers that the cheques were issued for legally enforceable debt or liability which the accused has failed to pay despite expiry of 15 days of the delivery of legal notice.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 60,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 67,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In ILR (1964) 1 Punj 750 (supra) Om Parkash was sent up for trial by the police.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 24,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also relevant to note that Section 138 of the Act expressly provides that offences such as under Section 135(1)(ii) shall be tried summarily by a Magistrate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 121,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Instead of declaring the provision null and void being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, there should have been a value judgment considering different situations.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 86,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 115,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In course of investigation statements of several persons were recorded.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The non-production of notary who notarized the will Ex.DW-1/1 or the other attesting witness T.S. Sood does not affect the genuineness or validity of the will Ex.DW-1/1. \n\n50.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 102,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ramamma, it is alleged, executed no such will, that she was too ill to do so, and any document purporting to be her last will should be a forgery",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So long as Smt. Pana and Smt. Piari are alive, a daughter in the family has no interest.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To buttress this proposition, Shri Kapila relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of Pareira & Roche v. CIT, 61 ITR 371 (Mad).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 41,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 162,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case, it would appear, that a complaint was filed alleging that the petitioners entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the complainant and thereby induced him to pay the price of a machine for which he had ordered, but on getting delivery, it was found that the machine was not of the model as ordered for.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This appeal and the cross-objections are directed against the Judgment in O.S. No. 291 of 1982 (old O.S. No. 995 of 1980) on the file of the Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 94,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 120,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 187,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Provide further that during the period during which the proclamation of Emergency under Clause (1) of Article 352 of the Constitution of India, is in operation, promotion to the post shall also be made from Havildars.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 113,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 142,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Failure to prove such facts would give the defendant a right to judgment in his favour.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "What prevailed upon the learned single Judge was the Patna High Court LPA No.1942 of 2016 order, dated 09.09.2016, passed in CWJC 14619 of 2016, wherein, in a similar subject matter, a direction was given that the petitioner should approach the District Magistrate, Kaimur, who shall consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner therein in accordance with law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 69,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 89,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 113,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 143,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 272,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRA-S-2369-SB-2014 Station Sadar, Samana, District Patiala got recorded his statement that his sister-Rajinder Kaur was married with Hakam Singh, who has died.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 117,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 174,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 203,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Government Notification under challenge here, amending Rule 9 (2) of the Rules was issued after Unni's case was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 152,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shri D.R. Vishwakarma, learned Panel Lawyer for the non- applicant/State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 21,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case, the Apex Court has held as follows: \n\"16.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 28,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": " \n The language of Section 55 makes it clear that if the time is not the essence of the contract, then innocent party does not have any right to reject the performance even if the same is delayed but, he may sue the other for any loss caused by such delay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 29,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That interpretation was ultimately given by the Division Bench in the decision in Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v. S.C. Continiho and Ors., 1981 E.L.T. 414.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 153,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The appellants herein filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1100 of 1999 claiming to be the husband and minor sons of deceased Somiben who was returning to Ankleshwar by travelling in a rickshaw bearing No.GJ-16T-2688.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 73,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 135,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 167,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Had that question been asked, P.W.48 would have probably opined in Ex.P38 that, though the weapon is categorised as self loading, they had to actually use the bolt each time to load the cartridge.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the case in hand, Syed Mohammad Shabir Shah who has appeared as complainant's witness has specifically stated in his examination in chief by way of affidavit that the accused had issued the cheque in question in discharge of his legal liability towards repayment of entire loan amount.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 46,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "in Shivaji v.State of Maharashtra (2008) 5 SCC 269 the accused had raped and murdered a nine- year-old girl.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 50,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The formal arrest of the accused in connection with the NDPS Act was made by the Customs Department on 8.8.1994.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 64,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 111,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n In the result, the criminal petition is allowed by quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.180 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. \n\n Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 100,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 171,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is argued on the side of the complainant that the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint, has prima facie established the offence and there is no special reason to say, that it is not expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the process to continue.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In support of his contention he relied upon a judgment of Sinha, J. in Akloo v. Chief Executive Officer, Corporation, Calcutta -- unreported.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 63,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 126,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No important part of any of the dying declarations is demonstrated to be false with reference to other evidence on record.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This has reference to your letter vide No.KP32/0080/1354 dt.22/08/07 on the subject cited above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 81,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Same view has been taken by Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Hiraben Bhaga and Ors. v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 1982 ACJ (Supp.) 414 (Guj.) (DB), on similar facts and it is observed as follows.--\n \"4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 167,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Here too, we do not find that the claim of the assessee herein could be accepted considering the fact that the sale invoices given by supplier contains no evidence and even their existence through registration number quoted in the invoice before Sales Tax Authorities was not substantiated, particularly, in the case of direct lease in respect of Galaxy Indo Fab Limited.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 347,
"end": 370,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n On our asking, Mr.Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr.J.S.Puri, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.3 & 4. \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 110,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 155,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n In the above regards, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on two judgments; namely, Shri O.P. Kapoor vs. State of Punjab and another, 1981(1) SLR 577, and I.N. Saksena v. The State of M.P., AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1264.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 97,
"end": 162,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 230,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of the contention, the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 19 (Budh singh v. Vijender Singh) is relied upon.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 97,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ld. Counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The first respondent has, however, issued orders in G. O. Rt. No. 4189, dated 17.12.1992 sanctioning only a sum of Rs. 591 towards reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for his wife from 12.6.1991 to 19.6.1991 while he was in service in connection with the treatment taken by her in Apollo Hospitals, Madras.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 223,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 236,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 334,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Black's Law Dictionary word 'presume' has been defined to mean \"to believe or accept upon probable evidence\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In not heeding to the circular and in caring to be guided by law only, the Magistracy acted in the best of its traditions and upheld the dignity of the high office.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The scope of Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act have been discussed by their Lordships and held that the contract of insurance is only between the insurer and insured and the legal rights of the third parties should not be affected.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 26,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 47,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "6. PW 9 Dr. Gopesh, the Radiologist who conducted the examination of the prosecutrix on 29th April, 2005 and proved his report on record as Exh. PW9/A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 104,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.43172/04 in his order dated 08.12.2005 held that penalty amount will be maximum of ten times of the stamp duty payable and that the maximum amount of 10 times does not necessarily mean that the Courts have to impose the maximum penalty payable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 55,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 19 is reproduced for ready reference:\n \"19. Court to which petition shall be presented.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That Sessions Case No. 45 of 1966 was transferred to the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol for disposal in accordance with law.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 33,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petition of the opposite party under Section 107 Cr. P. C. should be dealt with according to law as indicated above, unless the Magistrate considers that there is now, about a year after the petition, no likelihood of breach of peace in which case he will refuse to issue notice under Section 112 Cr. P. C. to show cause and to take any further steps on the petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 52,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 62,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 300,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 310,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The next contention of the learned Government Advo ste, end an important one, is that the three contracts are void and unenforceable against the Government as they have not been executed in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 175 of the Government of India Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 224,
"end": 254,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 285,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So much so, an appeal preferred against the decision under Sections 100 and 101 of the Act by the District Court notified as the appropriate court, and the High Court shall be strictly governed by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 79,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 251,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He said that he came to know that immediately after the incident, the electronic media went to the house but he did not examine anybody from the electronic or print media.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There is nothing irregular in the manner in which the learned Magistrate has proceeded and if at the stage of Sub\u00adsection (2) of Section 202 the learned Magistrate deems it fit, he may either dismiss the complaint under Section 203 or proceed in therms of Section 193 and commit the case to the Court of Session.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 140,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 231,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 267,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has to be remembered that leaving the land uncultivated (fallow) for growing grass according to agricultural practice was permitted user of the khudkasht land and consequently such user alone could not change its character.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to Anita (PW/5), the incident took place at about 1-30 P.M., but in her report, the time of the incident has been mentioned as 2-00 P.M. while doctor Bhupendra Jain (PW/1) says that the injured Roop Kunwar was brought at 2-00 P.M. and he referred her to District Hospital, Mandsaur at 2-05 P.M.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 174,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 291,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During his search, he recovered eight bundles of counterfeit US Dollars of 20 denomination (MOs.4 to 11), under Mahazar (Ex.P1) in the presence of one Thiruvengadam (PW3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 151,
"end": 164,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, was moved to refer the case to this Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; but he, having declined to do so, the applicant (accused Major Gopinathan) has himself moved this Court for revising the order of the Magistrate dated 30-8-1960.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 106,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 140,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 215,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 302,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are not oblivious of the fact that the said provision has been inserted to regulate the growing business, trade, commerce and industrial activities of the country and the strict liability to promote greater vigilance in financial matters and to safeguard the faith of the creditor in the drawer of the cheque which is essential to the economic life of a developing country like India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 381,
"end": 386,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the notification dated 12-6-1989 the Central Government have only prescribed the minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Motor Vehicles Inspector/Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 35,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The goal of the inquiry is not to find out as to whether a particular provision of General Clauses Act, 1897 would be applicable or not.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 108,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The court can however, in case a dispute arises as to whether certain items of property are trust properties, record a finding that they are so, but this may be done only in case the plaintiff is held entitled to one or the other of the reliefs enumerated in Section 92, C. P. C. \n 3A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 259,
"end": 269,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 279,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was only students who did not opt for Kannada as the first language were required to take Kannada as one of the two other languages.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence (Tenth Edition, 2001), in current forensic speech, negligence has three meanings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The execution of the document is proved by the appellant as well as by Fahimuddin (D.W. 2). who has attested it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 81,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused Shaikh Mahemood and the Accused No.2 Shaikh Raju were managing a brick kiln at cria120.00 Kagzipura.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 23,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 107,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By the judgment under appeal, the Sessions Court held the accused guilty of the charges under Sections 449, 307 and 302 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 119,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 123,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Although there was no privity of contract between plaintiff and the finance company, but once the plaintiff had decided to purchase the vehicle in question which was on hire\u00adpurchase basis, then it was his responsibility to have approached the finance company and paid its dues.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "So the task of interpreting the laws by finding out what the legislature meant is allotted to the Courts.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In view of the above pronouncement and in view of the scope of the first question which this Bench is answering it is not necessary to discuss how far the provisions of die Land Records Manual support the interpretation put upon the word 'occupant' in the majority judgment in Ram Dular Singh's case 1963 All LJ 667: (AIR 1964 All 498) (FB).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 277,
"end": 340,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools, it has been stated in para 4 that due to promotion of Sri S. P. Tripathi. a L. T. grade teacher, a vacancy occurred in the L.T. grade for short duration but \"due to Imposition of ban on the appointment of teachers vide G. O. No. 3440/15-7-2-(6) 1992 dated 16th July. 1992\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 151,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 350,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Dafadar, Akul Chandra Rakshit, P. W. No. 12, says that Thatu named before him Moral Majhi, Thatu Majhi, Chand Majhi, Muchiram, Mariram, Chuna, Duia and others and he said that these men bad come to reap paddy and he did not say anything else to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 33,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 64,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 106,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 119,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 129,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 138,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 145,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 151,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The ratio of 9 : 5 : 2 was arrived at by the AAC, as regards the allocation of this total amount of RS. 1,92,000 under the different heads, on the basis of the letter dated August 3, 1972, and the Tribunal has also upheld that allocation ratio of 9 : 5 : 2 as correct.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 173,
"end": 187,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n11. Section 43 of the Ceylon Ordinance merely incorporates the provisions of Rule 20 of the General Rules applicable to Schedules A, B, C, D and E of the English Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 16,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 86,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The rulings AIR 1950 Madras 769 (Venkataseshamma v. Ranganaryakamma), AIR 1967 A.P. 147 can be pointed out in support of this legal position.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 87,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At about 9:30 at night, when he along with constable Jujarsinh were sitting at the cross road near Gomtipur, Jujarsinh on his mobile phone received a secret information that the matador bearing registration no. G.J.7.Z.5122 was passing by illegally carrying calves to the slaughter house in the city.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 107,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 118,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is submitted that no issue with regard to the res\u00adjudicata was pleaded in the written statement by the respondent no.1 and hence without framing the issues and giving an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence therefore, it cannot be presumed that the suit is barred by the principle of res\u00adjudicata. \n",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that there are certain schemes of the petitioner-company under which processing charges, maintenance charges are payable by the certificate holders.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for three months.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Annexures P-28 to P-34 arc the Product Indent-cum-Delivery Order for various periods issued by the Company to the firm.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "No suggestion was put to Arsi that she was tutored by anybody.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 29,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is stated that FIR No.738/2009 under Sections 279/338/427/304A IPC was registered at PS Kotwali in respect of the said accident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reference No. 288 of 1975 pertains to this assessment year 1969-70.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If the salaries are not paid, the remedy of the employees of CAMUL is to proceed against CAMUL, in accordance with law, by approaching the forum under the appropriate labour legislation or the Cooperative Societies Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 66,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 94,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 218,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The power of registration under Section 11 of the Act has undoubtedly been delegated to the Assistant Registrar in the notification of the 12th October, 1963.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 157,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The public mischief with an oblique motive, must be avoided by the Courts, for the litigants to seek relief.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As the Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to enact the law pertaining to this field, the State Legislature cannot make law in that regard.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 17,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now coming to the defence version, accused appellant Mangilal in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that the disputed land was in their possession and they had cultivated 'Rijka' and wheat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 61,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 96,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 104,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He found that the skeleton was in a dug out place inside the room.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Even the order to first make payment of amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle was not made by the Tribunal although for coming to the aforesaid conclusion the Tribunal took into consideration the case of New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs. Kamla & Ors reported in 2001 ACJ 843 (SC) .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 283,
"end": 355,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, it is settled law that the tenant cant dictate the landlord from where he can start his business.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus, where there is material to show escapement of income, it will only affect the computation of income as per other provisions of the Act (other than Section 115J) and not the book profit as per Section 115J.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 153,
"end": 165,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 211,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On an application under art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the levy of such interest, the Mysore High Court dissented from the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Kishanlal Haricharan [1971] 82 ITR 660, and held that prov. (iii) to Section 139(1) also applied where the date fixed originally under Section 139(2) fell beyond the date specified in the proviso to the said sub-section.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 32,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 52,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 113,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 180,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 222,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 267,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 333,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The statements of the witnesses were recorded.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\nIt was further observed that:\n \"Lest there should be misapprehension, we wish to keep the distinction clear between the fundamental right to enforce fundamental rights and the interest sufficient to claim relief under Article 226 and even under other jurisdictions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 220,
"end": 231,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Abhaya Vs. Raheem (supra) has taken the view that a society registered under the Act does not come under the purview of Sec.92 of the Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 17,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 126,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to respondent No. 1 Gadarai (A. W. 3), he was aged 50 years at the time of the incident while his wife was aged 45 years and the respondent No. 3 was aged 14 years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 37,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Plain language of the section appears to take in all victims of motor accidents whether they are inside or outside the vehicle.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The procedure prescribed by law must be fair, reasonable, humane, and must not amount to infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 148,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendant, on the other hand examined D.W. 2 Ram Babu, Station House Officer, Bassi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 57,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 87,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\nSusamma Thomas (supra) or the other decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel do not lay down any law in absolute terms. \n\n9.3 Division Bench of this Court in Ritaben alias Vanitaben v. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service 1998 (2) GLH 670 was relied upon for the following propositions laid down therein:\n 9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 163,
"end": 244,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As stated above, I consider it necessary to extract the preamble of the Sand Act as hereunder:\n Preamble: WHEREAS it has come to the notice of the Government that indiscriminate and uncontrolled removal of sand from the rivers cause large scale river bank sliding and loss of property.\" \n\n 25.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 80,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This claim for compensation made by the assessee-company was settled and under an agreement dated July 12, 1963, the suppliers agreed to pay lira 74,559,725 equivalent to Rs. 5,72,216, by way of compensation for the delay to the assessee-company would not pay lira 74,559,725 out of the price of the machines which it was liable to pay under the first agreement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 111,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Excluded from the ambit of Section 2(wa) of the Code, such a complainant would not be entitled to avail the remedy of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code and must continue to avail the special remedy of appeal provided under Section 378(4) of the Code after obtaining special leave.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 40,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 157,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 255,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per that inquiry it was revealed that deceased Jug Lal was serving in Army who had married Sarti Devi but in 1950 Sarti Devi expired leaving one daughter Omvati.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 57,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 104,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 127,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 163,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After analysing the judgment given in National & Grindlays Bank which was based on a ratio given by the Supreme Court in Jugraj Singh & Another v. jaswant Singh & Others, the court noticed the provisions of Sections 11 & 14 of the Notaries Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 63,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 117,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 169,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 223,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 243,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner appeared at the Intermediate Examination of 1973 held by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education (hereinafter referred to as the Board) from the Government Inter College, Banda.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 123,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 203,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner examined Sh. Noor Mohammad as PW 1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 70,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Interpretation must depend on the text and the context.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The allegations in paragraph No. 7 of the petition are that, even before he assumed the reins of office as Chief Minister of Rajasthan or immediately thereafter, Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, the Chief Minister, met the Chancellor and discussed the affairs of the three Universities functioning in Rajasthan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 134,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 190,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 307,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel appearing for the respondents applied for certificate of fitness under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 105,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 125,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is no doubt true that Shri Salauddin in his earlier statement recorded on 2.3.1993 had supported the claim of the assessee and subsequently took a different stand and stated that amount shown as payable to their concerns were not payable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case, the petitioner has the right under article 22(5) as interpreted by this Court by majority to be furnished with particulars of the grounds of his detention \"sufficient to enable him to make a representation which on being considered may give relief to him.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 62,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The statutory deposit of `25,000/- be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "To say that for becoming eligible for registration under Rule 26A one should already be a headload worker, amounts to saying that for registration in the Employment Exchange one should already be a person holding a job.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 65,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the purposes of awarding MACT No.337/12 Shri Maan Singh & Anr. Vs. Shri Anil Jain & Anr. Page 7 of 21 compensation under Section 163 A of the M.V. Act, claimants have to prove that the death or permanent disablement occurred due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle in question.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 178,
"end": 191,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 207,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, has, after placing reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Government of India v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., urged that in case of a product which has a cum-duty price, the assessment is required to be done on the basis of wholesale price less excise duty payable, as provided under section 4(4)(d)(ii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 105,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 158,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 353,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 385,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is clear from the above that the two critical aspects which need to be addressed in any action under Section 147 are whether the Assessing Officer has \"reason to believe\" that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and whether the proposed reassessment is within the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 147.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 115,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 336,
"end": 347,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under sub-section (1) of Section 115-O, an additional income tax was imposed on profits distributed by a Company by way of dividend and a new clause, clause 33 was inserted in Section 10 to exempt dividend income in the hands of the shareholder.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 38,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 159,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 186,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Sakharam v. State of M.P., (1992) 2 SCC 153, cited by Shri Ali, there was no direct evidence against the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 46,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 65,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Written down value in its turn depends upon the actual cost of the assets to the assessee.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is whether one of the joint claimants can, by accepting performance, give the obligant a valid discharge as against the other joint claimants as well.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The plaintiff turned down the proposal even on that occasion, it was thereafter that the appellant went to the plaintiff with Champalal Jain (P. W. 1) and Bihari Lal Shah (P. W. 3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 140,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 170,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also submitted that normal practice of deduction of 173rd amount of total income from the total annual income cannot be applied in the facts of this case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Since the Constitution came into effect a number of cases have been gone to the Supreme Court with reference to Article 311.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 22,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 93,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 123,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 as adopted in the State of Gujarat makes provisions applicable to the making of the rules after previous publication.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 50,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 85,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such liability exists notwithstanding any contract to the contrary.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The other consequence of non-registration is to prohibit the document from being received not \"in\" evidence, but \"as\" evidence of any transaction affecting such property.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was held by the Privy Council that the writer was perfectly justified in pointing out what was obvious, that sentences did vary in apparently similar circumstances with the habit of mind of the particular Judge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 32,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is yet another significant circumstance in this case having a bearing on the question that is being considered.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW-1 Danappa also came there and witnessed the scene in the house and thereafter went to the police station.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 12,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, the two- Judge Bench had to say this:\n \"The scope of Section 156(3) CrPC came up for consideration before this Court in several cases.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 29,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 103,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If we go by the recitals of Ex.A-3, with the conduct of plaintiff No. 1 and other circumstances, it is possible to hold that the original of Ex.A-3 never remained with Rajamma or plaintiffs and it must have remained with defendant No. 1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 175,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To contend otherwise would be to take too technical a view not warranted by the scheme of the provision.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the pleadings of the parties, the Ld. Trial Court by order dated 03.09.2005 framed the following issues:-\n \"1.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? (OPD)\n 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 78,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the subsequent proceedings, if such claim is established by cogent evidence adduced by the landlord, decree for possession could be passed.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus, delay in registration of case is not fatal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Labour Commissioner vide his order dated 5th April, 2009 decided the application of the union and instead of reviewing the order at the level of the competent authority had chosen to make a Reference to the Industrial Tribunal in terms of section 25-O(5) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 258,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One of the sons, namely, Mahesh Behari Mathur, who was respondent No. 2 in the appeal before the Tribunal never contested the application and the other son Mukat Behari Lal, appellant herein, also did not dispute the fact' that they were living with the deceased at the time of his death and they were not financially dependent upon their father.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 45,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 172,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n Issue no.1: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under order VII Rule 11 CPC?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 82,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 86,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He submitted that as per the version of PW.3 Swinder Singh and PW.4 Kulwant Singh, the two eye witnesses, the alleged occurrence took place at 4/5 A.M. on 30.12.1993 and Hardial Singh (injured at that time) was taken to the Govt. Dispensary, Ghuman by them at 7/7.30 A.M. and he was medico legally examined at 9.30 A.M.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 58,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 81,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 165,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 183,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 248,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When a thing is deemed to be something else, it is to be treated as if it is that thing, though in fact it is not.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "is indicated in Thakur Das v. State of M. P., AIR 1978 SC 1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our opinion, as held by the learned Single Judge, the District Judge, Bikaner, had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the objection application filed under O. 21, R. 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 80,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 177,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 208,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is only after considering the factors, referred to in the proviso to Article 243-Q(1) of the Constitution of India, can the Government exercise its discretion either to continue or dissolve the township.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 88,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 117,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "SO: main to khud dara hua apse zyada.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "However, even otherwise there could be no release from detention even on the petitioner furnishing bail bonds, in view of what we have held about his being liable to be transferred back to the Central Prison, Nasik in connection with the NDPS Act case in view of the mandate in Section 270 of the Cr. P.C. \n\n74.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 193,
"end": 214,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 246,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 289,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 305,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was the case of the petitioners that Section 33 of the VAT Act will not apply for reopening assessment pertaining to Entry Tax Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 65,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 133,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This was followed by a letter of intent dated Nov. 4, 1980 issued by the CMDA incorporating therein the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties and in reply thereto the petitioner on behalf of the firm wrote a letter on Nov. 6, 1980 accepting the terms and conditions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 58,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 77,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 240,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The counsel sent it to the Assistant General Manager, U. P. Roadways, Agra, who received it on 19-12-1969.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 74,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 105,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Normally a Court must have regard to circumstances existing as at the date when the issue of jurisdiction is tried and must decide it in the light of circumstances existing as at that date.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The successful challenge to the election of the RC as member of ward No.14 Zila Parishad Bharatpur as reflected in the impugned judgment is first being addressed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 98,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The insurer shall deposit the award amount along with interest upto the date of notice of deposit to the claimant with a copy to his counsel and the compliance report shall be filed in the court along with proof of deposit of award amount, the notice of deposit and the calculation of interest on 25.02.2015.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 297,
"end": 307,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Obviously the suit is filed at this belated stage which is ex-facie time barred, with sole purpose to make out semblance of a dispute in the present proceedings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n The learned Judge was clearly in error in accepting this contention and holding the evidence, proposed to be adduced by the appellants as inadmissible, being hit by the rule against 'hear-say'.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Considering the rival contentions of the parties, and recording reasons in support of the order, the learned Single Judge held that there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW 1, an old man of 60 years, being Karinda, was not spared, though he was a mute spectator to the incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 43,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "An honourable man repays his debts instead of raising all kinds of technical objections when the time comes for repayment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In holding as above, their Lordships again quoted from and reiterated the rule in Raghubans Dubey v. State of Bihar 1967 Cri LJ 1081 (SC), thus leaving no manner of doubt that the enactment of the new Code had in no way changed the legal position.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 137,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The remaining seats available for the general candidates were further allocated between the general students of Poona University and Shivaji University on the basis of the proportion between the number of students registered at the Pre - Professional (Medical) examination in the two Universities in the year 1970.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 128,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 151,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sri Alok Sinha, Advocate appearing in one other petition in the meantime has drawn attention of the Court to the fact that the provision under Section 68 (3) (ca) already repealed in the year 2001 by Repealing and Amending act, 2001 Time was given to the counsel for the State, Shri Krishna Chandra and Shri Mukund Tiwari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for confirming the aforesaid fact.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 162,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 232,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 298,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 321,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A specific amount should be added to the loss suffered by the claimant in case of disabled person who is incapable of looking after himself for the rest of his life towards the cost of service either gracious or otherwise.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n In view of allowing the appeal filed by the claimants and enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and confirming the finding of the Tribunal on negligence, MFA 54/2010 filed by the Insurance Company does not survive and accordingly, it is dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 170,
"end": 181,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 212,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner in these two writ petitions prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Mylapore, dated 3-6-1958 in A. 2/227/54-55 relating to the assessment year 1954-55.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 130,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 150,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 216,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 232,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 250,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pangalabhai (Exh. 30) has stated that when his truck (GTF) had reached near Bandhani Chokdi, another truck had come from Sojitra side and dashed against his truck.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 128,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Regarding the exclusion of basement floor for counting the number of floors, the Counsel for the respondent submitted that he received support from the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Express Newspaper v. Union of India, .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 168,
"end": 181,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 220,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As against this evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, on behalf of the 1st defendant, D.W.1 K. Kameswara Rao was examined who deposed that he has been working as Assistant Administrative Officer in the 1st defendant's Corporation since 1989 and he is giving evidence with reference to records.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 125,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Punjab & Haryana High Court, in Surinder Singh v. John Impex (P) Ltd. (I (1997) BC 247), it was held that a power of attorney agent of the payee or the holder in due course is competent to make a complaint in writing under Section 138 of the N.I.Act to facilitate valid cognizance being taken by the Magistrate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 30,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 90,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 237,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 252,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These appeals are interlinked as preferred against the judgment dated 9.9.2010 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mauganj, Distt. Rewa in S.T. No.46/2006, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as under - :: 3 ::\n Cri.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 78,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 143,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 162,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It may be required to be noted that village Lasundra is situated at a distance of 3.00kms.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 52,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To P.W. 1 it was even suggested that the disease had died of cholera about which information was given by Kuldeep to P.W. 2, Rajesh Kumar Kaushik.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 113,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 145,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"Any purpose ancillary to cultivation\" in Section 2 (f) (1) (i) (B) of the Vesting Act was deliberately kept wide by the legislature, because it knew that there were recognised \"uses\" other than those specifically enumerated in the Explanation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 86,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She gave new clothes instead of old which she brought to the husband's house.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The U.S.A. is admittedly a country which is not a reciprocating territory recognised by the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1923.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 143,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Evidence of PW 6, Sanjay Khandekar, PSI, who has drawn the spot panchanama in the presence of PW 4 Shriram, corroborates above evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 34,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 106,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No materials or arguments are advanced before me to take a different view and therefore, I have to approve the above finding of the court below.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "At least the witnesses would have stated about the complexion, height and physical features of those persons so as to come to a conclusion that they had an opportunity to identify the same persons, subsequently, either before the police station or before the T.I. parade or before the Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka.Coutt Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, and the provisions of the Civil P. C. 1908, shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Art. 226 (and/or Art, 227) and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 104,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 165,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 209,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 271,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 288,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the above observations, I do not find any flaw in the impugned Order dated 21.04.2011 passed by the Ld. ARC (N/W), Rohini Courts, Delhi, and I do concur with the findings of the Ld. Trial Court. \n\nARCT No. 20/12 Page 16 of 17 39.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 96,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 146,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused Mohd. Aslam claimed that he was not arrested from the spot as claimed by the witnesses and instead he was picked up on 07.07.2011 from ISBT, Kashmere Gate when he was returning home after leaving his wife at her parental house in Ballimaran.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 137,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 157,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 248,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The legislature itself has clearly stated that the Explanation introduced by the Finance Act, 1983, will take effect only from 1-4-1979.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 98,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 135,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first Respondent, however, rejected the objections by his order dated 21 January, 2013.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 90,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Here it must be noted that the land belonging to late Narayanan Nair, father of the petitioner was acquired by the Government as early as in December, 1983 and the Land Acquisition Court had enhanced the compensation in similar cases as per judgment and decree dated 26.7.1989.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 68,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 276,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Company challenged the order of the learned Single Judge (D.K. Deshmukh, J.) made in the three writ petitions on 1st December 1997 by their Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 210 of 1997, 211 of 1997 and 212 of 1997.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 75,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 134,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 212,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Defendant No. 1 filed the plaint in Title Suit 65 of 1950 on the 28th of July 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Birbhurn at Suri impleading 'Dina Nath Tri-loki Nath a Hindu joint family firm carrying on business at Marufganj in Patna City, District patna Chouki patna' as would appear from Ext. 1 the plaint of the suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 57,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 82,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 140,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 176,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 236,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 245,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 266,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 279,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": ", the Bank itself has been held to be so in the decision of the Apex Court in Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Mohinder Pal Singh, (2005) 12 SC 747.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 74,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 139,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The expression \"soon before her death\" no doubt, is an elastic expression and can refer to a period either immediately before her death or within a few days or even a few weeks before it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The counsel for the parties have relied on reported decisions and other material in support of their respective arguments.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If the shareholders are identified and it is established that they have invested money in the purchase of shares then the amount received by the company would be regarded as a capital receipt but if the assessed offers no Explanation at all or the Explanation offered is not satisfactory then, the provisions of Section 68 may be invoked.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 312,
"end": 322,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per the prosecution version, on 31.8.2002 (the day of Janam Ashtami festival), a day before the occurrence, when Varinder alias Monu (PW.13), nephew of complainant Ajit Singh, was coming out of the Shiv Mandir at Sonipat, he was given beatings by A-2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 44,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 135,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 177,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 223,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, in a case of Hindu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2), in the appeal before Their Lordships, the parties being closely related, they were permitted to compound the offence u/Ss. 324 and 325 of IPC and the order of conviction and sentence was set aside and the accused were acquitted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 61,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 202,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 209,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per details furnished by the Assessing Officer with his report dated 12.4.2005, the sales of NIHPL from the Beach View shops varied from Rs. 1.07 crore in 1994-95 to Rs. 72.60 lakh in 2001 -02 peaking at Rs. 1.37 crore in 1996-97.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 81,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 101,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Arguably, MOHUN is a common and/or a household name, and, per se, is inherently incapable of attaining any distinctive character.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 15,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nxi.In a given case the trial Court can also call upon a victim to engage a lawyer if in its opinion the same is required for the proper conduct of the case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He would submit that such rules were brought into statute by Notification No.13/2008-CE(NT) and was made applicable from 01.03.2008.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 131,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the contrary, if the trial is being conducted in a superior court like the Sessions Court and if that court comes to the conclusion that the evidence produced in the said trial makes out a lesser offence than the one with which the accused is charged, it is always open to that court based on evidence to convict such accused for a lesser offence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In paragraph- 16 of the election petition petitioner asserted that the Patna High Court E.P. No.7 of 2009 dt.06-11-2012 conduct of the Returning Officer while conducting the impugned election has not been fair and impartial as he was influenced by the party and the candidate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 87,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 105,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 119,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(See in this connection Sital Din v. Anant Ram , and the first appears to be no authority for the proposition of the learned Judges of the Rangoon High Court but may even support the contrary.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 46,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 157,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All the witnesses can not be expected to give parrot like version.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Accused in their statements under Section 313, Cr. P.C. denied accusation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 55,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts mentioned in W.P. Nos. 23990 and 23991 of 1997 is reiterated in this petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 56,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is one more document which is very vital in this case and the said document has been placed on record by defendant herself, which is Khasra Girdawari Ex.PW3/D2, which shows the defendant to be in possession of a substantial portion of ER\u00ad18 and a smaller portion in ER\u00ad19.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 155,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that some of the decisions of the Tribunal held that benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was not available when the goods were affixed with the brand name of foreign person or of a trader who is not manufacturer observing that latter was not eligible to the benefit of small scale exemption under the aforesaid exemption notification.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Until such an event of acceptance of the marriage or lapse of limitation period, the marriage shall continue to remain as a voidable marriage. \n\n 22.The circumstances under which this voidable marriage will become valid or would be treated as annulled as per Section 3 of the Act, is stated by the Full Bench in para 21 of the said judgment in the following manner:\n\n \"21.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 259,
"end": 268,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is clarified by Clause (5) of Article 31 of the Constitution in which the laws mentioned in Clause (2) have been divided into two classes, viz., existing laws and any laws which the State may hereafter 'make'",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 45,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 65,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 107,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is submitted that this complaint was filed with an ulterior motive not only to harass the petitioners, but a case was also registered against the defending counsel who came to defend the petitioners at Tikamgarh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 205,
"end": 214,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Advocate General however told the Commission that there will be no difficulty in extension of time.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": ", on 10.04.1988, at 3.00 a.m., kept the bomb at the back side of the Nehru Statue at Kathipara, Guindy and made it exploded, thus causing a damage to the tune of Rs.3,806/-.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 15,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 94,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 102,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n The argument put forward is that as in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution the onus to establish these two ingredients is on the plaintiffs, the Courts below were wrong in law in decreeing the suit because of the failure of the appellant to establish that the prosecution was justified and bona fide.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The applicant, who was called to the Bar on 18-11-35, was enrolled as an Advocate of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 23-2-38 and his name was duly entered on the roll of Advocates of the same High Court under Section 8(2)(b) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1928.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 52,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 126,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 137,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 237,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 274,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n \n(47) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.680/2010 Hariram vs. Director General of Police & Ors.\n\n(48) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.681/2010",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 97,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 149,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioners appeared before the DRT on 19.4.2007 with a prayer for adjournment for filing written statement which, it is claimed, was allowed but illegally by an ante-dated ex-parte impugned order dated Patna High Court CWJC No.16665 of 2009 dt.11.12.2013 19.4.2007, the application of the Bank was allowed and certificate was issued. \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 52,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 223,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 245,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 259,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 269,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The object of an award of damages is to give the plaintiff compensation for damage, loss or injury he has suffered.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Only in Section 145 Cr.P.C. proceedings marked as Ex.B.2, the said letters were referred as Document Nos.43 and 44.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 19,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 27,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner in this case (Civil Writ No. 1307 of 1939) is a displaced person from West Punjab and has now settled at Jullundur.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 56,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 96,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 129,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In so far as the user of the land by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is concerned, undoubtedly they have been using the land admeasuring 20 Acres from the date of allotment i.e. the date of entering into the Joint Venture Agreement.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus, the amount of actual work done in Unit No. I is Rs. 1,25,64,468 while actual work done in Unit No. II at Rs. 1,29,03,964 and Rs. 1,28,42,491 in Unit No. III.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this case it is not seriously disputed by the State that the plaintiffs were citizens of India at the commencement of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 97,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 137,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W. 10 Ashwin is son of P.W. \n 3 Vibha, P.W. 11 is Revenue Officer who had drawn sketch map of the spot.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 14,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 39,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are of the opinion that a harmonious interpretation is necessary in this matter.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Page no. 12/ 20 against the plaintiff herein, Shanti Devi, Bhupinder Kumar (PW1) and Jeet Ram.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 57,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 74,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This appeal is filed against the order dated 29-12-1999 made in OAA No. 120 of 1998 by the Railway Claims Tribunal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 55,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 83,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 114,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Full Bench of the Madras High Court held that the impugned Act did not trench upon the exclusive powers of the Federal Legislature and the observations quoted above were made in upholding the decision of the Madras High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 229,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sadanand Mukhi [(2009) 2 SCC 417] the Apex Court held that, by taking an 'act policy' the owner of the vehicle fulfills his statutory obligation as contained in S.147 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 72,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 87,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 205,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During the course of hearing also, the learned CIT (Departmental Representative) has virtually conceded to this legal preposition that every assessee has his right to convert his investment into stock-in-trade.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A some what similar situation came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in a case reported in 2014 (2) Kerala Law Times (Kerala Public Service Commission vs. Sini).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 198,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The reasons to be stated as per the above provision are the reasons for the adjournment of the case and not the reasons for the remand.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Against the order of the arbitrator the State Government preferred an appeal to the High Court which was initially numbered as Appeal From Original Decree No. 159 of 1955.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 170,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is averred by the State that under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, 33,471 cases were decided in accordance with the provisions of that chapter upto 31-12-1972 prior to the commencement of the new Law i.e., the Rajasthan Imposition of Ceilings on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1973.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 86,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 179,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 298,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In August 1963 Shri Devi Dayal Mehra instituted a further eviction petition against Shri Tilak Raj Malhotra under Section 14(1)(g) of the DRCA.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 107,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 130,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 142,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mohmed Ahmed Manjoti had driven the truck from village Palia to Ahmedabad along with Alimohmed Bhara, Arvind Bhailal, Babu alias Babla and one Ibrahim.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 20,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 60,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 73,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 100,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 134,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 150,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The second circumstance relied upon by learned counsel is that the cheque which was tendered did not correctly set out the name of the payee and, therefore, the tender was not valid.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It further seems that the plaintiff had submitted an application under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) of the Code and had sought leave to submit certain more documents like : a registered sale deed and house tax receipts in respect of a house situated at C.P. Colony, Morar, Gwalior.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 90,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 262,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 271,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge is justified and does not call for any interference.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Two separate orders, dated 13.11.1992 and 17.11.1992 were passed by the D.I.O.S., the effect of which was that the resolution of suspension could not be approved as it has lapsed on account of passage of time and that Saraswat shall continue to work as Principal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 37,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 52,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 226,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court pointed out that Section 13 (C) made the Vice-Chancellor responsible for the discipline in the University in accordance with the Act, Statutes and Regulations.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly in the case of M/s.Milan Stores, a dealer, located at Khalrew Road, Sakinaka, Bombay 400 072 during the inspection on 10th July 2000 by the Inspector of Legal Metrology `A Division, two packages of 50-50 Britannia biscuits were seized on the same ground of violation of Rule 5 read with IIIrd Schedule.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 41,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 86,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 94,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 142,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 311,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P. W. 1 deposed in his evidence that by then he did not know that his name was T. Hanumantha Rao.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 96,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that cheque was issued by the accused duly signed by him but this burden is lightened by presumption under Sec. 118 and 139 NI Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 176,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 183,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Cri. Revn. Case No. 1569 of 1960, D/- 11-9-1961 (Cal.) there is no bar in limine on the prosecution to proceed under the General Act on an offence which otherwise lies, merely because the same facts also constitute an offence under the Special Act, subject only to the overriding consideration of double jeopardy.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 32,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, BOAC, against their commercial judgment ordered too many Super VC-10 aircraft.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the issue of notice Under Section 148 in the name of the association of persons was justified for making the assessment in the hands of the association of persons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 48,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also an admitted position that all these documents in English referred to in para 11 of the grounds of detention, were supplied to the detenu in Hindi on 19th July, 1989, fortynine days after the grounds of detention were served on him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 175,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In para 12, the true concept of the wholesale cash price envisaged by section 4(a) was expounded in the following words :- \n \" The value of the goods for the purpose of excise must take into account only the manufacturing cost and the manufacturing profit and it must not be loaded with post-manufacturing operation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 82,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On p. 25 of the book we have the bylaws made by the Coir Board in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 27 of the Coir Industry Act, 1953, and confirmed by the Central Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 112,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 143,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 184,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is relevant to note that H.V.Kumar was one of the star witnesses of this case, who is the first person to the scene of occurrence and immediately shifted the deceased and the injured / accused No.1 to the Victoria Hospital with the help of accused Nos.3 and 4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 37,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 3rd respondent subsequently, vide order dated 21-05-2012 under Section 41(1) of the Act has rectified the said reassessment orders by disallowing the discount given by way of credit notes by relying on the later decision rendered by another Division Bench of this court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA v/s M/s.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 80,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our opinion, it is not correct.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It, therefore, follows that the amount of Rs. 57,500 which was allotted to Sulochana, also continued with the partnership firm, though Sulochna herself did not joint the firm as a partner; and the amount of Rs. 47,500 which was allotted to the assessee and his two sons each also remained in the business of the firm.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 143,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A licence may be refused to a person prohibited by the Act or by any other law from acquiring, possessing or carrying on arms and ammunition.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "To similar effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Hero Cycles P. ltd. wherein it was held that rectification under Section 154 can only be made when a glaring mistake of fact or law committed by the officer passing the order becomes apparent from the record.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 83,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 141,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Various provisions of FSSA were notified from time to time but finally on 29th July, 2010, Section 97 of FSSA, which repealed all other food related laws, was notified.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 26,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 89,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 101,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 109,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, it is necessary to notice here that it is not as if the lessors have got any say in the business of boarding and lodging run by defendant - Revision petitioner in the building described in the schedule to the plaint and the Lease Deed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "More over the cheque in that case was one drawn on a foreign bank and the presentation to the drawee bank was not within the territory of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 138,
"end": 143,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The AAC, however, gave a direction to the ITO to work out the value of the opening stock as on September 1, 1969, also at direct cost or market price basis, whichever is lower, and recompute the profits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 7,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 112,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His business stake is much more in India than outside.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 40,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The points for consideration in the Criminal Appeals are:\ni) Whether the prosecution has proved the charges framed against Accused 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22 and 40?. \n\nii) Whether the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting those accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and imposing life imprisonment on them?;\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 281,
"end": 305,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 309,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That the Apex Court has recognized that where victims whose fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution are flagrantly infringed, the State can be called to repair the damage done by its officers to the fundamental rights of the aggrieved person, notwithstanding the right of the citizen to the remedy by way of civil suit or criminal proceedings.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 19,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 95,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 115,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She said that her husband, Mareedu Venkatakrishna (L.W.6), figured as an accused in C.C.No.1924 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathupalli, under Section 498A IPC, registered by Kalluru Police on the complaint of A5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 49,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 103,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 166,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 186,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 190,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 220,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When available evidence has been recorded remands or adjournments under Section 167 or 344, Code of Criminal Procedure shall be arranged as may be necessary.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 90,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 118,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n4. On 09.7.2012, after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the accused and his counsel, accused Ram Pal Singh was charged with the commission of offence punishable under section 381 of the Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 17,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 119,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 191,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 216,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since he was not cross-examined, he was discharged by the Ld. Trial Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The grant made in favour of Perumal Padayachi by the Regional Transport Authority on 25.7.92 has been set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has directed grant of permit in favour of the present writ petitioner by its order passed in Appeal No.13/73, while dismissing the two other Appeal Nos.15 and 32 of 1973.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 45,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 92,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 305,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 366,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Again on 26th December, 1981 objections were made to the proposal reiterating the earlier stand of the petitioners.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 28,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The joint family has altogether been done away with in the State of Kerala (vide The Kerala Joint Family Abolition Act, 1976).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 74,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 124,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Judges held that the article applicable to the case was Article 144 and for the plea of limitation to succeed, It was incumbent on the contesting defendant to prove that defendant 5 was in denial of his title excluded - from the enjoyment of his share of the suit lands.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 79,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "See Parle Products (P) Ltd Vs. J.P. and Co., Mysore 1972(1) SCC 618.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 67,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our considered opinion, the two powers are distinct and there is no indication either in the main body of the Constitution or in any of the legislative lists that taxation is comprehended in the main subject.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 113,
"end": 125,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Tribunal accepted that the following transactions was typical and that the characteristics obtained in the other transactions were the same: \n \" Rs. 2,187.50 hedge loss paid to Brijlal Pannalal of Dhulia.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 197,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 207,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She received MOs. in Thannithodu Station in Crime No.21 of 2005 and entered the same as TR 54/05 on 14.3.2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 40,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 63,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 109,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also pointed out by him that though the panchas and owner of Samrat Hotel have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution, it does not waken the case of the prosecution.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was 20.45 hours on 23.12.2009 when the Eicher Canter 1095 registration number DL\u00ad1M\u00ad2069 was crossing GT Road, Highway near Rakba Dola Majra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 32,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 143,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 50,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is submitted that the \u201eBoard\u201f cannot have a different yardstick for different category of applicants and the rule applies equally to all.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The stage for relinquishing security arises when a secured creditor seeks to prove the whole of his debt in the course of winding up.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There is no positive evidence whether any medical expenses will be needed to be incurred and whether the appellant would need any special nourishment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This Court in Matadin v. State of M.P. 1980 Cri LJ 186, has pointed out that so far as possession is concerned, corpus without animus is ineffective, but if animus is established it does not matter whether the possession is actual or constructive.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 54,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the basis of the medical evidence, it is contended that though it reveals that the hymen was ruptured but there was no bleeding on 16th August, 2005 when the prosecutrix was medically examined.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 151,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent No.3/Insurance Company has claimed exemption U/s 149(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 whereby it had no liability, if respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective Driving Licence at the time of driving the offending vehicle as on the date of accident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 70,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 101,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It, however, does appear that as far as the incident of 23rd July 1986 is concerned, the wife and her relatives have tried to make undue advantage of an ordinary fall from the motor-cycle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 70,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is no reason to interfere in the calculation of income and dependency as done by the Tribunal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, we conclude that the prosecution has proved the above charges framed against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and we confirm the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Under challenge in this appeal is the judgment and order dated 21.8.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Unnao arising out of Case Crime No. 1017 of 2003, whereby appellant Rashid Ali was convicted for the offence under Sections 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 72,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 140,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 183,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 213,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 275,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 282,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is a gate for entry and although the persons who are not students of the College are not supposed to enter, the gate is not guarded.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the condition mentioned in the order dated 18-4-1987 (Annexure-L) is of no consequence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 63,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n Original claimant No. 1, Shantaben, is the widow of the deceased and original claimant No. 2 is the son of deceased Dr. Talati.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 128,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Secondly, Section 27 of the Act stated that nothing in the Act or the Rules made there under shall be deemed to impose or authorise the imposition of a tax on any sale or purchase of goods when such sale or purchase takes place either in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or outside the Union Territory of Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 20,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 321,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dr. Debi Pal, after taking us through the chronology of events, draws our attention to section 147 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the prayer is allowed and the applicant is permitted to sue as a pauper, the document becomes a plaint not because it already consisted of a plaint and an application for leave to sue as a pauper, but only because Rule 8 by a fiction of law directs that application to be treated as a plaint.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 217,
"end": 223,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That so far as Regulations 12(A) of Gujarat Secondary Education Regulation, 1974 is concerned there is an oral order dated 11-8-2003 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 699 of 2003 in Special Civil Application No. 8122 of 2003 in a case of Minor Jagdhishbhai Prabhatbhai Gohil v. State of Gujarat and Ors",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 32,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 80,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 132,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 180,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 226,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 304,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In terms of condition 3, the applicants were required to submit the No Objection Certificate from RTA/RTO in advance prior to the commencement of the contract and all such conditions were required to adhere to by the applicants. \n\n23.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 105,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 09, 2012 HJ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 21,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 52,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This position has now been settled by the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 55,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accused ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Sh. Rinku Garg, Ld. Counsel for the complainant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Section which was to apply notwithstanding any contract to the contrary or anything contained in the Act or any other law gave them a right to retain possession of their holding for a period of five years ending on 14-6-1952.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 220,
"end": 229,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That is why, special provisions are brought into the Act for settlement of family issues.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The properties are further modified by the addition of fillers, plasticizers, and other monomers of polymers'. \n ",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As regards significance of service of notice, apart from K. Bhaskaran's case, the learned counsel also relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 142,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they denied the prosecution story and stated that they were falsely implicated due to enmity and party bandi,",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 73,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 81,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The copies of charge-sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and notice U/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.279/337 IPC was served upon the accused on 20.09.2002, to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. \n\n3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 84,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 111,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 142,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 163,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 171,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 199,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 203,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 245,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection our attention was drawn to a case reported in AIR 1954 Bom 305, Madholal Sindhu v. Asian Assurance Co. Ltd., where Bhagawati, J. pointed out that where the correctness of the contents of a document produced in Court is in issue that should be proved by calling the executor of the document as a witness.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 126,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 143,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has denied that if a person dashes with the wall, then the injuries noted by them could be sustained.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Jagannadha Rao sought to rely upon certain circumstances to show that the 1st defendant could not have acquired the rice mill, item No. 1 of the B schedule, without the income from his wife's estate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Viewed thus, this Court finds that the individual impugned proceedings dated 13.04.2006 passed against the petitioners in this batch of cases suffer from a complete non-application of mind and the exercise reflected therein is in utter violation of the directions of this Court in B.KISHAN1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 87,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 290,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As far as A-6, A-9, A-10 and A-14 are concerned, the arms and ammunitions recovered from them, which are not the properties ordinarily transferable and mere possession itself being an offence, establish their guilt.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A perusal of Section 24 of H.M. Act makes it clear that not only the wife but also the husband is entitled to claim maintenance on showing that he has no independent source of income.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 23,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 35,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Madras High Court has observed at page 505 of the report that there can be no surrender as contemplated under the Transfer of Property Act (the said Act) without possession being made over simultaneously.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 21,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 142,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 18-5-1964 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandigama, filed before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nandi-gama, what was described as a preliminary charge-sheet in Crime No. 40 of 1964 in respect of offences under Sections 147. 148, 323, 324, 325, 307, and 302 I. P C., against 18 persons named therein who were shown as accused Nos. 1 to 18.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 114,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 264,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 272,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Union Government and the State Government jointly worked out on a proposal at New Delhi and decided to set-up a chemical hub in our State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 91,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "With regard to the non-ferrous metal scrap, the impugned Standing Order No. 7495 dated 13-12-1999 issues direction that \"the assessment of virgin as well assail metal scraps appearing in Metal Bulletin shall be done on the basis of average (mean) prices quoted in Metal Bulletin (a journal published from London, U.K.).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 97,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 311,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 317,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A conductor was asked to possess Conductor's licence as well as driving licence without amendment in the Regulations as per Section 45 of the State Road Transport Corporation Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 134,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 178,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is not much discussion in this judgment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The court naturally took no notice of the telegram.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The petitioner-Committee of Management is by and large, aggrieved by the refusal of the Commission to accord approval to the proposal to terminate the services of Saraswat.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 163,
"end": 171,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Arunachellam Chettiar v. Subramanya Aiyar, 3 Ind Cas 407 (Mad), Jageshar Singh v. Bir Ram, AIR 1920 Oudh 236 and Gumani Shah v. Hukam Chand.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 62,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 108,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 139,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, we were told at the time of hearing that it was only after the impugned order was made the Kerala Government made a similar order making compulsory study of Malayalam by the Kannada linguistic minorities there and they have approached the Kerala High Court against that order and the operation of that order has been stayed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 117,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 265,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is stated by him that he joined the investigation of this case on 4.11.2000.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 78,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Several years ago, another Division Bench of this Court launching upon a similar enquiry met with the same result as we have ; this Is what Chakravartti, C.J., had to say In Atindra Nath Mukherjee v. G.F. Gillot and Ors. 19561 L.L. J. 17 at 21:\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 152,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 243,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During the course of arguments a request for adjournment was made on behalf of Mr. R. Karuppan appearing for the petitioners in some of the writ petitions challenging the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 586 of dated 15-7-1994 by his Junior Mr. G. Nanmaran who is also on record.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 94,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 218,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 248,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case the respondent in his petition has prayed for an appointment of an arbitrator under the terms of the agreement.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He also examined Ramesh (PW-3) and found the following two injuries on his person:\n\"1. Lacerated wound 8 x 1.5 cm on right parieto-temporal region of scalp above right ear posteriorly, fresh blood clot was present. \n\n2. Abrasion 2x1 cm on left forearm, anteriorly, \" \n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 23,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nB) The P.W 2 Dr. Narsinhbhai Asodariya in his evidence, has deposed that in the year 2005 he was in service as a Medical Officer at the Community Health Center, Bhesan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 40,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 169,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Court in Standard-Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd. v. Its Workmen and Catering Cleaners of Southern Railway v. Union of India has disapproved the system of contract labour holding it to be 'archaic', 'primitive' and of 'baneful nature'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 131,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By an order dated 25 th November, 2003 in the said G.A. No.3166 of 2003 Sri Dilip Basu, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed arbitrator.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 38,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 71,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 86,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Allegations of mala fides where also made in P.P. Sharma case against the informer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, on 20-2-97 the Minister Shri Rajendra Kumar Singh heard the parties and gave direction contrary to his previous correct view-- \"The Government stayed temporarily the execution of order dated 11-8- 95 till the hearing of parties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 19,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 208,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not necessary for the purpose of these petitions to consider whether placing of Mr. Hanumanthappa in such additional charge, is referable to Rule 32 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules and whether what is stated in para 3 of the Official Memorandum dated 16-5-1963 (Ex. C) is applicable to Mr. Hanumanthappa holding such additional charge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 154,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 189,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 269,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 312,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But this is not the only course open and having regard to the nature of offence and other circumstances when the court feels that quashing of proceedings cannot be in the interest of justice, it is open to the court to make appropriate orders, including fixing the period for completion of trial; (viii) it is neither advisable nor feasible to prescribe any outer time-limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Constitution must be interpreted in a reasonable manner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, a separate charge was framed against Afroz Ali under section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 since the fire arm was recovered from his possession along with one live cartridge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 55,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 72,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 94,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If a mortgage suit is Patna High Court CWJC No.16665 of 2009 dt.11.12.2013 decreed in terms of a compromise, the consent decree amounts to a final decree only when nothing further is to be done in the suit in order to enable the decree-holder to execute the decree.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 38,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 60,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 74,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He verified the arrest panchanama at Exh.92 which was signed by PW-10 Mangal Shelar and Bhagwan Dhumal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 83,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 102,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The compensation in the circumstances remains one sum to be distributed amongst all the claimants, if there are more than one.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Similar view was taken in Indermal Tekaji Mahajan v. Ramprasad Gopilal, (AIR 1970 Madh Pra 40) where Pandey and Sen, JJ. [while dealing with the provisions contained under Order 12, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, observed that an admission made in a written statement might be taken as a whole or not at all.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 94,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 188,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 219,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The present petition was affirmed on the 20th July, 1972 and was moved and noted as made on the 21st July, 1972 within the prescribed period of 30 days.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 56,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 111,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the report it was also mentioned that the PMR shows that Raishuddin had suffered abrasions all over his body and only one lacerated wound was there in his entire body that too in his hand which substantiates the point that death took place due to loss of blood after the cutting of the hand in an accident caused by rickshaw carrying steel sheets and not by the car.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n The findings recorded above clearly show that it is not that the plaintiff was sleeping over the matter.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is held that the Collector is not 'Court' and the provisions of Section 4 to Section 24 of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to the proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act under which the Collector exercises powers for making reference to the Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 90,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 172,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 200,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He deposed that on 28.2.2006, Delhi Police came at the said place and he was removed from the said pit at about 3.30 or 4 PM and at that time his hands and legs were tied.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 28,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 42,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, in view of deviation made at the end of submissions, I have dealt with case of all the petitioners on merits without expressing any sense of condemnation a against petitioner No. 2 Madhavprasad Swami, a violator of the liberty granted by this Court at the time of dealing with his application for bail i.e. Misc. Cri. Application No. 1730 of 2000 vide order dated 5-4-2000, referred to herein above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 190,
"end": 208,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 355,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 381,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But it can however be made a party-respondent either by the claimants voluntarily in the claim petition or by the direction of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 157,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As regards the defence version (Para 14 supra), there was no question for Khadagsingh and others passing through this Bakhar, because PW 2 Durga Prasad Patwari has categorically denied the suggestion that Khadagsingh's \"Bakhar\" was on way (on route), from Kudihar to the village.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 85,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 159,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 216,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 263,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per the provisions of Section 442 of Indian Penal Code whoever commits criminal trespass in any dwelling house, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling is said to have committed house trespass.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 36,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 57,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though the Division Bench held that the insurer would be covered by the term 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of Section 110-D (1) of the old Act, yet it had taken the view that it was not open to the insurer to challenge the quantum of compensation in appeal in Gulab Chandra 1985 ACJ 245 (Allahabad). \n\n15.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 135,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 306,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While considering the case of Santosh Devi, the Apex Court did not feel to refer the matter to a Larger Bench.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n Without prejudice to our above contentions, and reserving our right to take such action as may be deemed necessary in respect of the unmaintainability of the claims, We hereby nominate Shri R. M. Ray, Sr. D. G. M., Bhilai Steel Plant as our arbitrator.\" \n From the reply sent by the respondent it is quite clear that the existence of a dispute giving rise to arbitration was itself denied.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 192,
"end": 201,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 235,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly the petitioner was 56 years of age as on the date of accident for which the relevant multiplier 9 as mentioned in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC decided on 15.4.2009 in C.A. No. 3483/08.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 145,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 166,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 186,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Swastik Oil Mills v. H. B. Munshi, AIR 1968 SC 843 the Supreme Court said that as no period of limitation was prescribed by Section 22 of the Bombay Act 5 of 1946 and Section 31 of Act 3 of 1953 for exercising the power of revision the court cannot imply a period of limitation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 53,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 71,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 137,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 165,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 180,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that petitioner no.3, Ms. Shraddha Bhargava is a practicing lawyer at District Courts and High Court of Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 88,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 154,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW-2 Ashok Sharma in his cross examination has stated that PW-3 Shanti was found at gaushala and she was conscious and speaking.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 17,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 70,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Webster's New International Dictionary, it means: \n To prepare or to prepare and use, for the raising of crops; to till; as, to cultivate the soil, to loosen or break up the soil about (growing crop or plants) for the purpose of killing weeds, etc., especially with a cultivator, as to cultivate the corn.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This arbitrary classification of putting the lawyers under the head of 'commercial activity' deserves to be struck down asviolativeof Article 14 of the Constitution of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 144,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 173,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Tribunal disposed of these issues together holding that the agricultural land in dispute and the Muafi belong to the Dera but the building situate in Patti Sujja mentioned at Serial No. 337 of Schedule I of the Act is the property of Gurdwara Sahib Dera Patti Sujja.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "1. Vide this common judgment, I shall decide two cross appeals as these are challenging the same judgment of the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. Subhash Kumar Mishra, Ld. Civil Judge - VII, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 156,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 220,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A vehicle was arranged and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The evidence of PW10 does not suggest or establish the presence of the deceased along with accused 1 to 4 at the time when PW10 is alleged to have seen the 1st accused near the quarters of PW8 occupied by his son CW10.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\nDivision Bench mainly based its findings as to delay, laches and misrepresentation on the part of the writ petitioners, on pleadings in Para 15 of the writ petition which was jointly filed by all five legal heirs of late Shri Sumer Singhji, Shri Brajraj Singh, being the first petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 228,
"end": 241,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 261,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The exact words are as follows :--\n YAH KAHNA GALAT HAI KI HAM LOGON KE MAKANAT VIRENDRA KE JAMIA PAR BANE HUE HAIN.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The respondent Chhotubhai who was the origin. 1 plaintiff had filed the suit to recover Rs. 52,720/-with costs and running interest at 6 per cent from defendant No. 1 personally and from the joint Hindu family properties and other properties of defendants Nos. 3 to 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 25,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\" The principle in that case was sought to be stretched here beyond limits of what was stated there, to a case of promissory note too on the ground that whatever may be the reason which invalidated the promissory note, still the right to recover the money is not lost.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Chandigarh, accepted the assessed's contention that in view of the fact that the market value of the flats in 24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, was available, there was no justification for not adopting the same in the case of the assessed and resorting to the market value in the case of 24, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, as done by the Income-tax Officer.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 52,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 182,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 359,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Black in his book on 'Judgments' (as quoted in the same decision) defined a judgment as \"the determination or sentence of the law pronounced by a competent Judge or Court as the result of an action or proceeding instituted in such Court affirming that upon the matters submitted for decision a legal duty or liability does or does not exist.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Bank was informed that in the event the Bank Guarantees were not renewed, MSEB would have to move the Arbitral Tribunal \"for further appropriate directions in the matter\" and consequently, an \"immediate response\" was sought from the Bank.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 82,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Relying on Rukma Bai v. Mahadeo Narayan, AIR 1917 Bombay 10, the Bench rejected the objection, and held the second suit for ejectment as not barred.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Agreements were signed between the assessee and these dealers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "So also, in Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Lakshmi Chand, AIR 1963 SC 677, the Supreme Court, has said :-- \n \"The duty to act judicially imposed upon an authority by statute does not necessarily clothe the authority with the judicial power of the State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 70,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The purport of the new clause was that the expression \"repeal\" includes \"omission\" and \"deletion\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The expression \" current repairs \" was construed by the Allahabad High Court in Ramkishan Sunderlal v. CIT [1952] 19 ITR 324, as petty recurring expenditure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 124,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, the phrase \"he has regularly appeared as member of a trade union for no less than seven years in the proceedings\", used in Section 9(2)(b), in context of other provisions of the BIR Act, would mean that the person must have appeared and conducted regularly some cases as a representative of the employees before the Labour Court, the Industrial Court or the Tribunal for not less than seven years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 145,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 192,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, if ad hoc multipliers like 26, etc., are used for pre-14.11.1994 accidents and only maximum multiplier of 18 as per the Table is bound to be used for post-14.11.1994 accidents, there will be undue overpayment in regard to accidents prior to 14.11.1994, i.e., in the seventies or eighties, when survival rates were far less than in 1994.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 73,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 174,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 260,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that when the present petition was affirmed the Rules of this Court relating to applications under Article 226 of the Constitution had not come into force.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 121,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 141,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The parents, 28 years old widow-Ramaben and two minor daughters of the deceased and Ramaben, aged 4 years and 15 months filed M.A.C.P. No. 330 of 1982 claiming Rs. 10,00,000/- by way of compensation from the driver and owner of the S.T. bus and from the driver, owner and insurer of the auto-rickshaw.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 91,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 150,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Munshee had sought to urge that resolution in permitting of the existing operators and not others is not, per se, discriminatory and had referred me to Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 552 of 1961 decided on August 24, 1964 (Raj) (Mushtaq Ahmed v. State)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 196,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 223,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 253,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sitting as a Court of appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the presence of the witness Bhojraj was procured at about 11.00 p.m in the night and he was projected as an eye witness though he was not present at the time of the incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 87,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This was about two years after the date of the original deed in favour of 'S'.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He further stated that later in the day appellant No.1 and Suresh had come to his residence threatening to assault him; but any untoward scene was averted by the neighbours.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 65,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the petitioners, it was further pleaded that though the company was incorporated in a formal manner, it was for all intents and purposes a partnership business among the members of the same family.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Proper record is to be maintained at the plaza for the purpose of providing such information.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In G. Nagendra vs. State of Karnataka (1998 (9) SCC 439), the Supreme Court has held that rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution can be given retrospective effect.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 56,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 75,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 120,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 140,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant-accused was working as senior clerk in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Aheri.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 107,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He then referred to and relied on the Supreme Court case of Mahasay Ganesh Prasad Ray v. Narendra Nath Sen AIR 1953 SC 431 in support of the proposition that the loose papers seized could not be regarded as accounts within the meaning of Section 90 of the Evidence Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 122,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 248,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 268,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n(ii) Hari Babu was 42 years of age.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 16,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW.21-Pradeep was also shifted to Gandhi Hospital for better treatment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 13,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 49,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Regulation 6(5)(iii) of Discipline Regulations is reproduced hereunder: \n \"(5) The Disciplinary Authority shall, where it is not the Inquiring Authority forward to the Inquiring Authority : \n(i) XXX \n(ii) XXX (iii) a list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the Articles of Charge are proposed to be substantiated.\" \n 36. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in para 35 of the counter",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 20,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, in the early hours of 16-2-1970, the appellant came to the house of the deceased at village Pano-sari and took him on his motor-cycle for starting his Mill.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 40,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 110,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Letter received from DCP, East Division, Bengaluru by P.W.15.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 50,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now in this case there is no legal impediment to be removed for the grant of injunction if the plaintiff is otherwise entitled to it and the suit has therefore to be regarded as one for injunction falling under Clause (d) of Section 4 (iv), Mysore Court-fees Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 211,
"end": 239,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 262,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the ld. counsels for the parties and perused the record.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The view of the other Judge, Jack, J., who thought that special damage need not be proved has been dissented from in Surendra Kumar Basu v. District Board, Nadia, AIR 1942 Cal 360.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 179,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further found as a fact established that petitioner Anil Kumar had proved on record that Sh. Ramji Lal, husband of Smt. Lalita Devi was the co-landlord and from Ramji Lal petitioner having purchased property in question, he was to be held entitled to claim rent including arrears from respondent/ appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 109,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 138,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 177,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is writ large that the issues have already been finally put to rest after the orders of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 177,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Kochar has also commended me to a decision of a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in the case of Smt. Gurmito 1996 Cri LJ 1254 (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 109,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 163,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But a Court of Law would be extremely reluctant to employ such a phrase in the context of a provision of law enacted by the Parliament in its wisdom.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 124,
"end": 134,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Paragraph 29 of the judgment has been stressed on, particularly by the Vietnamese petitioner, in the context of Elitarious and Shafique Khan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 140,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent No. 6, Joitabhai, had expired in 1977 as observed by the Tribunal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 27,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rough and ready justice without the obligation to be exact and specific to the last digit in the ascertainment of age and income appears to be the signature tune of Section 163A of the M.V Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 177,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 192,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1) Where an order under section 397 or 398 makes any alteration in the memorandum or articles of a company, then, notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the company shall not have power, except to the extent, if any, permitted in the order, to make without the leave of the [Tribunal], any alteration whatsoever which is inconsistent with the order, either in the memorandum or in the articles.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The two attesting witnesses are Riazul Haq. a consanguine brother of Ajaibun-nissa and a claimant in the suit and Mohd. Farooq, son of Ahmadi Begum.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 42,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 126,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 147,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It must be taken that Parliament has advisedly limited the operation of the prohibition only to those two kinds of contracts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 32,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But in Mapp v. Ohio. (1961) 367 US 643 : 6 Law Ed. 2nd Ed. 1081, Wolf was reversed and it was held that all evidence obtained by search and seizure in breach of 4th Amendment of the Federal Constitution was, by virtue of the due process clause of 14th Amendment guaranteeing the right to privacy free from unreasonable State intrusion.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\"To do so\" (at p.65 in Prem Nath L. Ganesh v. Prem Nath L. Ramnath) \"would be entrenching upon the preserves of Legislature\", the primary function of a court of law being jusdicere and not jus dare.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 66,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, on the 28th February, 1946, the directors clearly earmarked it for distribution as dividend and did not choose to make it a reserve.\" \n15.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 45,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also observed in the same judgment by Hon'ble High Court that there is no notification by which the DRC Act has been extended to the area of Delhi which falls in the Sub Division South West Delhi, Village Najafgarh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 113,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 152,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 201,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 220,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though in India the doctrine of desuetude does not appear to have been used so far to hold that any statute has stood repealed because of this process, we find no objection in principle to apply this doctrine to our statutes as well.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 15,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n c. The charges framed in SC 254/2006 shall be altered in accordance with law under the facts of the case having regard to the charge sheet filed in SC 248/2006.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 39,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 162,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He then clarified that he did not record the statement of V. B. Singh because he came to know that he was related to the accused and would not divulge anything truthful.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the purpose of examining whether the order impugned could or could not be passed validly within the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 3 of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this order may be divided into two parts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 141,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 184,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I had occasion a few days ago to say in a similar case, R. T. No. 82 of 1942 (A11), that to commute a sentence of death in the absence of any mitigating circumstances purely on the ground of the age of the accused was in effect to lay it down that persons of a certain age should never -be sentenced to death, even though that was not the law............",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 82,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n2. The plaintiff-respondent Surendra Nath Shukla was appointed as a Clearing Clerk on a salary of Rs. 125 per month by Bharat Airways Ltd., having its registered office at No. 8, Royal Exchange Place, Calcutta sometime in 1948.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 50,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 140,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 211,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Due to collection of such material by Chandrika Rai under his fear the kidnappers without taking any sum of ransom had left said child Anant Jhariya at Beohari Railway Station.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 51,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 148,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n (a) On jute backing cloth and burlap having a width of hundred inches or more : At the rate of 12 per cent, of such price; \n (b) On jute backing cloth below hundred inches width : At the rate of 91/2% of sale price as mentioned above.... \n (n) In making payment of the price, Delca will be entitled to deduct their own commission.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 279,
"end": 284,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC in answer to question No. 20 has also stated that the police had arrested him on the same day at 10:30 AM.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 59,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Chapter XIV-B was introduced not to curtail powers under other provisions like 147, but to make stringent provisions to curb tax evasion.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is an appeal preferred against the decree and Judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tanjore in O. S. No. 15 of 1947.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 127,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The claim that was made in the letter of reference was never communicated to the respondents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He noted the contents of its written statement particularly the fact about unauthorised construction having been \"booked\" on 17.07.2012 and demolition order having been passed and some action in that regard having already been undertaken.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 135,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There is an apparent plausibility about the argument urged on behalf of the Department but we think it cannot be accepted.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "By its letter of 30-4-64 (p. 103 of the Petition), the Petitioner showed cause, stating that its failure to export the Hindusthan Steel Products was due to default on the part of the Hindusthan Steel Ltd., in respect of which arbitration proceedings were pending and requested the Controller not to take action until those proceedings were concluded.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 183,
"end": 204,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The exercise of revisional jurisdiction in such a case is taken away by the proviso inserted under sub-section (1) of Section 115 CPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 129,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 133,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, on the 5th December, 1962, when the petitioners made their application under Section 16(3) of the Act, respondent No. 1 was the raiyat not only in respect of the area of .03 acre in plot No. 738 covered by the sale deed of respondent No. 2, but also the raiyat in respect of an equivalent area in the same plot covered by the sale deed of respondent No. 3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 36,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 101,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Section 2 of Act provided that this Act shall come into operation on such day as the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal shall by notification in the Calcutta Gazette direct.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 114,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendant no.1 has four subsidiaries, including defendant no.16 (BPLMobile) and defendant no.17 (BPLMCL).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 78,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 107,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts, that gave rise to filing of these revisions, are as under.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Now as pointed out above, plot of land bearing survey No. 135, Hissa No. 10 (City Survey No. 1411/11), area 1164.40 sq. mtrs. was purchased by Shri R.B. Shah, the then sole proprietor of M/s Star Chemicals from M/s Jamnadas Vallabhbai Mehta against the payment of a purchase price and as mentioned in the report on title, a portion of factory building was also extending over its plot of land.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 148,
"end": 157,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 205,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 240,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The difference in point of time is not of much consequence as such discrepancies do occur during the deposition of witnesses in Court and even otherwise the same are not so glaring so as to hold that the entire prosecution case is false or creates a doubt of any kind.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n6.2E It may be noted that Mr.Nanavati, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 10 and 11 has relied upon one order of this Court in Misc. Civil Application No. 12 of 2002 in Company Application No. 290 of 2001 in the case of the Provisional Liquidator of the Piramal Financial Services Ltd. Vs. Palash Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and another decided by this Court on 28th June, 2002.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 172,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 211,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 341,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 382,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This decision may be referred to in greater detail later on as it lays down good guidelines for applying Article 14.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 115,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We are not therefore concerned as to whether or not the reference to the Tribunal with regard to these sub-charges was valid.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is true that Rule 7 of Order 7 of our Civil P. C. enjoins that where the plaintiff seeks recovery of money the plaint must state the precise amount claimed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 33,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 52,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The former notification opened with a statement that it appeared to the Government of Mysore that the land specified therein was needed for a public purpose to wit for Raj Mahal Vilas Lay-out.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 92,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW1 Inspector R. K. Rathi, TI Mayapuri, PW2 Ct. Manjeet Chahal, No. 3381 and PW3 ASI/ZO Kailash Tomar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 25,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 62,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 101,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While arring at his conclusions, the Assessing Officer has taken support from the CBDT Circular No. 495 dated 22-9-1987 and the example given in para 36.5 of the said circular illustrating how the new section will be applied.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 119,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The reading of the whole book does not create any impression that anything written in the book in any passage was aimed at hurting the feelings of any religious faith or belief.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The evidence of NA.W. 1. Ibrahim NA.W. 2 Ravinandan Sahay and NA.W. 3 Narsinghrao is of little assistance in this case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 32,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 57,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 81,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Civil Writ Petition No.327/2013 With Stay Application No.273/2013 Bhawani Singh Gurjar Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 31,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 126,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Gajanand Agarwal v State of Orissa and others (referred supra), the Apex Court adverted to the order passed by the High Court and when no reason has been indicated by the High Court for granting bail except stating that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the bail was being granted because the accused is in custody for ten months, is illegal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 48,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 81,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore this appeal has no merit and must be dismissed. \n Second Appeal No. 386 of 1951. \n 39.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 90,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On October 31, 1951, the assessee entered into a second contract with the same party agreeing to purchase 500 bales of the same quality of heavy cess at Rs. 216-8-0 per 100 bags; deliveries under the second contract were to be made as under the first contract.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 19,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The same argument was advanced in relation to an order of dismissal under Section 90(3) in Chandrika Prasad's case, AIR 1959 SC 827.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 87,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 107,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 131,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The assessee claimed expenses only under one head \"Ink\" Rs. 1,23,69,822 which would leave surplus of only Rs. 1,94,646 out of receipt yet assessee had claimed expenses of Rs. 38.76 lakhs under the head 'Salaries', Rs. 17.32 lakhs under subscription Deposit Service Scheme, Rs. 9.13 lakhs on account of roller and plates, Rs. 9.89 lakhs on account of electricity, Rs. 18.86 lakhs on account of repair in Unit No. I.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Reference can also be made to the latest case law reported as Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Page 31 to 45 (ANAND SWAROOP AGGARWAL) POLC - XI/KKD/DELHI/07.04.2015 Ajai Shankar Saxena Vs. School of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education ID No. 461/04 Amritsar & Anr. (supra.) where Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court observed as under :\u00ad \"8.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 204,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 315,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 367,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our view, by deletion of section 80, the right to obtain a certificate prior to its amendment is not taken away by any statutory provision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 38,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fact that the Act has come into force, it does not necessarily follow that the Board referred to in Section 4 of the Act of 2007 (I) has been established.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 113,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These statements are more than sufficient for drawing an inference that Sri Balaji Traders had sold molasses to the manufacturers of liquor at Dhoolpet, engaged the tankers belonging to Kishan Singh for transportation of the molasses and thereby violated the provisions of Section 13(1)(f) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 90,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 151,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 198,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 289,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of a society only the first ingredient would be fulfilled and also the last, as there would be no doubt left after this particular specification that even in the case of a society, where there are distribution sales with the members, the society would be a person selling goods.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Earlier by issuing Government Resolution dated 7.2.2001, government has put restriction on registration of the co-operative societies by keeping bench-mark of transaction of Rs.35 lacs in Kokan, Marathwada and Vidarbha regions and of Rs.50 lacs for the registration of the Co-operative societies in a developed region.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 55,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 193,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 205,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 218,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 4th respondent, had also contested in the election for the local bodies conducted by the State Election Commission on 24.09.2005 for Edavacode Ward, Thiruvananthapuram.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 122,
"end": 132,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 151,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 171,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Munnu Raja and another v. State of M.P., 1976 AIR (SC) 2199, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that statement by victim recorded as FIR can be treated as dying declaration and such statement is admissible under Section 32 (a) of Evidence Act and corroboration is not necessary.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 62,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 94,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 230,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 246,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Practically the order commits to the unrestrained will of a single individual the power to grant, withhold or cancel licences in any way he chooses and there is nothing in the order which could ensure a proper execution of the power or operate as a check upon injustice that might result from improper execution of the same.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The second question which requires consideration is what is meant by 'reasonable and fair provision and maintenance' mentioned in Section 3(1)(a) of the Act?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 145,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Given the flexibility of natural justice, it may not have been strictly necessary to use the term 'duty to act fairly' at all but its usage is now firmly established in the judicial vocabulary.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That from time to time payments were released to the claimant by Bata coupled with fact that even the Bata Officials have accepted the final bill and had agreed to pay for the extra work would go to show that the stand taken by the petitioner subsequently about the inferior workmanship or supply of substandard or inferior material is a clear afterthought.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 69,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He had to agree to removal of the structure on 26th March, 2003.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 63,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both the suits are filed by the plaintiff OS 7739/2007 seeking the relief of ejectment and has furnished the valuation slip and valued the suit under Sec.41(2) of the Karnataka Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act and computed the court fee as contemplated under the said provision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 159,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 207,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Defendant has also acknowledged the receipt of Rs.25,000/- by his father and agreed to execute the sale deed and in pursuance of it, plaintiffs have paid Rs.1,00,000/- on 27/11/2003 through cheque bearing No.576357 and cheque bearing No.120052 dated: 16/12/2004 drawn on ICICI Bank, Dispensary Road Branch, Bangalore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 171,
"end": 181,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 261,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 281,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 316,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court, after referring to these authorities observed,--",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If the Supreme Court had declared that Section 20 as intra vires the matter would have come to an end so far as the High Courts are concerned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 20,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the High Court could restrict leave to defend to one or more points there appears to be no reason why the Controller could not put similar restrictions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Koppal, Rai-chur District passed in Appeal No. 4/4 of 1358 Fasli confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Koppal, in O. S. No. 122/1 of 1856F.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 109,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 142,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 213,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 243,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed by this court in the case of A. Shivarudrappa (supra) and also in the said decisions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 98,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Writ Appln. No. 615 of 1952, D/- 4-8-1954 (Raj) (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 27,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 46,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Once this process is kept in mind, it becomes easy to realise the fallacy in the contention put forward by Mr. Mehta that we should first read the substantive part of the definition clause and then read separately the proviso as restricting the fiction to accumulated profits on six years only as taxable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 116,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Sri Shanmugar Mills Ltd. v. S. K. Dharmaraja Nadar [1969] 39 Comp Cas 297 (Mad), it was held that where the debts of the company could not be paid without selling its machinery and building and if the machinery and building were to be sold, the mill could not run and the company would necessarily have to be wound up.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 82,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Gulab Chand (supra) had been dissented from by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of B.K. Roy (P) Ltd. v. CIT .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 44,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 78,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 145,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 185,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There will be no order as to costs in any of the appeals.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the present case, the learned trial Judge has awarded imprisonment of five years for the offence under Section 376(1), IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 120,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 125,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n In the circumstances Sri Motty Philipose Final M.B.B.S. (Jr.) Medical College Trivandrum is suspended from the course in this College with immediate effect.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 90,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dwarka Courts New Delhi SC NO.26/2/2013 38/38",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 23,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The object of this Rule is to fix responsibility for allegations made in the plaint on the persons who verify and this is to ensure that false allegations are not made freely and recklessly. ...\u2016 8.6.3. Sri Shamrao Rukamanna Talwar v. Smt. Suvarna, ILR 2008 Karnataka 1493- \u201523.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 203,
"end": 273,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n 4. Diffuse swelling on left side of back.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The said documents at the most only show an Agreement to Sell having been entered into by Smt.Rameshwari Devi with a right to seek execution of GPA/Sale Deed against Shri Mohar Singh; whereas, the documents of ownership of Shri Balram duly meet the criteria of Section 202 of Contract Act and are valid sale documents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 109,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 182,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 234,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 272,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 288,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, I hold that the only judgment of the Supreme Court in Asha's case (8 supra) whereunder their Lordships approved the action of the High Court in deducting the amounts paid towards LIC., society charges, H.B.A. etc., is not a correct proposition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 65,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 189,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This view was not accepted in Mohammad Baqar v. Mohammad Casim, AIR 1932 Oudh 210 by a Full Bench of the Oudh Chief Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 81,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By Section 5 of the Act, the State was empowered to incorporate and establish the University by issuing a notification in the Gazette and Section 6 permitted such universities to affiliate any college or other institution or set up more than one campus with the prior approval of the State Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 147,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not disputed on behalf of the accused that the bus in question was involved in the incident.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He arrested all the four accused persons from their house and their arrest memos were proved as Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW3/E, Ex PW3/F and Ex. PW3/G.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Coming now to precedent, it is well to recall that the fundamental right of a speedy public trial is in a way a legacy from the letter spirit of the American Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 158,
"end": 170,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before advertising the posts of Teacher Gr III, the State of Rajasthan through the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan conducted RTET.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 70,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 122,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case, the detenu was branded as a Goonda and detained under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 97,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words \"mental cruelty\" must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The government photographer Sukhpal Singh HC (PW-3) produced the video film that he had prepared of the occurrence before Inspector Balwinder Singh (PW-4), which was taken in possession vide memo (Ex.P-9).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 147,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After the commencement of the Constitution, the Act of 1891 came within the jurisdiction of legislation of the State Legislature of West Bengal under different entries in Lists II and III of the 7th Schedule of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 42,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 143,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 187,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 207,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 227,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A further reference to the judgment in the case of M/s Nina Garments (Pvt) Ltd versus M/s Unitech Ltd, CS(OS) 1368/2009 decided by the Delhi High Court on 24.9.2012 has been given.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 119,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 151,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 164,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Scheme of the Act is such that the general provisions of Part -I including Section 5, would apply to all Chapters or Parts of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 88,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "e accused had assauited the 'failure to bring Rs.20,000/--.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He also recorded statements of Pws Mamu and Bharthu, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PW Mihan, who had been admitted to Rajendra Hospital, Patiala was declared unfit to make statement by the doctor vide endorsement Ex.PO/1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 39,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 51,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 70,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 87,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 140,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Madras High Court had in the case of CIT vs. Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. reported at 282 ITR 428 held that the interest on government securities, tax free securities, bonds, treasury bill and investment deposits scheme of IDBI were not liable under the Interest Tax Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 21,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 104,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 234,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 277,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It, however, admitted that an amount of Rs. 1,55,351 was deducted from the contractor's running bills as security deposit.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This case, therefore, is of no assistance here.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This notification is as follows : \n \"Bhopal, the 7th July, 1970.\" \n \"No. 5686-X-70--",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 43,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 63,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the year 1929, the Bank of Banares brought a suit against Maharaja Kishore for recovery of certain money claims.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 37,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Apex Court has settled the law that damages are not debt as decided in Union of India v. Roman Foundry, .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 106,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that while considering the provisions contained under the Act, the learned single Judge considered the words 'establishment' and 'commercial establishment'.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Before the impugned resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, there were 8 operators on this route who were having 11 return services.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The reasons why the community as a whole does not endorse the humanistic approach reflected in \"death sentence in no case\" doctrine are not far to seek. .",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This view was considered so obvious that it was actually conceded by the other side.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n(5) That the cross-objections filed by respondent No. 1 Gaffar Khan, owner of the car No. RJT 1058 also stand rejected simultaneously",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She further supported the case of the accused that the accused was taken into custody on 03.12.1997 itself by the police.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 99,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan Vs. Laxmi Devi (Supra) the Supreme Court has held \"it is one thing to say that by reason of such contingencies services of the workcharge employee should be directed to be regularised, but it is another thing to say that although they were not absorbed in the permanent cadre, still on their deaths their dependants would be entitled to invoke the Rules\". \n\n23.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 42,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 68,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\nTt will be seen that Lord Reid used the word \"jurisdiction\" in its original sense limited to the stage of commencement of inquiry and he separately categorised other cases of nullity.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 31,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This witness also deposed that one week after the registration of the deeds Chandrarao represented to him that they obtained settlement deeds from Veerayya by playing fraud and he had not gone to the house of Meera Mohiddin.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 86,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 223,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, she filed memo dtd:29/9/2011 to delete their names and filed fresh impleading application against the alleged power of attorney holders and subsequent purchasers.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 35,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, all the matters have been listed today before the bench for consideration as to what interim orders should be passed in all these matters.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "List of former witnesses consists of constable Shamshad Ansari P.W.3, Dr. K.K. Kanaujiya P.W.4, inspector, I.O Surendra Tiwari P.W.5, S.I. Shiv Prasad Chandra P.W. 6, constable Mohan Prasad Gupta P.W.7, constable Kamla Shankar Pandey P.W.8 and S.I. Makhan Lal Kanaujiya P.W.9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 62,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 88,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 126,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 158,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 195,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 233,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 269,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW3 Kum. Amudha has stated in--'\"----her evidence that on 17.9.2003 at about 9.00 N returned from her work but her mother was not Seen at _ the bus stand and therefore, sh\u00e9icametito, thinking that she might have already.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 67,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "to circulate a copy of this judgement to all the District Judges/all the Chairman of the Tribunals/Chief Secretary, U.P. Shasan Lucknow for strict compliance with the resolution of the Bar Council of the State of U.P.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 116,
"end": 135,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 217,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W. 7 Sachin had stated that the deceased and appellant were staying in the same locality.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 13,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such phraseologies are more in the nature of \"flourishes of language\" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is this order of appointment and Empanelment made by the UPSC which was challenged by the applicant by filing an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 64,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 181,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, this court holds that S.34(2)(a)(iv) of the Act was not fulfilled.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n(7) Whether a firm is genuine or bogus or benami is a pure question of fact.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He deposed in consonance with the facts disclosed in the initial part of this judgment;\n \u25cf Sukhbir Singh (PW-2) - was the driver of the canter vehicle and he also deposed about the incident as propounded by the prosecution; \u25cf Gurmeet Singh (PW-3), Clerk - He deposed that he remained posted as a Clerk in the office of the District Transport Officer, Ferozepur, from May, 1990 to June, 1995.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 104,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 239,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 360,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is stated in paragraph 11 of the application that the order of opposite party No. 3 (annexure B) is illegal and without jurisdiction for the reason amongst others that after the release of Bipat Gope under Rule 549 of the Jail Manual, no order for re-arrest can be issued by opposite party No. 2, the District Magistrate of Patna.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 192,
"end": 202,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 217,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 332,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this context, the Supreme Court, repro- duced with approval the following observation from the case of Neville Vs. London Express Newspaper Ltd., reported in 1919 Appeal Case pg. 3368 : \"There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established by statute.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 34,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court was followed by another Division Bench of the same Court in Damomal Kausomal Raisinghani v. Union of India & Ors. (AIR) 1967 Bombay 355.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 183,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the basis of his memorandum Exhibit P-1, Exhibit P-20 seizure memo was drawn by which a 12 bore gun (Article I) and a cartridge (Article H) has been seized from him.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Thus de facto residence is also to be understood as the place where one regularly resides as different to the places where he is connected to by mere ancestral connections or political connections or connection by marriage.\" \n\n Geeta Mehrotra and another versus State of U.P. And another, Criminal Appeal No.1674 of 2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 228,
"end": 287,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 320,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The facts leading to this reference are as follows : \n The assessment year under reference is 1967-68, the previous year being the financial year ending on March 31, 1967.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 157,
"end": 171,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears that initially the insurance company was not impleaded as an opposite party to the claim petition but later when the claimant came to know the particulars of the insurer, she got the claim petition amended by impleading the New India Assurance Co. as one of the opposite parties to the claim petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 235,
"end": 258,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A further appeal was taken to the Supreme Court which was disposed of on 22-8-1967.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 82,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": " \n Now it is well known that where the parties have chosen under an agreement to refer their disputes to arbitration, courts will insist that they should have recourse to arbitration before pursuing any other remedy.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Conferment of reasonable area of discretion by a fiscal statute has been approved by this Court in more than one decision : see Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Kasaragod .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 128,
"end": 192,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly their name will be placed below Shri Gjan Chand and above Shri Kulwant Rai in the proposed seniority list. \n\n3.Shri S.K. Sen, CB-LKO. \n\nD/21-10-67 referred to above There is no substance in the representation of Shri Sen.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 86,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 136,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 233,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The matter came up for consideration in a different way before the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gian Chand, 1985 E.C.R. 2222 (decided on April 2, 1968).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 80,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 131,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 157,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is to be seen tliat enhancement of capital is a purely an internal administration of the Company and Courts do not interfere in the normal course.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Again Section 29 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 deprives the person convicted under the provisions of the Act from claiming ownership in respect of the animals involved in such crime.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 16,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 66,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further argued by the Ld. PP for the CBI that the complaint dated 30.11.1999, Ex.PW.5/A, was duly verified and the CBI Vs. DPS Negi etc., pg 18 of 83 Special Judge, CBI\u00ad01, Central, Delhi conversations between the complainant and the accused persons, dated 30.11.1999, were also recorded.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 46,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 82,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 155,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 193,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 273,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioners contend that S. 38(1) of the Act is beyond the legislative competence of the State and in any event confers arbitrary, naked and unguided power on the Government and is therefore liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 246,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 266,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is common ground that no mining lease, temporary or otherwise, has been granted to the Association, but the Government relies on the fact that it issued on 22-11-1948, a temporary permit valid up to 31-3-1949, authorising the Association to extract twenty thousand tons of limestone, and says that it was this permit which was meant by the phrase \"temporary mining lease\" in the agreement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 169,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 211,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter on 12/12/2006 notices under Section 76B of NMC Act came to be issued and the same were replied to on 26/12/2006.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 24,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 61,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 122,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In my view, the owner cannot in this background claim any procedural immunity.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This Court in the first instance proposes to set out the versions of the events leading up to Vinod Kumar\u201fs death as narrated in the counter affidavit of the Tihar Jail authorities (Respondent No.2) and the Delhi Police (Respondent No.3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 107,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 180,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 219,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, even while not making the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act applicable to such a gift towards Pasupukunkuma, the law appears to be that even where there is a registered deed by a donor, there cannot be any proof of acceptance by the donee and the acceptance must be proved as a independent fact (Item 358 at pages 476 and 477 of Mulla's Hindu Law 15th Edn.).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 79,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 349,
"end": 354,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in judgment dated 22.03.2014, case titled \"Mohd Husnain & Ors Vs. Jagram Meena & Ors. MAC APP 152/2014\" have dealt with this issue in detail and mandated that in case of death, multiplier is to be taken on the basis of age of the deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 33,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 136,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Looking into all the facts and the documents, the income of the deceased for calculating the loss of dependency is taken as Rs.7254/\u00ad per month.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Though the doctor who treated PW.21 at Gandhi Hospital stated that PW.21 was unconscious on 21.07.2009, but PW.20 claims to have examined PW.21 on 22.07.2009.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 102,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 157,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The fifth respondent, P.Achuthan Nair, is a founder member of the Committee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 37,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The charge only u/s. 120B IPC was not framed, but charges offence punishable u/s. 302, 364, 342, 201, 109 IPC alongwith offence u/s. 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act were also framed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 25,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 26,
"end": 29,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 105,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 109,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 134,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 161,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Harichand Defence Witness 2 and Hussain Defence Witness 3 who were then lascars have also stated that many a time they were allowed to make issues themselves.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 39,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "01.08.2002 27,75,000.00 00.13 7. 01.08.2002 6,00,00,000.00 00.13 (l)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 43,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is therefore apparent that the precise question that was before the Constitution Bench was as to whether a consent memo could be said to be information conveyed to an accused as to his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 210,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 226,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "34. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immovable property from year to year or exceeding one year can only be by a registered instrument.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 47,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That these respondents, have been arrayed as accused persons in Crime No. 340/12 of Police Station Suatala for the offence under Sections 302, 304 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. on false allegations and present public interest litigation has also been filed on false pretext.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 106,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 146,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 167,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 177,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Fletcher's case [See on appeal Fletcher v. Autoear Transporters Ltd. 1969 ACJ 99 (CA, England)] the trial judge Cantley, J. considered each bead of general damages separately, namely, the past loss of the plaintiff upto date of trial, his future expenses due to his injuries, his future loss of earnings, and his pain and suffering and loss of amenities.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 122,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It appears from exhibit 2 that the market rate of Balrampur shares varied between Rs. 5.37 nP. and Rs. 6.70 nP. per share between October 25 and 31, 1957.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 153,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi FIR NO. 298/07 Prosecution evidence :-\n 4.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge Jyoti S.A. No.157/2015* 05.08.2015 Shri Vishal Baheti, learned Counsel for the appellant. \n\n Shri RR Chandrawade, learned Counsel for the LRs. of respondent No.1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 22,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 83,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 142,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accountable person will pay the costs of Estate Duty Reference No. 2 of 1970 to the Controller of Estate Duty and, so far as Estate Duty Reference No. 4 of 1970 is concerned, there will be no order as to costs.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n\n(i) Same as (i) in column (2). \n(ii) Assessment can be reopened only if the income which has escaped assessment is Rs. 50,000 or more for that year, \n\n (iii) Assessment can be reopened only with the approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner,\n \n\n(i) Same as (i) in column (2).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Even, Tarlok Singh, accused (since acquitted), relied upon DC, copy of his statement as a witness, made in the Court of Sub-Judge, Patti, in civil suit No. 170/86, decided on 12.11.2008, and exhibit DD and DE, copies of the judgement and decree-sheet of the civil suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 136,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 162,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 185,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In defence, the accused examined DW1 Puran Singh son of Ghamanda Singh, who deposed that Karam Singh has two sons.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 48,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 70,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 100,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The applicant, Narsinhbhai, also was examined at Ex. 13 and his evidence also related to that point.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article of 136 of the Constitution of India, the Insurer was asked to pay and recover, as the Claimants were very poor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 61,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 90,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When both the provisions are thus unfettered, they have to be harmonised so that there may be no conflict between them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "They have put the Ministers, the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the Parliamentary Secretary on the same terms and conditions as are applicable to the highest category of servants employed in the Government of Tamil Nadu.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 196,
"end": 220,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Subsequent to the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.224 of 1974, the 2nd plaintiff S.V.Matha Prasad has filed E.P.No.48 of 1997 before this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 62,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 84,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 120,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 148,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the question of jurisdiction Mr. Banerjee submitted that the evidence on the record establishes the factum of entrustment within the jurisdiction of the court of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta and even if no conversion could be proved within the said jurisdiction, it will not render the ultimate proceedings taking place there under Section 406 I. P. C. to be bad and without jurisdiction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 44,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 214,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 356,
"end": 367,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 376,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As Crawford observes in his Statutory Construction (3rd Edn., p.267):\n \"..... If these details could not be inserted by implication, the drafting of legislation would be an interminable process and the legislative intent would likely be defeated by a most insignificant omission.\" \n\nW.A.428/2008 & connected cases 25 20.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Company Secretary Shri Pankaj Dubey, was responsible for ensuring the legal compliance of Board Minutes, yet no proceeding was initiated against him by the prosecution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the result we find that these petitions filed against the acquisition proceedings for implementation of scheme No. 94 framed by the Indore Development Authority and challenging the framing of the scheme No. 94 are without any force and must fail.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 135,
"end": 163,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The contention of the Revenue that the judgement of hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd., stands overruled by the judgement of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govinda Chowdhary & Sons, 203 ITR 881 is without force and therefore, cannot be accepted for the reasons given hereafter.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 77,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 126,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 186,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 239,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, in view of the law discussed herein\u00adabove, even the evidence brought on record by this witness is of no use for the prosecution.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In order to prevent Veerappan and his gang from committing atrocities and to nab them, the operation Vanamalai was launched in 1990, jointly by the Governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 29,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 187,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This writ petition appears to have been drafted on February 11, 2004 and on its filing, carne up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on February 13, 2004 when, while issuing notice to the State of Punjab, a direction was issued that \"any action taken shall be subject to the result of this writ petition\". \n\n4. Civil Writ Petition No. 3348 of 2004 (Ravdip Singh Atwal-Petitioner)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 68,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 167,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 217,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 361,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 381,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words between Shri Vaidya and his mother they fully owned the firm Anand Traders and the two together held the controlling interest of 60% in Diamond.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 89,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This AP-1 and AP-2 Mithu Bawa and Bachibai have faced similar proceedings earlier and as mentioned earlier, properties owned or occupied or enjoyed by them have been forfeited.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 42,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the provisions of the said Rule are in pari materia with the provisions of order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we way refer to some of the decided cases relating to Order 41, Rule 27(1)(b) C.P.C. in order to appreciate the nature of the power conferred under Rule 29 upon the Tribunal, in so far as the first two categories of cases are concerned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 129,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 208,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 215,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 286,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The provisions made under sub-section (5) of Section 196 of the Panchayat Raj Act speaks of merely an alternative staffing pattern for the Zilla Panchayats which is required to be resorted to by the State Government as and when the situation so warrants.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 56,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 81,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 155,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Civil Revision No. 239 of 1977, Pyarsingh v. Dhansingh dated 4-10-1979, annotated in M.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. Heeralal Ochhelal and Ors., 1980 MPLJ (SN) 14 it was held that the remedy of the co-heirs is not by an application but is by a suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 33,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 57,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 73,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 159,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since Gulati J., with whom C. S. P. Singh J., agrees, has come to a conclusion that the present case is governed by Section 188 of the Income-tax Act, he has not gone into the question whether while proceeding to assess an erstwhile firm in the hands of the reconstituted firm, the income of both the firms has to be clubbed together in one assessment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 12,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 127,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 149,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That law remains unrepealed but during the continuance of the Order made under Section 3 it does not operate in that field for the time being.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 88,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "His view on the person, therefore, acquires considerable weight to help the District Magistrate in preparing the panel.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The police officer informed the appellant before the Apex Court that he intended to search the gunny bags as he suspected some incriminating article in the said gunny bags.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The deceased Izzard was employed at the time of the fatal accident by Industrial Builders Ltd., which were engaged in building operations at Coventry.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 94,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 149,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Elaborate reason and rationale need not be attempted behind these two provisions made by the Parliament.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 103,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No. 166, dated 17-2-1955, that he had expunged Sawaiyatand and Lat from the mining licence, because the Additional Collector of Gaya had reported that the lease in respect of these two villages was not valid and had not been recognised under the Bihar Land Reforms Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 24,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 132,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 268,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Particular reliance was placed on Shalimar Paint Colour and Varnish Co. Ltd v. Chief Secy. to Govt. of Travancore Cochin, ILR (1954) Trav-Co 453 : AIR 1955 NUC (Trav-Co) 4125 holding that if the State has not authorised its agent then the State cannot possibly be bound therefor.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 174,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is evident from paragraph 31 of Nicolletta Rohtagi's case (Supra) that the Apex Court held that unless the conditions precedent specified under Section 170 of the Act are satisfied, an insurance company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 53,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 158,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reliance was placed on the case of CIT v. Manjuskree Plantations Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 69,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That the assailment of the respondents-writ petitioners was delayed in the face of time limit of 60 days as referred to in the advertisement, was also asserted.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If is, therefore, obvious that sub-section (4) of Sec. 49 controls the action of the Board in fixing tariff under sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 49 and it has no application where uniform tariffs are fixed under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Sec. 49.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 57,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 137,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 237,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We may however add that if thereafter, any fresh facts came to light after an approval was granted by AICTE of if the State felt that some conditions attached to the permission and required by AICTE to be complied with, were not complied with, then the State Government could always write to AICTE, to enable the latter to take appropriate action.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 107,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 198,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 292,
"end": 297,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this connection, we may notice with advantage the decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Subramania Iyer v. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1955] 2 M.L.J. 405 ; [1955] 28 I.T.R. 352 (Mad.).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 215,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also threatened to go on hunger strike before the Supreme Court with effect from 25-9-1996.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 66,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 93,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The revision under section 25B (8) cannot be regarded as a first appeal and nor can it be as restricted as the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 34,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 152,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 156,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused in her above statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. has even not cleared as to who had booked her above flight ticket or tickets of her journey from Vietnam to India and India to Vietnam, Via Hyderabad and Bangkok, as is clear from the oral testimony and the records produced by PW14 Sh Nand Kishore Pandey of the Thai Airways.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 155,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 164,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 174,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 185,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 200,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 212,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 305,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 325,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since under the scheme of auditing, the checking of the accounts is both an important and an integral part, although the manner of checking may vary in degrees in individual cases, the persons who do the checking of the accounts also contribute to the making of the report.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In State v. Ratan Lal Arora it was held that where in a case the decision has been rendered without reference to statutory bars, the same cannot have any precedent value and shall have to be treated as having been rendered per incuriam.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 27,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the petitioner did not receive any pecuniary advantage for himself nor obtained any money or valuable thing for others.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Provision for validation of the tax collected also suffers from the same vice as the old Act which was held to be violative of Articles 301/304 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 143,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 163,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "the point that arose for decision was as follows: \n \"Whether after rejecting the application for permission to sue as a pauper, can the Court by a separate and subsequent order allow the appli- cant to pay the requisite court-fee under Section 149, Civil P. C., and treat the application as a plaint?\" \n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 237,
"end": 248,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 261,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As per record, arguments on application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was heard on 20-12-2012 and the case was adjourned for passing order on this application for 15-1-2013.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 71,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 95,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 174,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, at this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of paragraphs 11 and 19 of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Rai and others (2006 (4) SCC 250.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 158,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Rules of 1999 repealed by the Rules of 2014 w.e.f. 24 th December, 2014, therefore, from 03.04.2014 till 24th December, 2014, the Rules of 1999 were in force and under the Rules of 1999 the petitioners got registered themselves as Coloniser under Section 61-B of the Adhiniyam, 1993 and the certificate was issued on 10.12.2013 by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Sanwer who was the Competent Authority.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 75,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 103,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 128,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 263,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 331,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This item comprises of extent of 7.32 acres osdry land in Survey No.401/1 of Villupu-ram Town.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 93,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The request for permission to raise this ground was not opposed by the learned Government Pleader and we have permitted the appellant to urge it. \n\nSimilar request was also granted in A. S. Nos. 281 of 1951 and 295, 296, 993 and 994 of 1952 : (AIR 1958 Andh Pra 670) in this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 184,
"end": 240,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 266,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also relevant to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in H.S.E.B. and Others v. Ram Nath and Others reported in (2004) 5 SCC 793.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 67,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 142,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Inspector Sajjan Singh directed PW6 and HC Rajesh to be in police uniform while Ct. Anil and HC Sandeep were directed to remain on their motorcycle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is his say that after the death of his \"brother Sankalchand he was going regularly to his brother's shop and after closing the shop at about 6 p.m. he went to a urinal near Pakshi Bhuvan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is relevant to refer to the approach made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manchegowda to prevent violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution by saving certain transfers, by construing Section 4 of the Act as not to have the effect of rendering void the title of any transferee which was not voidable at the date of the commencement of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 88,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 154,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 207,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, if a counter-claim is set up in the written statement and no Court fee is paid, it is as good as filing a plaint without a Court fee.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Case No. 79/10/1999- 2000 refers to a letter dated 17.5.1999 written to the Commission by Dr. D.M. Chandrashekar, the retired Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court drawing Its attention to allegations of rape and atrocities In the area of Male Mahadeswara Hills by elements of the Special Task Force of Karnataka as reported In Deccan Herald of 12.5.1999.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 25,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 112,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 163,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 312,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 341,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 354,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": " In this context reference can be made to a decision rendered by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in M.Krishnammal Vs. T. Balasubramania Pillai, (AIR 1937 Madras 937), when a person, who was the power of attorney holder of another, claimed right of audience in the High Court on behalf of his principal. ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 102,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 179,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was not controverted that proposition denying the liability because victim was a gratuitous passenger, was not advanced before the Tribunal.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The case of no returns stand on a different footing than that of incomplete and incorrect returns.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the present case; one way of looking at the matter is to treat the inspection and approval by the D.G.I., S.D., London, as amounting to appropriation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 121,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Gauhati High Court also considered this very question, in the case of J.L. Roy v. Amritlal Dey (1980) 1 FAC 30 : 1980 Cri LJ 24.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 22,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 131,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The court is also permitted to adopt its own procedure as the court thinks fit in arriving at settlements.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Upon the aforesaid amount being deposited, the State Bank of India, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi, is directed to keep the awarded amount in the \"fixed deposit / saving account'' in the following manner:\u00ad\n\n (i) The interest on the fixed deposit be paid to the petitioners / claimants by Automatic Credit of interest of their saving bank accounts with State Bank of India, Saket Court Branch, New Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 66,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 98,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 371,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 402,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said Government order was issued exercising powers under Rule 23 whereby the State Government decided to revert back to chapter IV and grant leases only by way of auction.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 134,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Maharaja of Baroda changed his mind and the assessee made the advance contemplated by the agreement of 17th June, 1950, out of his own funds and resources.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 22,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 122,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "wherein the learned Judge agreeing with Padmini Jesudurai, J in Bharat Overseas Bank's case came to hold that money in bank account is `property' within the meaning of Section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which could be seized by prohibiting order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 57,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 84,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 179,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 210,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In judgement titled Geeta Vs. Bal Govind Rohtgi (Supra) relied by learned counsel for respondent no. 1 to 6 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Valmiki J. Mehta, Judge Delhi High Court has referred to section 53A of Transfer of Property Act and observed that documents in the case are prior to the amendment 48 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2011.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 47,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 144,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 168,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 196,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 224,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 302,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 320,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation Vs Kylasnath Kothari and others [1997 (7) SCC 43]:[1997 KHC 1048], the Hon'ble Supreme court held that the expression `owner' must include a person who is in the actual possession or control of and under whose directions and commands the driver is obliged to operate the vehicle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 105,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 132,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner has indicated in the tender that sales tax is extra whatever and wherever payable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Since the Sub-Inspector of Police himself was in conspiracy, the act in not providing adequate security at the jail cannot be treated to be an act or omission in pursuance of a statutory duty, namely, Rule 48 of the Madras Prison Rules, referred to by the High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 201,
"end": 208,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 235,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In our view, the incremental contribution can be regarded as one kind of fee for obtaining such services and cannot be characterized as a tax as we have discussed various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this behalf.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 196,
"end": 209,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He immediately visited the place of incident and found that Nayana had hanged herself inside the house from the ventilator.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 66,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A poster photograph of Diana (Ext. 1) was got prepared by Alen Jack Routley and he had delivered it to him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 28,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, in this case a decision of Chagla, CJ and Gajendragadkar, J. in Rex v. Gokulchand Dwarka Das Morarkaa was examined whether the Hon'ble Judges had not admitted the statement of the police officer that in consequence of certain statement of the police officer that in consequence of certain statements by the accused 1 and 2, he had discovered some relevant material.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 110,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since she had seen almirah of the house lying open and the ornaments missing, she could give information about those ornaments.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The aforesaid means that it is the whole and from the whole, the whole is begotten and if one takes the whole away from the whole what remains is the whole.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The contention of the learned senior counsel was, that the learned Courts below wrongly distinguished the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in Kedar Das Mohta and others Vs. Nand Lal Poddar and others (supra) in holding, that the contract could be enforced even against the plaintiff, as the agreement to sell was executed on her behalf.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 146,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 207,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus each deposit in Court and a notice thereof to the landlord would imply a tender enabling the landlord to ask the tenant to Pav the rent directly.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Reference made by the AO as respect to cost of BCCC suit Nos. 3809 of 1978 and 3889 of 1982 was not justified.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 91,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Enercon (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Enercon GMBH & Anr. reported at 2014 (5) SCC 1 in Paragraph 90 the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the need for least intervention by Courts in arbitration matter in view of Section 5 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 81,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 123,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 219,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Again the rent for the period January to March, 2011 was sent through money order on dated 14.03.2011 which was also received back on 17.03.2011.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 101,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I find support in my above view in Bagalkot Cement Co, v. R.K. Pathun (supra), Workmen of D.T. Estate v. Their Management (supra) and Biswunath Das v. Ramesh Chandra (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 69,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 121,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 165,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is further supported by the fact that the petitioner had allegedly uttered the words that his life has been made miserable and therefore, he would not spare the complainant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 13/14.1.1999 passed by the District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar is quashed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 70,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore that case was covered by the provisions of Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the matter has also been dealt with by the apex Court in relation to Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 64,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 98,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 156,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 183,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 217,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The deposition of the brother Ram Swaroop (PW-2) is important because if the case of the appellant/defendant No.1 was correct that there was a partition in the year 1973 then, even Sh. Ram Swaroop would have got one of the properties, but Sh. Ram Swaroop who was having good relations with the appellant/defendant No.1, deposed that there was no partition in the year 1973.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 41,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 196,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 254,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1. By filing the present petition, petitioner is seeking eviction of respondent in respect of a shop at the ground floor forming part of property bearing no. 2088/9-F, Nai Basti, Main Road, Baljeet Nagar, New Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as suit premises) under section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act for non-payment of rent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 205,
"end": 214,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 320,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 331,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That it was further revealed during the investigation that as per the instructions of accused No.17, accused No.25 established contact over phone with accused No.24, and that accused No.25 introduced himself to accused No.24 as Nayeem by concealing his original name; that accused No.25 used to send FIC notes to accused No.24, who in turn circulated the same in Uttar Pradesh and Delhi in association with accused No.23.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 228,
"end": 234,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 376,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 386,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not only the prerogative and the power of the Criminal Court, but also enjoins duty on the Court to seek and arrive at the truth and do the justice.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was further submitted that while deciding upon the points and controversy, the Central Administrative Tribunal has erroneously recorded a finding that since the minimum required qualification for appointment to the post of Sr. Lecturer is not being awarded by most of the Medical Institutes/Colleges in the Country, the said qualification/degree was a nugatory.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 113,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She had went to Sakri, when she was studying in First Standard.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 21,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At the end of the complaint, the complainant has cited a number of witnesses including three advocates and three other witnesses i.e. her father P.W. 2 Anandrao Raghunath Sonawane, P.W. 3 Mohan Shankar Ahiwale and P.W. 4 Tukaram Dashrath Jagtap.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 152,
"end": 179,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 209,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 244,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If, however, the landlord in some manner signifies his intention of recognising the continuance of the tenancy, the character of possession changes, and the tenant censes to be a trespasser and becomes a tenant holding over, with the consequences laid down in Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 260,
"end": 271,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 303,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The jury unanimously found the appellant not guilty in respect of the charge of rape against the two girls Kutchnur and Arisha.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 115,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 126,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the hospital, Dr. J.S. Mehra, Medical Officer, CHC, Bawal, medico-legally examined Dharmender on 11.5.2005 and found that one lacerated wound was present on the left lateral aspect of temporal parietal skull bone.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 31,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 96,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 109,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 20th February, 1997, when the representative of the petitioner approached the respondent for recovery of the amount, the respondent had given statement of accounts (though unsigned) of the petitioner as appearing in its books of account where even after taking credit for Rs. 3,50,000 being adjustment against Sun Star Chemicals, the respondent was shown to be owing to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 12,89,608.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 22,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 331,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was further conceded that the law on the point of inadmissibility of un-registered documents may be taken to be the same as enunciated in Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 141,
"end": 151,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 182,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nFIR No. 139/08 13/26 and its white cloth sealing material Ex.PW32/Art.10 as from this video cassette he converted the same into CD marked as Copy of Ex.1 by FSL by him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 162,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In AIR 1939 FC 43 the facts were as follows: A Sub-Assistant Surgeon was charged under Section 409 I.P.C. with having dishonestly removed certain medicines from a hospital which was under his charge, to his own residence, and under Section 477-A with having failed to enter them in the stock book.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 17,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 98,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 105,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 245,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Kolah contends that the facts of the present case are identical with that case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The State of Haryana filed review petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above case and the same was dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 20,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 75,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this regard, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20084 of 2012 had relied on a clarification issued by the State Government, on 27.6.1987 (Ext.P12 in that case).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 58,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 133,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I am supported by an authority of this Court in Jethmal Himmatmal Jain & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra 1981 Cri.L.J.1813, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court was called upon to consider the provisions of sections 468 and 473 Cr.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 120,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 235,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 243,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n 4. If a plaintiff desires to withdraw unconditionally any suit, the Court cannot under Order 23 Rule 1 refuse his request and the plaintiff takes the consequences of such a withdrawal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 104,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, the Bench referred to the decisions in CIT v. Atul Jain, 299 ITR 383 (Del), Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. \n\nLtd (supra), Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. v. CIT, 223 CTR 269 (Del) and CIT v. Batra Bhatta Company, 174 Taxman 444 (Del) and eventually held thus: -\n\n \"9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 86,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 127,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 185,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 239,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n (viii) On the request of claimants/ petitioners, the Bank shall transfer the Savings Account to any other branch of State Bank of India, according to their convenience.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 138,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW.7 Mallappa Pujar is another witness who has stated that on 5.11.2008 at about 9.30 p.m. there was a quarrel going on between the accused and his wife.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 19,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Aggrieved by the said order, she filed an appeal in APNo.129 of 1995 on 18-5-1995 and by order dated 21-4-1998 the STAT granted permit subject to the permission of the Transport Comm issioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 68,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 81,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 110,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On reckoning the plus and minus factors of the acquired properties and the property covered by Ext.A2 as revealed by the commissioner's report and the unchallenged findings of the learned Subordinate Judge, we are of the view that the correct market value to be fixed for the acquired property as on the date of Section 4(1)notification in this case will be Rs.82,500/- per cent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 312,
"end": 336,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nAND S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5570/2012 Makkhan Lal Verma & Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 43,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There were multiple fractures of right sided ribs (R3 to R10).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After the arguments were heard in that writ petition and a batch of connected writ petitions, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of those cases by a judgment dated 27-1-1989 in W. P. No. 11161/86 etc. batch.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 169,
"end": 178,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 204,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "prove the motive and extra-judicial confession by accused Nos.1 to 4 and 15. \n\n27. Pw--12 Narayanasetty is the father of it \"Vijayendra (deceased) and he has deposed in his evidence about the motive that on 18.11.1995, Sujaya came in a scooter and told that Krishnegowda we -30\" \n\nis calling Vijayendra and Siddegowda and took them towards the house of Srinivas.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 103,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 135,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 217,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 225,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 270,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 292,
"end": 302,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 317,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 361,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In such a situation the person who is the recipient of the document, be it either a letter or a telegram, would be in a reasonable good position both with reference to his prior knowledge of the writing or the signature of the alleged sender limited though it may be, as",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Another decision relied upon by Mr. Tewari in support of his contention that a writ under Article 226 is not a civil proceeding is AIR 1963 SC 946.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 101,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 146,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of the largeness of the estimated undisclosed income, no separate addition was made on account of the unexplained investments.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Violation of clause (c) of Rule 67-A does not appear to have been alleged against the respondent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 36,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": " The VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, by his order dated 21.8.2010 in 2 S.C.1025/2010 C.C.No.33642/2010 has committed this case for trial to this Court under Section 302 and 309 of the IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 61,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 91,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 128,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 202,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 213,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The daughter-in-law, in these circumstances is entitled to protection from dispossession, though her husband never had any ownership rights in the premises.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It has been claimed by PW2 Sh. G.L. Khandelwal that property furnished as collateral was found to be fake and such fact has not been challenged by accused Bhajan Singh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 46,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 167,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "OPD (ii) Whether the present suit is barred under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 83,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 87,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(ii) The unfortunate Incident of alleged falling of a lamp post was caused by which proximate reason, could hardly be ascertained and there was no positive evidence of any lack of proper maintenance on the part of the respondent authority and in the absence of which, it would be very difficult to adjudicate the matter for fixing the liability for such an incident.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The owner of the vehicle and the insurance company are the appellants in the civil miscellaneous appeal arising out of M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 38 of 1988 on the file of the M.A.C.T., Vellore.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 146,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 183,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The panel of three persons was decided on the basis of votes secured by each of the persons proposed for inclusion in the panel.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the contrary an examination of issues relating to pre-primary education should necessarily focus on the developmental paradigm so that the cognitive, affective and psychomotor issues are comprehensively addressed in the context of education.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned advocate has argued that clubbing of the goods imported by the appellants under two Bills of Entry as done by the Collector was not proper.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Now we may consider the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of B. Renjith (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has dealt with the question of granting parity and equality to members of the Labour Judiciary in the matter of grant of pay scale at par with members of the State Judicial Services.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 72,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 98,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited case which was one arising out of an admiralty suit filed in the Bombay High Court, although, the provisions of section 86 were not noticed, the Supreme Court imposed certain conditions both on the State of Ukraine as well as the Captain of the vessel before allowing the ship to leave the harbour.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 35,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 158,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 194,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 250,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question in each case is one of determination of the real character of the transaction to be ascertained from the provisions of the deed viewed in the light of the surrounding circumstances.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Motorla has indicated that it is working on the developments of such an antenna.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "By the impugned order the petitioner- accused has been charged under the provisions of Section 306/448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the \u201eIPC\u201f).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 102,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 133,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 153,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The 'process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product' if is analysed, it could not be doubled that the manufactured product is vegetable product, i.e. vanaspati.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\n ---------------------------------------------\n3. Roop Chand had three sons, namely, Nanhe Lal, Radhe Lal and Sahib Lal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 95,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 106,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 120,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner/state has sought leave to appeal against the Judgment dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in S.C.No.36 of 2007 pertaining to FIR No.281/2007, under Sections 302 & 34 of Indian Penal Code, PS Ashok Vihar, titled as 'State v. Javed @ Sonu & Another' acquitting the respondents of the said charges.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 85,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 146,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 201,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 222,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 238,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 282,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The unit holder has no obligation in the scheme to enrol more members/unit holders.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Their lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the Act could not be rendered unconstitutional if the amendments in the provisions thereof (Sections 4, 6 and 8) as suggested by Supreme Court, are carried out within a reasonable period (March 31, 1987) so as to make the Administrative Tribunal constituted under it an equally efficacious and effective alternative to the High Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 36,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 164,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 194,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 254,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By agreements dated 28th December 1956 and 27th June 1957 the construction work of the new Church gate station building in Fort, Bombay was entrusted by the President of India acting for the Western Railway Administration to M/s S. N. Srikantia & Co. (Plaintiffs) on terms and conditions contained therein and as per the specifications, plans and drawing annexed thereto.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 38,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 57,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 127,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 135,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 175,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 221,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 250,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As a result, the cross-examination of the attesting witness, Mr. Vasant Farad, will be conducted first, followed by the cross- examination of the plaintiff.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 77,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n (M.K.Mudgal) Judge PG/-\n Cr.R. No. 2105 / 2012. \n\n30/10/2014.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 49,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 63,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n 2. Lacerated wound 5 cm x 4 cm size, was present at the left cubical fossa of left upper limb.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Defendants are in occupation of first floor of the suit property along with their children for the last many years.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Act, and particularly Part IV, is, therefore, a progressive and ameliorative measure, and should be preserved even though it may not be in force in other parts of Rajasthan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 33,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 176,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, Satya Ram, A.S.I. first went to General Hospital, Rohtak and found Prem Raj, Bedo and Bijender admitted there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 65,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 103,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the BDA they are all \"Stray Sites\" in terms of definition of Rule 2(J) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of sites) Rules, 1984.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 20,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 83,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 155,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Gaurav Chopra, learned counsel for the defendant, in reference to Section 124 of the Act, submits that in a suit for infringement of a trade mark, if the defendant pleads that the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark is invalid or vice-versa, and if before the institution of the suit, the IPAB was already seized of the rectification proceedings, the court shall have to stay the suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 81,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 304,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned trial Court framed charges against accused Farukh for the offence under Sections 302, 324/34, 307/34 and 342 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 120,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 124,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the 19/21 Industrial Constructions vs. BSES parties.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 124,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "That limitation does not, however, apply to cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on account, inter alia, of the failure of the assessed to disclose fully and truly all material facts.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The ratio of these judgments was applied in interpreting Sec. 33A(2) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 in Muthia Chettiar v. C.I.T., ILR 1951 Mad 815 with reference to a right of revision provided to an aggrieved assessee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 103,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 150,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Division bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54, has held that the accused can discharge the burden of presumption U/s 118 and U/s 139 of the NI Act by raising a probable defence on the strength of preponderance of probabilities.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 110,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 185,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 197,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 211,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was handed over by the Kadiyanallur Police to the Aralvoimozhi Police officials.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 45,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 72,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "22 PW16 Vipin Jain deposed that he joined the search party of CBI and he went with them to Naya Bazar Delhi from where some documents were seized and in his presence vide seizure memo (Ex. PW6/A) was prepared and same bears his signatures.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 65,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 107,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The entire evidence against the appellant finds mention in the statement Ex.PW-1/A of Sangeeta PW-1, which is the First Information given to the police on the basis of which the FIR has been registered, as also the endorsement Ex.PW-32/A made by Inspector Ram Chander PW-32 under the said statement, which was dispatched from the place of occurrence at 6:30 PM for the FIR to be registered. \n\n3.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 94,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 267,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In light of the aforesaid diverse arguments of both the parties, we are required to consider the issues raised before us.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel urge that the stipulation is unconstitutional as it offends the mandate of equality under Art.14 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 116,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 136,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Though the liability is created against the owner of a vehicle by virtue of the insurance cover, the insurer becomes liable to discharge that liability and, therefore, against improper determination of compensation it is the insurer who is a 'person aggrieved' within the meaning of the appeal provision.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this background, let us now see whether this section has any retrospective effect.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The main ingredients of the offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act are:\n (i) Drawing up of a cheque by the accused towards payment of an amount of money for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability (ii) Return of the cheque by the bank as unpaid.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 53,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 80,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "C G Khanna Vs. Rajinder Kumar 2010 (170) DLT 473. \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 48,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\n (b) It does not come out from the compromise petition, which accompanied the decree (Ext. O) of the earlier suit that Bai mokassa (Ext. F) was a farzi and sham transaction.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In terms of Entry 52 of List I and the declaration contemplated therein, the Parliament had enacted IDR Act, 1951.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 30,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 87,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 113,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the election petition came up for scrutiny before the Deputy Registar on 24-4-1972, Counsel for the election petitioner appeared and requested time to remove the defects pointed out by the office, including the filing of spare copies.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 87,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No power, drastic or otherwise, can be used by public authority in any arbitrary or unguided manner.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Reference must in this context be made to the decision in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 108,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In my opinion in view of the responsibility so cast upon the district authorities, the authorities of the Cooperative Department, the District Magistrate Patna High Court CWJC No.10728 of 2015 dt. 12-10-2015 27 and the Corporation they stand equally responsible for the grievance espoused through these writ petitions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 170,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 192,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 207,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was this incident which provoked his mother and family members culminating in his mother lodging Ext.P5 complaint before the Police.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The case of the complainant as per the complaint is that the complainant is a company duly registered under Section 25 of the Indian Companies Act and sponsored by the Government of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 118,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 146,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 187,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Lord Chancellor after referring to the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks v. W. & G. Du Cros Ltd., 1913 AC 624 and the Court of Appeal's judgment in the Liverpool Cable Case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 128,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 180,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Besides this, the prayer to dismiss the suit being barred by limitation is also made in the written statement.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this connection, learned Counsel relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in MAT 425 of 2015 (Satish Kumar Sharma-vs.-Union of India & Ors.)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 104,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 151,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The special summons to be issued under Sec. 206 (1) Cr.P.C. has been prescribed in Form No. 30 of the 2nd Schedule to the Cr.P.C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 51,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 59,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 114,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 129,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, the opponent No.4, insurance company placed much reliance upon the information given by the opponent No.5 Dipak Naran before Keshod police regarding the accident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 126,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 147,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW 1 Shri R. Parmashivam, authorized representative of the complainant has filed his affidavit for the purposes of evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 24,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n Therefore, the earlier decision in Tax Case No. 10 of 1968 will not operate as res judicata and estop this court from considering the true import of the transaction, whether the transfer of the house by the husband to the wife in lieu of dower debt was a gift or a sale, every year's assessment being based on a separate cause of action... \" \n 32.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 60,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The business of the firm was the manufacture of Mangalore tiles and this business was being carried on by the firm ever since its inception on 13th January, 1953.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 57,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 161,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Special appeal was filed thereagainst being DBSAW No.55/2001, which was decided on 8/7/2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 60,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 91,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In AIR 1995 SC 959 : 1995 Cri.L.J. 1461 Mangoo and Anr. v. State of M.P. this Court while dealing with the evidence of a child witness observed that there was always scope to tutor the child, however, it cannot alone be a ground to come to the conclusion that the child witness must have been tutored.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 72,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, in Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse Co., 1899 AC 143 at p. 157, the Earl of Halsbury explained its limitation in these words : \n \"Two propositions are quite clear, one that preamble may afford useful light as to what a statute intends to enact, and the other that if an enactment is itself clear and unambiguous, no preamble can qualify or cut down the enactment.\" \n\n ",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 62,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is useful to extract the observations made by the Division Bench, which would read as under:\n\n \"In the above state of evidence, we find no justification for the Tribunal to award a compensation of Rs.50,754.50 to the respondent herein.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As stated above the Tahsildar and the Shirastedar who were deeply influenced by the Jagalur Assembly MLA and interested in their own caste did not grant any certified copy of the relevant documents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 100,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In these circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. framed against the appellant and the impugned judgment dated 13.01.2011 passed by the trial Court in Sessions Case No.106 of 2008 is liable to be set aside.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 84,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 91,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 163,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 221,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "P.W. 6 Ganesh Singh, P.W. 7 Masudan Singh, P. W. 10 Mohanlal Chaudhuri and P. W. 12 Parmanand Mahato were four amongst those cartmen.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 19,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 70,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 100,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All that we have to keep in mind is to scrutinise the evidence in relation thereto with care and caution.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In such circumstances it was for the defendant to show as to how the notice was invalid.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "P.W.3 is examined to speak about Ex.A-3 sale deed dated 26-7-1985.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 65,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "provides that the tax payable under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, shall, in the case of a dealer whose total turnover for a year exceeds 10 lakhs of rupees, be increased by additional tax at the rate of 5 per cent.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 78,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The above situation brings to our mind what Justice Brandies of United States Supreme Court said way back in 1928.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The cross-examination of Sri Singh shows that at the relevant time he was new entrant in the civil service and was attached with the office of District Magistrate, Allahabad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 173,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The error or illegality in the present case is material for it affects the rights of the parties and is patent on the face of the record inasmuch as the Appellate Tribunal failed to apply its mind to it and the older of the Regional Transport Authority does not purport to be one of refusal On its were face.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "If the Appellant's product is classified under the schedule Entry C-14 then indirectly the sales tax on battery shall be @ 4%, whereas if a person purchases a battery separately he has to pay the sales tax @ 12.5%.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Before the Act was included in the Ninth Schedule, the Second paragraph of Clause (b) of the proviso was amended by the West Bengal Ordinance 4 of 1955.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 85,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 151,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Investigation into the crime in which charge sheet is filed started with Ext.P1(a) F.I.R registered at the Ambalavayal police station on 17/10/1995 on the basis of Ext.P1 complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased (PW1) who complained that his brother was missing.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 133,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 147,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The terms of contract of loan, which are embodied in the promissory note can be proved only by the production of the promissory note itself, according to Section 91 of the Evidence Act, which enacts the best evidence rule.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 154,
"end": 164,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 184,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This type of expenditure could at best be in the nature of advertisement but in view of the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of CIT vs. Allana Sons (P) Ltd. (1995) 216 ITR 690 (Bom) they cannot be deemed to be expenditure in the nature of advertisement in absence of any logo inscribed on the presentation items.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 109,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 189,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further, the finding in W.P.(C) No. 9445 of 2009 is in the context of a request by a third party for copy of answer paper of another candidate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 48,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW 4 Dr. B.P. Jain has proved the injury report Ex. P/4. \n22.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 18,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A reading of the evidence of PWs.4, 5, 7 and 12 read with the disclosure statement will conclusively prove that the accused purchased cyanide from PW7.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The question in Appeal No. 7 of 1954 is whether the provisions of the Alwar Act Section 15(a) and (b) and the provision regarding accruing of the right of pre-emption in the owners or patti under Clause (c) can be said to be reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 36,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 79,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 101,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 206,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Counsel has also cited another decision reported in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P., , to show that State actions in contractual matters can be reviewed under Article 14 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 100,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 186,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 206,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the Patna High Court CWJC No.10728 of 2015 dt. 12-10-2015 12 learned counsel, it is primarily due to laches on the part of the authorities of the State Food Corporation in not efficiently discharging their duty that even when the target for procurement of paddy was fixed at 30 lacs metric tons but the Corporation has lagged far behind primarily due to their obstructive approach.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 33,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 55,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 70,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n This suit also has not been disposed of under presumptions arising under the Negotiable Instruments Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 105,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Upon a close reading of the judgments in Dhingra's case, AIR 1958 SC 36 and Moti Ram's case, AIR 1964 SC 600 I have arrived at the definite conclusion that the view taken by the Supreme Court, vide majority judgments in both the cases, is that Article 311(2) would not be applicable to termination of service on the abolition of the post itself.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 71,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 84,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 108,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 191,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 258,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited, for determining whether the stage of the proceeding is in the realm of investigation or adjudication, also applied the test of maintainability of appeal thereagainst as provided in Section 53A(1) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 53,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 250,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n\nIt held that if the accused has ceased to hold that office by the date the Court is called upon to take cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by such public servant, no sanction under Section 6 would be necessary despite the fact that he may be holding other office on the relevant date which may make him a public servant as understood in Section 21.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 206,
"end": 215,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 372,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "What Section 13(1) of the Central General Clauses Act provides is that unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context a singular used in an Act would include the plural.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 18,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 26,
"end": 53,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In pursuance thereof, it was explained that a sum of Rs. 50,000 was paid by Smt. Vimlesh Aggarwal from the bank account No. 2128 in the Bank of Baroda which stood in the joint name of Smt. Vimlesh Aggarwal and Smt. Shashi Aggarwal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 97,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 150,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 205,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 230,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent UIT, in support of his arguments, relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sam Hiring Co. Vs. A.R. Bhujbal and Others (1996) 8 SCC 18 and Union of India Vs. K. Balaji Jaya Rama Rao and Others (2007) 15 SCC 791.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 45,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 120,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 182,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 258,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further OPW and D. Wren will be jointly and severally responsible to EIL for the order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 23,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 72,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, it is quite natural that the blood relatives would come to know about the cruelty or harassment, if any, meted out to the victim.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This instruction will come into effect from April 1, 2000.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 57,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is alleged that inspite of the receipt of these letters, no remedial measures to increase the service lanes and repair the existing road was initiated by NHAI.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 157,
"end": 161,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sir, Your notice dt. 20-9-1978 in No. 2 of 1978 issued under S. 4(l) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, with reference to the same, we wish to send the following reply.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 30,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 68,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 138,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This right exists even in the absence of a statutory obligation to disclose the reasons.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Xerox copies of certain Customs passed Bills of Entry for T.V. Picture Tubes and Plastic Moulded parts cleared under paragraph 186(9) have been produced and relied on by the writ petitioner in support of his contention.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Insurance Company further contended that in any event, if at all the heirs of Subramani are entitled to any compensation, the same will have to be paid only by the owner of the lorry.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 91,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such a case may overlap to some extent with the second part of the condition No. 1 above.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This observation is binding on the High Court yet the High Court strangely by way of self-contradiction has held that no offence is made out against the petitioner and thereby stonewalled the CBI probe.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 192,
"end": 195,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In that case, a final scheme published as approved by a duly authorised officer was quashed by the Rajasthan High Court in proceedings under Article 226 and the High Court sent back the matter to him for reconsideration.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 152,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent Brij Bihari Prasad Singh had filed Writ Petition No.1556/90 praying therein that he be given the same benefit as was given to the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No.563 of 1985.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 39,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 74,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 193,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Bail bonds of the appellant Ritesh s/o Santram Bahir are cancelled.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 34,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 52,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "With regard to certain observation in the decision giving impression otherwise, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P Ltd. 198-ITR-297 and contended that the observation of the Court has to be understood in the light of question before the Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 136,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 203,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[259 E; 260 A-D)]\n Salomon v.\t Salomon & Co. [1897",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Under the original agreement UIP was to publish directories every year for a period of five years from 1987 to 1991 for Delhi and Bombay separately and was to payan amount of Rs. 20.16 crores as royalty to the MTNL and to supply the MTNL directories free of cost with reference to the number of subscribers.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 32,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 125,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 136,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 214,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 237,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Here, I would like to quote paras No.7, 10 and 13 of the judgment dated 21.02.2011 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi rendered in RSA No.241/2008, titled as, \"Smt.Kamla Yadav & Anr. V/s Shri Sunil Kumar & Anr.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 82,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 113,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 141,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 205,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"Section 158-BD of the Act which clearly provides adequate flexibility to the assessing officer for recording the satisfaction note after the completion of proceedings in respect of the searched person under Section 158-BC",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 15,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 222,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned counsel contended that the respondent Jyotsana Sharda was unemployed at present, therefore, she must be granted interim maintenance and the Judicial Magistrate had fallen into an error by rejecting the prayer of Jyotsana Sharda for grant of interim maintenance and similarly the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon had also fallen into error by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and disposing of the same on merits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 65,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 239,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 333,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During his cross examination, he stated that he signed Ex.PW7/A at Hindu Rao Hospital.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 85,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The statement of informant Chhote Lal disclosed the Cr. A. No.635-DB of 2006 [5] commission of a case for the offences under Sections 148/149, 302 and 201 IPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 80,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 154,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 158,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pw8 Omwati is daughter of Jug Lal and Sarti Devi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 10,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 26,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 48,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was a case which he was unable to substantiate with reference to the documents already on record or produced from the custody of the CBI.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 139,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Accordingly, IA No.12854/2015 is hereby disposed off with a direction that it is allowed for the appellants No.2 to 4 relating to offence under Section 325 of IPC and in the result the appellants No.2 to 4 shall be acquitted from the charge of Section 325 of IPC in the light of the compromise, whereas the application of compromise is not accepted for the applicant No.1 Ashok.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 29,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 155,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 162,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 255,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 262,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 372,
"end": 377,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Once they are reduced to a minority with less than 25% of the shareholding or less than 15% of the equity share capital on a fully diluted basis, even the right of Veto conferred under Article 4.2(e) would go.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 199,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But the Anisminic case showed just the opposite when the House of Lords removed the lid and threw it away.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This is a general, salutary, and intelligible rule, and where a witness's reputation and character are at stake the duty of enforcing this rule would appear to be singularly clear.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "They took Tapan Chakraborty to Kalyanpur Hospital in a mobile police van.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 27,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 49,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If employees are hired and their services are rewarded by wages-whether on cottage industry or factory basis-the enterprises become industries, even if some kind of concession is shown and even if the motive and project may be to encourage and help Door families and find them employment.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "SBCMA NO. 2584 OF 2003 (CLAIM CASE NO.186/1995)\n\n52.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 22,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 46,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We must also remember that Vasudeva Rao's case decided prior to Kraipak's case, which itself made a significant departure in the application of principles of natural justice before administrative authorities, which to our mind has been further explained or extended in Mohinder Singh Gill's case by our Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 71,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 288,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 316,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Our attention has been drawn to several judgments which bar an application under Section 151 when an appeal lies.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 92,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the matter had stayed there, there would have been no difficulty in accepting the contention urged on behalf of Mr. S. K. Dhawan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He arranged the Ambulance for carrying P.W.2 to Patna.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 53,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The averments in the said application are as follows:-\n Appunni who was the husband of the first applicant and father of applicants 2 and 3 was employed as a worker with the 2nd opposite party namely M/s. Sivasakthi Engineering and Fabricators , Poolampara, Walayar in Palakkad District.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 63,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 265,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 286,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent no.4 Mohd. Hasnain, who was armed with a country made pistol, fired a shot on informant's father with intention to kill him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereby, the Corporation terminated the services of K.B.Jagan Mohan (the petitioner in W.P.No.7764 of 2006) and P.S.S.Ravi Kumar (the petitioner in W.P.No.7765 of 2006); and confirmed the earlier termination from service of P.Venkaiah (the petitioner in W.P.No.19505 of 2006) and B.Kishan (the petitioner in W.P.No.20387 of 2006).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 67,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 106,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 128,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 167,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 234,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 274,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 288,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 328,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In other words, even under Section 105, the standard of proof required to establish those circumstances is that of a prudent man as laid down in Section 3, Evidence Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 38,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 154,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 168,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Juvenile offender also disclosed that after stabbing Hardeep, they have kept the knife in a school at Sarojini Nagar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"It has, however, become imperative, in this connection to take notice of the fact that the qualifications prescribed and the procedure ad opted for recruitment of the Judges at the lowest rung are not uniform in all the States.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On the last mentioned date the complainant was certain about the entire book having been tampered with; but nothing appears to have been said about it, no challenge made, no protest entered until full five months passed when at last the silence was broken and the complaint was lodged on the 17th March, 1954.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 292,
"end": 308,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"The phrase 'loans, guarantees and other financial obligations' occurred in section 178 in Part VII ot the Government of India Act, 1935, and there cannot be any doubt that those expressions used ia that section did not refer to all and sundry pecuniary obligations of the State arising out of contracts of every description.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 87,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 99,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 136,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner who was an ex-gunner (driver) in the artiliary corps of the Indian Army and who was experienced in the driving, operation and maintenance of jeeps, trucks and heavy armoured vehicles was allowed to retire from the Army on compassionate grounds.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "State prohibition of such sales would take from the appellant the very rights in respect of importation that are conferred by the Constitution and laws of the United States.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 159,
"end": 172,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the condition of his brother was alarming, he was shifted to GB Hospital, Agartala from Kalyanpur hospital.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 85,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 109,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Municipal Commissioner has stated in his counter- affidavit in Writ Petitions 5068-79 of 1981 that the huts near the Western Express Highway, Vile Parle, Bombay, were constructed on an accessory road which is a part of the Highway itself.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 97,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 164,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "By reason of Act 44 of 2000 a proviso has been added.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 27,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "D-6 tried to run but the Accused got hold of him and killed him.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A personal hearing as required by law, was given by the Government on the 28th April, 1972.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 90,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6895/2012 Rajendra Kumar Mahar & Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 65,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In his evidence and Ex.P.7, P.W.8 has referred to about the said Swabs as 'Article No.5 to Article No.8'.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Admittedly, no such notice of attornment has been issued or served upon the respondent.\" \n\n 14) Petitioner Anil Kumar, as seen above, through his affidavit evidence Ex.PW1/A in this trial only asserted that tenanted premises had been let out by the earlier owner and petitioner purchased the suit property on 03.07.04 and thus became owner landlord of the property since then.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 117,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 317,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "((2006) 6 SCC 395), Union of India & ors. V/s S.Vinodh Kumar & ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 18,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 20,
"end": 45,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 60,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the first case, the Supreme Court observed that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, \"imposes a duty on the State Government to decide the act judicially in approving or modifying the scheme proposed by the Transport Undertaking\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 36,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 79,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He had not produced the notes of assessment prepared by him for assessing permanent disablement.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Point no.(1): Petitioner is a Nigerian national born on 2.2.1986.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 64,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To explain the excess deposit and the purchase of the car the accused 1 stated that he bad brought with him Rs. 3,000 when he came to Ernakulam to join the Coir Board.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 143,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said view of the Apex Court is also followed by this Court in the case of Shaheed Ahmed vs. Shankaranarayan Bhat and another reported in ILR 2008 Kar. 3277. \n\n 32.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 31,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 159,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the referring order Katju, C.J. (as he then was) speaking for the Bench has observed that there can be two kinds of co-operative societies - one which can be regarded as an instrumentality of the \u0011State\u0012 within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and the other which is not an instrumentality of the \u0011State\u0012 within the scope of Article 12 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 28,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 239,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 259,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 352,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 372,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "the Union Public Service Commission would act as a selection committee which would empanel three officers amongst the senior most officers of the department of the same rank.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 35,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "it in the absence of any such allegation in Ex.P.1 regard to demand and acceptance of dowry by the \ufb01 State Vs. Tej Kumar @ Tinku 9.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 2,
"end": 29,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Full Bench observed :\n\"The learned counsel only pointed out that by reason of fact that other co-accused had been admitted to bail the applicant should also be granted bail.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was observed by the Tribunal that silicones include resins, elastomers and fluids; and fluids in turn include oil.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This decision is an authority for the proposition that no one has a fundamental right to be employed as a Government servant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The second part is the general rule and the first part is an exception.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "So far as this agent is concerned, whether the assessment is levied or whether exemption is granted, his liability 'vis-avis' the principal is not in any way affected and a safeguard is provided in his retaining moneys in his hands to reimburse himself of the assessment paid out to the Government, His business is to pay up leaving it open to the affected nonresident principal to claim exemption and refund.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Satya Nand Singh's case (1967 BLJR 439), Narasimham, C.J. and A.B. N. Sinha, J. followed the earlier two Bench decisions of this Court, namely, these reported in ILR 30 Pat 1257 = (AIR 1952 Pat 158) and (1959) ILR 38 Pat 95.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 19,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 54,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 78,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 201,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 226,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This could be true in respect of Mangalsutra, Bichchiya and locket also.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(ALOK VERMA) Judge manju M.Cr.C.No.3139/2014 25/07/2014 Shri Praveen Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 11,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 44,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 55,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 75,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the first two cases, what Vaidialingam, J . did was to merely follow the pronouncement of the Madras Case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 103,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "3.33 PW17 Bijay Kumar Batra from State Bank of India, Angul Branch, Orissa proved account opening form of account no. 30771239775 of accused Dhurba Charan Sahu as Ex.PW17/A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 27,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 52,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 74,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 159,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This was received under the cover of a letter dated 03.07.2011 [Ex.P17] signed by Col.L.Sekar [P.W.32] addressed to the Police.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 93,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly, the first petitioner in O. P. No. 249 of 1982 secured 368 marks as per the original mark-list but has secured 415 marks as per the fake mark-list; the difference is only 17 marks.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 56,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At this stage it will be profitable to notice some cases which have bearing on the point before me.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan AIR 1999 SC 3762, it was held by the Apex court that: \n23.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 58,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to the Society, if the lawful heir of Raj Mohni by virtue of the will executed in its favour and, as such, the Society had the locus standi to file the suit which is neither barred under Order 2. Rule 2, CPC, nor under Section 11 CPC.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 57,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 212,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 217,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 239,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 243,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "19 In Criminal Appeal No. 2302 of 2010 titled as Gian Chand & Ors.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 38,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But then even there the case which the plaintiff has made is not for any specific performance of the agreement for the stamping: in other words, that is not the case which the plaintiff has made in the plaint.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The petitioner in W.P.No.15821 of 2008 was never considered for appointment under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme either through Employment Exchange sponsorship or by Outsourcing Agencies.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 38,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 128,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On his agreeing, he was trained and was sent to Bombay with one Mohammad who was to introduce him to Mohideen and Rahim who were supposed to entrust him with the diamonds, etc., to be carried to Hongkong.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 54,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 72,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 109,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 119,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 203,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab it was held:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 45,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the present case, the appellant is the recipient of the right to use the software.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As has been pointed out earlier, the Central Act has been enacted by the Parliament under Entry 66 of the List I to coordinate and determine the standards of technical institutions as well a.-. under Entry 25 of List 111.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 83,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 112,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 220,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "the Magistrate has, for strange and reasons, disbelieved the evidence of PWS.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The core question, therefore, is whether the mere substitution of Section 319 in place of the corresponding provisions of Section 351 of the old Code was expressly intended to, and has the effect of, sweeping away and overriding the solitary principle enshrined in Raghubans Dubey's case (1967 Cri LJ 1081) (SC).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 77,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 133,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 280,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 311,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reference was made to the case of Sabhajit Tewary (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The nature and extent of the tests which the auditors apply will vary according to the strength and weakness of the system of the internal control and the nature of the internal checks which exists.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Both parties agree that Section 12 is the charging section and it requires very careful consideration.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 34,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Narayan Ratan v. India Mill Stores 1977 RCR, it was held by Hon'ble M.P. High Court that: \n \"the question whether there is unlawful subletting is, in most cases, a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts of each cases.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 46,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 86,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(3) PFI firm is validly constituted and registered under Indian Partnership Act, 1932.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 85,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Parliament would not be competent to legislate is Order to create monopolies in the Union Government in respect of any commercial or trading venture even though such a power is also reserved to the Union under Article 298 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 210,
"end": 221,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 241,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Biswas, J in Kamalakant's Case, 41 Cal WN 1112, expressed the view that if effect was given to the observations of Lort-Williams, J., in Abdul Khan v. Emperor, 39 Cal WN 677.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 13,
"end": 23,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 128,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 173,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In order to properly appreciate that case, it is necessary first to have a look at Sri Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India and State of Bihar [1952] S.C.R. 89 and Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [1965] 1 S.C.R. 933. \n\n17.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 129,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 165,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 224,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But, there is no dispute that the Central Government has constituted the Special Court, SPE/CBI-I, Kochi as the Special Court under Sec. 11 of the N.I.A. Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 52,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 104,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 139,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 157,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 11-4-1989, the 4th respondent Union served a strike notice setting out a Charter of Demands, which, however, did not include the demand for payment of HRA on the notional merger basis for the period from 1-7-1986 to 31-3-1989.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 215,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 228,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Still aggrieved, the appellant moved a revision application before the High Court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We may also note here, that, when the petitioner was ousted from the company, he seems to have taken away with him some of the documents belonging to the company, which he had no right to possess.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Now as the learned Civil Judge had not chosen to take any action while dismissing the suit, for fabricating such evidence in the form of a cheque produced by the party-plaintiff, under Section 479A of the Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Sessions Judge found that no proceedings can now be taken in respect thereof by the complainant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 185,
"end": 197,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 228,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Its manufacture, sale etc., is regulated by the DandC Act and DandC Rules.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 57,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 73,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Trial court has committed error of law and facts in not appreciating the fact that the sale deed, which the respondent no.1 relied upon is pertaining to the different plots than the suit plot.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Before considering the validity of the regulation on the ground of unreasonable restriction, it is profitable to refer to an instructive approach adopted by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court consisting of Chagla, C. J. and Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) in State of Bombay v. Heman Santlal, observed (at p. 18): \n \"... .... ...",
"entities": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 198,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 219,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 245,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 302,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The question here is not whether respondent Sanyal is a party to the dispute.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 50,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is further contended that Madan Lal Sethi had also not lodged any first information report with the Inspector-General of Police on 10-12-1958, but it was handed over to the Additional Inspector-General of Police sometime between 13th and 22nd December 1958, which was registered on 23-12-1958.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 44,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 259,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 295,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case for instance, since the publication about a year, the period of limitation, was about to expire before the suit was filed and the solicitor's letter of demand was given only on the 16th August 1965 when the publication was on the 3rd November 1964 and one cannot therefore describe the solicitor's letter, in such facts and circumstances, as a hasty step.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 194,
"end": 210,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 260,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him, which he can only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges proved against the government servant tentatively proposes to inflict one of the three punishments and communicates the same to the government servant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Accused were charged under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 25 of the Arms Act to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 42,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 67,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 90,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(3) Can Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act be attracted to the facts of the present case even if it is held that Section 304B, IPC. would not be attracted?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 20,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 47,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 130,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 135,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is alleged that on 01.01.2006, he has further executed a lease deed with Andhra Bank for the aforesaid premises for three years from 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2008 and further executed a lease deed dt. 18.09.2009 with the Andhra Bank effected from 01.01.2009 for a period of 9 years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 32,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 87,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 146,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 160,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 209,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 230,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 255,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He had not brought the record of the year 2003 of Mobile No.98153- 37741.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The consignor was found to be fictitious and the contents of the consignment is alleged to be 6 kgs.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Trial Court has passed the judgment after due application of judicial mind in the pleadings as well as in the evidence on record.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Reference can be made to a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Arunesh Punetha Vs. Boston Scientific Corporation (CS(OS) 951/2004) decided on 25th August, 2005, where the Court after considering the various judgments of the Supreme Court held, in relation to the above, as under:-\n \"The ambit and scope of Order VII Rule 11 has always been a subject of detailed discussion by the courts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 139,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 168,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 246,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 332,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whilst the case was in progress it was discovered that at the time when the contract was signed the company, Leopold Newborne (London) Ld., was not registered.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 138,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the petition he impleaded as respondents, Brahma Sarup, Ram Prashad Poddar and the appellant, Jagan Nath, but he omitted to implead, as required by section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Baijnath, one of the candidates, whose nomination had been accepted but who had withdrawn his candidature subsequently.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 57,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 107,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 161,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 207,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 217,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So, he contended that the impugned judgment of conviction dated 01.06.2005 and order of sentence dated 03.06.2005, may be upheld and affirmed, as these do not suffer from any illegality or impropriety.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 74,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 113,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The counsel for complainant has also argued that by not showing the loan in the income tax return would not give any advantage to the accused as it was held in Mr. Krishna P. Morajkar Vs. Mr. Joe Fervo and Ors. decided on 19.07.2013 Criminal appeal no. 6/2012 by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 209,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 232,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 259,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 291,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "According to Mr. Lahiri, the election could be challenged by any candidate at the election or any elector i. e. any member of the Council of Shebaits.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 23,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The law was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Shah Bano (supra) and was enforced without an element of disparity between the citizens of this country.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 65,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In support of that submission, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra [2007(4) KLT 463 (SC)].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 150,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Issue No.6: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under section 44, 45 & 50 of DRC Act?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 81,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 92,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under Art. 16 of the Constitution there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State or to promotion from one office to a higher office thereunder.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 13,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No private education institution can survive or subsist without recognition and/or affiliation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That letter, it was urged, made it abundantly clear that the final integration, after the consideration of the representation made by the aggrieved service personnel was one which the Central Government alone could make and that that view was reinforced by the preamble which was required to be prefixed to the final common gradation list.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 184,
"end": 202,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This contention was overruled and tax was levied for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1969-70.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But, in any event, she will have to explain the observation in the order dated 26-7-1997 in O.P. No. 104/96 that \"there was no evidence on behalf of the respondents that both parties filed a joint memo\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 107,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, in view of the principles contained in Order 9 Rules 8 and 9 CPC, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner should be precluded as a matter of public policy to urge the validity of G.O. Rt. No.2084 in these proceedings after having chosen to abandon and not prosecute the earlier writ petition where the validity of the said G.O. has been substantially and exclusively raised.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 69,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 73,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 221,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We called upon the petitioner to produce the deed under which he claimed tp be in possession of the mines and he did produce it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The credit facility provided to the members wherein interest has been earned is to the same members for whom these funds have been formed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Jit Singh, Malkhana In charge could have cleared this ambiguity with reference to the Register No.19 (Ex.PW8/B).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No one was examined as witness on behalf of other respondents, including respondents 2 and Sri Raja Amareshwar Naik.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 115,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the absence of an enquiry into the unfair means resorted to by the petitioners at the qualifying examinations taken by them the Syndicate cannot suspend the results under the proviso.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "All these circumstances create a doubt and the High Court has acquitted the accused Sukhbasi, Ram Sanehi and Ram Shanker giving them the benefit of such doubt.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 92,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 104,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 120,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Here again, no order was passed for enquiry by the C.B.I.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 57,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In this case, the accused was also subjected to medical examination and the result of the same formed an important piece of evidence, PW 4 Dr. R.K. Yadav had conducted medical examination of accused Bantu in the District Hospital Agra at 5.10.2003 at 2.10 A.M.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 153,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 204,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 234,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 247,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Per contra, Mr. Jayaprakash Narayanan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, contends that even though there are certain irregularities or omissions in the charges, that itself would not vitiate the conviction, as no prejudice was caused to the accused, as they were properly questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. with respect to the charges framed against them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 324,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 333,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A perusal of the FSL report Ex.PY as regards the .32 inch revolver, which was recovered in the case, it has been stated that chemical CRA No. D-1026-DB of 2011 and CRA No. D-1046-DB of 2011 and -42- Murder Reference No. 6 of 2011 examination of barrel wash of .32 inch revolver No. FG-2917 marked W/2 indicates that it had been used in firing.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 20,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 159,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 189,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain v. Pandey Ajay Bhushan 1998 (1) Rec Cri R 165 : 1998 (1) SCC 205 : 1998 Cri LJ 1242, a similar contention had been advanced by Mr. Sibbal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in that case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 116,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 170,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Recommendations of Medical Council of India to Central Government for issue of Letter of Intent 31st December 4. Issue of Letter of Intent by the Central Government 31st January 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 43,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 65,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 111,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 164,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 179,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Originally, this Act was enacted for the former Province of C.P. and Berar but subsequently, after the coming into force of the Constitution, it was extended to the State of Madhya Pradesh by M.P. Extension of Laws Act, 1958 and it was rechristened as M.P. Excise Act 1915.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 74,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 140,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 188,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 224,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 272,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On this aspect, I ignored him and I crossed him.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Hence, after change of definition of \"land\" as per Section 2(7) of W.B.L.R. Act, the non-agricultural land recorded in the R.S. Khanda Khatians as \"Akrishi Proja\" originated from \"Maliki\" or \"Madhyaswatwadhikari\" khatians now recorded as raiyat in W.B.L.R. Act shall be accounted for in calculation of the ceiling excess area of a family with effect from 15-2-71 as the amended Section 2(7) comes effective from 7-8-69.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 63,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 79,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 260,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 362,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 378,
"end": 390,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 412,
"end": 418,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "C.A. Nos. 404-405 of 1983 filed by Renusagar against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated October 21, 1983.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 25,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 44,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 186,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is stated that in C.A. No. 686 of 1982 the respondent has already been reinstated pursuant to the order dated 24.10.1983 passed by this Court, having regard to the fact that he has served since 1983, he shall be considered for confirmation with effect from his due date according to Rules, if he is not already confirmed by the Corporation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 41,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 123,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The last submission is that this being an arbitration agreement to refer a dispute to a foreign arbitral tribunal, s. 34 of the Arbitration Act would not be applicable and hence the application of the respondent for stay of the suit is not maintainable.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 115,
"end": 120,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 143,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court of Madras bad therefore no jurisdiction to issue\ta writ under article 226 of the Constitution against the Election Commission.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 25,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 92,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 112,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 146,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also significant that the areas in Kurnool District where the supporters of the present Chief Min- ister are having permits are not sought to be included in any of the three nationalisation schemes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 57,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under the scheme of the Arbitration Act, Section 8 occurs in Chap. II of which the heading is \"Arbitration without intervention of a Court\", while Section 20 falls in Chap. III of which the heading is \"Arbitration with the intervention of the Court where there is no suit pending\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 39,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 157,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There the learned Judge has referred to the evidence of Baleshwar Prasad (D. W. 5), scribe of one of the two sale deeds, and the evidence of Jamil Ahmad (D.W. 6) and Zaquir Ali (D. W. 7), the attesting witnesses to both the sale deeds.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 72,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 152,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 176,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appeal No. 566 of 1982 filed by the plaintiff is dismissed so also the appeal filed by the defendant No. 4 Nanhe Lal i.e. S.A. No. 12 of 1983 is dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 26,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 120,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 145,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But it has to be borne in mind that for 9 months the child has been staying with the father at Sakrepatna.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 105,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The prospectus laid down the criteria with regard to the selection of the candidates seeking admission in the various professional colleges in Kerala.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 149,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Each quarter in the mistry line consists of one living room, one store room and a small verandah which is used as a kitchen.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The true focus is functional and the decisive test is the nature of the activity with special emphasis on the employer-employee relations. \n\n (27). It has now been re-stated by the Supreme Court on a reference by constitution Bench that Bangalore water case, correctly lays down the contours of terms industry and does not call for reconsideration. \n\n (28).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 194,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 246,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For the purpose of the discussion of the question in the context of the relevant provisions of the Code, it is unnecessary to embark on any detailed or exhaustive examination of the circumstances and situations in which it could be predicated that a Court has the inherent jurisdiction which is saved by Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 304,
"end": 315,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 343,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She could not get the gradation certificate countersigned by the Director of Sports, Punjab, and so she was not considered for admission under reserved category for sports personnel.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 91,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Judge thereafter applied the doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' and directed the Corporation to reimburse the medical expenses of Rs. 30,000/- to Mrs. Pithawala within 30 days and recover the same from the concerned engineers, other staff and the Contractor who were responsible for the negligence in maintaining the concerned footpath/drain.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 160,
"end": 169,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He examined Pitta Raghuramreddy (P.W.6) and recorded his statement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These circumstances have to be borne in mind in approaching the problem.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "for R-3 to 6.\n\nCoram:\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 52,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The roster had neither been altered not was there any administrative order withdrawing Special Appeal 32 of 2014, as such it was not appropriate on the part of the office to have not sent the file to the Bench that had the roster assigned to it.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 112,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Both the provision have to be harmonized keeping in mind the fact that both are but the restatements of the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 143,
"end": 153,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The petitioner Sanwalram's case was decided under Chapter III-B of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Ceiling Law') and the proceedings were also taken against the petitioner Sanwalram under the Act and the Authorised Officer (Ceiling) Raisinghnagar",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 63,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 92,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 212,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 277,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I.P.C. P.S. Katghar ignoring the fact that he was not only refused bail but also his application for temporary ball was rejected by the Sessions Judge.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 19,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(iv) At the relevant time the accused-appellant was the registered owner of the vehicle in question.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Supreme Court in its decision in M/s. THERMAX LTD. v. K.M. JOHNY observed as under:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 17,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 68,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2001 [arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.2724-25/2000] filed by the State of Kerala are dismissed.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.\t OF 2001 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1522/2000)\nT.T.Antony\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t ... Appellant \t\t\tVersus State of Kerala & Ors.\t\t\t\t\t ... Respondents W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO.\t OF 2001 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8840/2000)",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 71,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 101,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 278,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 289,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 337,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, once an authorized agent was appointed as a tracer and a tracer's report was filed, which Appellant Rajesh Kohli had no means to find out to be false, no illegality or misconduct can be attributed in clearing the bill for payment of Rs. 2763/- in favour of M/s. Pooja International for preparing the tracer's report. \n\n28.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 118,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 287,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Therefore, if a corrupt practice is not alleged, the particulars cannot be supplied.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This rule is however subject to a well-recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Art. 309 which affects or impairs vested rights.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 251,
"end": 259,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "if\tsuch flexibility does not jeopardize Government or\t administra- tion, administration should be graceful enough\t to respond and acknowledge the flexibility of human mind and attitude.\n[1181BC, 1183C, B]\n1176 Air India etc. etc. v. Nergesh Meerza & Ors. etc. etc.,\n[1982] 1 S.C.R. 438, referred to.\n 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 219,
"end": 295,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He also argued that the Trade Unions Act is a special Act and the RTC Act only provides for establishment of Corporation by the Government.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 40,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 73,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "All the above appeals are filed by Coal India Limited, which is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and being the Government company, is a State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 53,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 114,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The crucial question before this Court is whether appellant demanded and/or accepted bribe from complainant Musharrat Ali (PW-5) for favouring him in the matter of assessment of sales tax on him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 121,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If the limited construction is adopted, then the Article would not cover cases of transfer or alienation by executor or trustee de son tort or by shebaits who though not having valid title were in possession of endowed property and effected alienation or transfer without any valid title.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But the boy had already succumbed to the injuries.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "One Yaseen Bi is the sister of the defendant-respondent Abdu Rasool.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 13,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Arun Kumar) Civil Judge(SW)/Dwarka Courts New Delhi/25.03.2014 Civil Suit No: 237/12 Sada Ram Kadian Vs Archit Raheja Civil Suit No: 442/13 25.03.2014",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 11,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 13,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 140,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 151,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sub-section (1) minus the proviso thereto reads as hereunder:\n \"1. Subject to the Limits of Liability the Company will indemnify the insured against all sums including claimant's cost and expenses which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of (i) death or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use (including the loading and/or unloading) of the Motor Vehicle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Santhan (A-2) knew that Sivarasan was a member of military wing of LTTE movement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 33,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I would, therefore, order that this application under Article 226 of the Constitution be remitted back to Sinha, J. For disposal, in the light of our decision on the questions mentioned above.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 65,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 85,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 111,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the case of Rt. Rev. Bishop S. K. Patro, this Court declared invalid the order passed by the educational authorities requiring the Secretary of the Church Missionary Society Higher Secondary School to take steps to constitute a managing committee in accordance with the order of the educational authorities.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 200,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At about 2.30 p.m., D-1 told P.W.-13 that they had met some friends from Delhi and hence P.W.-13 returned from there.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 78,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Our Constitution has to be necessarily understood as imposing affirmative obligations on all the organs of the State to protect the interests, welfare and security of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 172,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "WHERE THE DRIVER'S LICENCE IS FOUND TO BE FAKE : It may be true as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence but the question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be \"an appeal in disguise\".\" \n\n 23.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He had also referred to the letter Ex.PW12/A which was received from DCP West along with the list and copies of the FIRs registered against Jasbir Sansi, his wife Beena and one Devraj Diwan at P.S Uttam Nagar. \n\nC.C. No. 86/11 17 of 38 27.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 152,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 168,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 189,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 208,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 235,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "We find that a Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held in Haji Zakaria and Others v. Naoshir Cama and others (1) that the liability of the insured and consequently of the insurer to compensate a third party dying or being injured on account of the use of the insured vehicle is irrespective of whether the death, injury etc. has been caused by rash and negligent driving.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 53,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 120,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(2) I.L.R. 10 Lah. \n\n657. I.L.R. 59 Cal. 1226.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 45,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus the death was, in all probability, caused by the appellant in the exercise of his right of private defence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The testimony of Raju (PW 3) was rejected by stating that he was a child witness.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 21,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is in these circumstances that I am of the view that the accused ought to be given benefit of doubt.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": ".P.222 Cheque dated 02-04-2001 for Rs.25,00,000/- issued by M/s.Nandh Product Promoters Pvt.Ltd.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 96,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the principle in that case is attracted, we have followed that principle.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This was one of the factors that persuaded the Special Team to conclude that the allegation that the complainant had forged document on 14.2.2000 is a false one.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 145,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Shaji v State of Kerala and Others ( 2014 Crl L J 2029 ), a Division Bench of this Court after analysing numerous Apex Court Decisions had held as follows :\n\n [11].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 59,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During the pendency of that writ petition the Govt. of Gujarat issued an order under r. 115(2) of the Defence of India Rules, 1971, taking over the management of the undertaking with effect from November 19, 1972.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 62,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 130,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 212,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, the origin and genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution and appellants",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "[1968]\n1 S.C.R. 260; Dhulabhai and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another [1968] 3 S.C.R. 662 and Union of India v. A. V. Narasimhalu [1970] 2 S.C.R. 145. referred to.\n (2) In the present case it is clear that what\t the plaintiff, respondents\twanted to prevent was the threatened breach of their right\t which\tflowed\tfrom the agreement entered into between the derecognised union and the company.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 20,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 109,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 169,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The file was processed by V.K. Bhutani who was a Class-I officer and sanctioned by R.K. Kohli.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 93,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "17. Claim No.3 - LABOUR RENDERED IDLE BY THE Railway ADMINSITRATION - Rs.17,01,200/-",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Sri S. C. Chatterji (P. W. 3) was the Assistant Mains Engineer of the Company on those dates, and he has stated that on the 28th of November, 1952, in the afternoon, he advised his staff to report at the City Office for attendance at the usual hours.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 19,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 146,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is pertinent to note that if property is purchased in a public auction immediately after payment of full consideration within 30 days from the date of sale, purchaser is entitled to have an absolute sale deed from CITB.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 217,
"end": 221,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It also appears that for some years the, accounts of the Deccan Herald had not been separately kept as they should have been according to the respondent's case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 70,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Kekdiya (PW-7) in his statement has deposed that someone committed murder of Indersingh.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 7,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Again, though the counter-affidavit refers to the Kaka Kalelkar Commission's report, it does not state that the G. O. dated 20th Aug., 1977 is based on the findings reached by the said commission.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 74,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 139,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "social justice was held by three-judge Benches to be fundamental right approving the view taken in C.E.S.C. Ltd & Ors. V/s, Subhash Chandra Bose & Ors. [(1992) 1 SCC 441].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 170,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As a result Star filed a suit being Suit No. 6693 of 1982 in the Hon'ble City Civil Court at Bombay against Nazirali Ahmedbhai and others seeking declaration that Star was the owner of the said land by adverse possession.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 16,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 57,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 99,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 126,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 167,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The term regarding requirement of payment of such extra amount was conceived in secrecy and was indicated in secret code in the Kabalas.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Appeals filed by Subhash Chand Rai (A-2), having no merits, are dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since Shri Shanti Bhushan laid stress on these factors, viz. the satyagraha crisis created by the students, the obdurate, may be, even obscurantist, exclusiveness of other Universities forbidding Delhi graduates from getting admission in their colleges and the reasonableness of institutional continuity in educational pursuits for students who enter a university for higher studies",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 25,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 201,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "One Sri Gurdas Mal was the Deputy Superintendent of Police under the aforesaid Act and he filed a charge-sheet on 22-3-1958 under Sections 420, 467 and 471, I. P. C., in the Court of Sri Maharaj Singh in respect of offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant at Kanpur in connection with the aforesaid Corporation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 18,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 123,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 155,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 165,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 200,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 281,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The assessee further pointed out to entries of books of accounts where material, funds and labour of one unit were transferred to other to show interdependence of units on each other.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "As Laljibhai was not an eyewitness or a material witness, no adverse inference could have been drawn by the learned Judge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The assessee has repeatedly informed that freehold land at Andheri acquired at Rs. 6,268 and another leasehold land acquired for Rs. 19,03,800 were not lands in the vicinity of lands in question before us viz. CTS Nos. 1411/11, 1411/12 and unsurveyed unnumbered plot of land admeasuring 889 sq. mtrs.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 66,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 235,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the said judgment, the High Court only considered and dealt with the facts relating to the first stretch which was the subject matter of W.P. (C) No. 4769 of 2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 165,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondents have filed a detailed reply dealing with the incidents at IN a Market and also at Sarojini Nagar area.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "A return of income is not a mere scrap of paper.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "while dealing with the 'principles of gender equality' considering the India's commitment to the declaration made by the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing observed as under : \n \"The meaning and content of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all the facets of gender equality including prevention of sexual harassment or abuse.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 76,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 164,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 277,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Grave allegations of political corruption were made\tagainst\t him and others whereupon applications were filed in the High Court of\t Punjab\t and Haryana under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code,\npraying that the appellants be directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest on the aforesaid charges.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 161,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 180,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 213,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, the rules which define the term 'Commissioner' and authorise the Commissioner to do certain acts under those rules, are kept alive to the extent those rules are not inconsistent with the Act or repugnant to the provisions of the Act.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Some of those 15 also had injuries on their persons which appeared to be due to lathi charge at village Khabra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 110,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But, looking to the entire statement of Darshan Sing it appears and is evident that throughout the tenure of the meeting, the appellant was there and at about 4 or 5 p.m. Sardarilal PW 9 had entered initle meeting room and there he asked about identity of the appellant to which Darshan Singh has stated to have pointed out the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 52,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 181,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 292,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So, according to us, the suspicion maintained by the learned Sessions Judge about the disclosure statement, based on the above circumstances, is plainly untenable.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After completing the investigation the C.B.I. filed a charge-sheet No. R.C. 2 of 1971 in the Court of Special Magistrate, Ambala, against N. N. Malik and H. L. Mehra for alleged offences under Section 120-B read with Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 45,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 128,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 149,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 165,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 237,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 255,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "superintendence and direction of PW-1 Walter Davaram, the Chief of the JSTht PW-7 Shcznkar Bidri further stated that when he took charge on 13-2-1993.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 52,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 96,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 149,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While considering as to whether the assessee has been able to discharge his burden, the assessing officer should not begin with the presumption that he is guilty.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That was the second visit of Manju to her parents' house after marriage with the appellant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(See Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amending Act 27 of 1998.)",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The only evidence about this is P.W. 23 Upasrao, a water carrier.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 47,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was in the following terms: -\n \"I, the undersigned, do hereby dismiss Shri Khem Chand, sub-inspector, Co-operative Societies, Delhi, from the Government Service with effect from the date of this order.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 88,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 134,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not his say that Ex.46 does not bear his signature.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The import of woollen rags, synthetic rags and shoddy wool is allowed through two ports only viz. Bombay and Delhi ICD, although ICD at Sanganer has been settled with effect from 19th September, 1989.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 104,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 114,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 144,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 199,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Devakinandan, reported in AIR 1992 SC 96 has observed that, it is not the duty of the Court either to enlarge the scope of the legislature or the intention of the legislature when the language of the provision is plain and unambiguous.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 88,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Duple Motor Bodies v. Ostime, [1961] 1 W.L.R. 739, 747, 753 ; 39 T.C. 537 (H.L.), Viscount Simonds states : \n \"The practice of accountants, though it were general or even universal could not by itself determine the amount of profits and gains of a trade for tax purposes. . . .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 101,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 5.3.99, the counsel for Canara Bank informed the Recovery Officer that it had filed Company application No.296 of 1999 in Company Petition No.141/95 (being a winding up petition filed by Ranbaxy Ltd. against M.S.Shoes Co.) under sections 442, 537 of the Companies Act for stay of the appellant's Recovery Case, RC No.9/98.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 9,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 38,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 151,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 202,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 224,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 249,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 270,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 324,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sawant, J. (as he then was) while agreeing with the dismissal of the petition added his opinion stating thus:\nThis is admittedly a stage where the prosecuting agency is still investigating the offences and collecting evidence against the accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "3.The Executive Engineer and Administration Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madurai Special Division, Ellis Nagar, Madurai.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 103,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The evidence of Rakha (P.W. 8) would show that Harbans Singh and the other accused persons were concerned with the purchase of a pistol from Rakha.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 21,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 60,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 146,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This is a practical approach to the problem and the matter could not be left for preparation of valuation list almost every year, a task which would have rendered the working of the Act extremely difficult.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The term \"litigation\" as employed in section 5189 of the Civil Code 1895, Civ. Code 1910, 5776, in reference to admissions of defendants if fi. fa. is not confined merely to the determination of a possible issue which may arise after levy , between the plaintiff in fi. fa.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 49,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 72,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 88,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Additional Sessions Judge negatived the said contention and presumably exercising his powers under s. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 passed an order on October 19, 1977 directing that the attendance of the two appellants be procured and further directing that they should stand their trial together with the three accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 117,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 157,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 193,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even the law laid down in Raghu Lakshminarayananan v. Fine Tubes [2007 (5) SCALE 353], would not be apposite.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 85,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, as held in the expressions of the Apex Court, the burden of proof lies on the husband that he did not neglect or refuse to maintain his wife.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 53,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This interpretation has been approved in Sandhya Manoj Wankhade v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade, [2011] 2 SCR 261 by the Supreme Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 107,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 128,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To enact it would be idle formality.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was alleged that on the basis of a checking report dated 17th November, 2004 revenue assessment notice dated 1st February, 2005 was served on him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 79,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 130,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, because Iridium services will generally be priced higher than terrestrial land line and wireless services where they are available, and will offer more limited service quality and signal penetration than mature cellular and paging systems, the company's strategy is not based upon direct competition with such terrestrial systems.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In the earlier petition which was dismissed by the court of Sh. J.R. Aryan, Ld. ARC, Delhi, Smt. Indra was not a party and she has been made party in the present petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 74,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 90,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 102,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Rulers were allowed to get a Privy Purse free of taxes on income and to enjoy personal property and privileges.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In this connection, learned Counsel relied on a decision of a learned Single Judge in Exotica Global Pvt. Ltd.-vs.-Union of India, (2012) 4 CHN 234, and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the same case reported in (2013) 296 ELT 158, wherein the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was upheld.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 147,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 257,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Although this rule played a role in the devel- opment of the doctrine of fundamental breach, the continued validity of the rule was ac- knowledged when the doctrine was rejected by the House. of Lords in Suissee Atlantigue Societed' 766 Armement Maritime S.A.v.N.V. Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale, [1967] 1 A.C. 361 at 393,412- 413,427-428, 430.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "But, in truth, it was not material to consider whether there was any dispute outstanding between the first respondent and his employees when the Government made the reference on 20th May, 1947.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 178,
"end": 192,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As to limitation of the use, it was described as 'public carrier'.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In Thungabhara Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [1964] 5 SCR 174, this Court stated that there was a real distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent' and that a 'review' was by no means an 'appeal' in disguise.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 80,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Judgment of P.N. Bhagwati and R.S. Sarkaria, JJ. was delivered by Bhagwati, J., S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. gave a separate opinion.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 47,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 78,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 104,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In a few cases the firm does the work of Manager of certain provident funds or associations and in such capacity advises the trustees, in the matter of investment of surplus fund through brokers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "At that time, A-1 (Alagarsamy), A-2 (Durai Pandi), A-5 (Manikandan), A-4 (Jothi) and A-6 (Manivasagam) also boarded the same bus.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 48,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 66,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 79,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 101,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has, therefore, been submitted by Shri Bajoria that the order of learned CIT(A) was correct in holding that reinstallation of plant and machinery could not be held as capital expenditure and such order of learned CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 49,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Cash of `1 lac in two bundles (Ex.P3 and Ex.P4) was recovered from Charanjit Singh (appellant in CRA No.560-DB of 2006) and `1 lac was recovered from Vijay Kumar (appellant No.2 in CRA No.586-DB of 2007) in two bundles (Ex.P5 and Ex.P6).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 118,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 161,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 202,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Qua M/s Krishna Traders, CC Hypothecation Stock-cum-Book Debts Limit was sanctioned for Rs. 50 lacs and Demand Loan Limit as Rs. 18.63 lacs besides LC (I/F) DP of Rs.15 lacs and bill purchase facility up to Rs. 10 lacs.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 23,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even if the explanation is accepted because it was a thoroughfare and sighs of bloodstains may have been obliterated, there was other evidence which could have been produced.\" \n (41)",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Convict be released from jail, if not required in any other S.C. No. 45/10 FIR No. 698/08 Eva Jennifer & Anr. vs. State 31/29 case.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 89,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 125,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The licensing authority has been given absolute power to grant or refuse to grant, renew or refuse to renew, suspend, revoke, cancel or modify any licence under this Order and the only thing he has to do is to record reasons for the action he takes.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is not fair or just to impute to the petitioner Rohit Gupta that he would be \"deemed\" to be in the custody or control of the articles only because some such articles actually entered the premises of the company in which he has been working.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 62,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The\tremedy\tprovided by Article 226 of\t the Constitution is no less an important safeguard.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 37,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 59,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court of Bombay held that the Government had lost its right to assess the land in question because of the equity arising on the facts of the case in favour of the Municipality and a limitation on the right of the Government to assess under s. 8 of the Bombay City Land Revenue Act arose.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 24,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 253,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 289,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 17.6.1992, the respondent filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji as a Special Civil Suit No.131/92/A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 12,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 135,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 172,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This matter has clearly been laid down in State of Kerala's case (supra), reported in AIR 1987 SC 331 : (1987 Lab IC 447).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 57,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 121,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The case of the prosecution is that complainant of this case-Head Constable Ramjubha Dolubha received an information on 29.09.1988 that accused No.1-Shivnaresh Pruthvinath is keeping 'charas' in Air Force area at Jamnagar and is selling the same near Woolen Mill after bringing the same out, from Air Force area.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 92,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 130,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 171,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 221,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In conclusion, Technik carried out the repair work in the normal course of its business in Germany, without any involvement or participation of the assessee's personnel.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 22,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 98,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But cases may occur in which it would be safe to conclude that the order of discharge is a bona fide order of discharge and that the employer passed such an order, because it was not its intention to cast any slur on its employee, even though it thought it necessary to terminate his services.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Commissioner (Appeals) ultimately concluded by observing as follows :\n \"The assessing officer afforded an opportunity to the appellant and required him to file copy of the scheme of ICICI bank by which the appellant availed voluntary retirement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 186,
"end": 196,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is also stated that defendant no.1 is having its registered office at Mayur Vihar Phase\u00adIII, Delhi and defendant no.6 is residing within the jurisdiction of this court and present case has been filed on the basis of cheques issued by the defendant and information received from bank of plaintiff situated at Laxmi Nagar, regarding dishonour of cheques, so, this court is having jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present matter.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 96,
"end": 101,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was also submitted that it was not open to the Income-tax officer to have re-opened the original assessment merely because he took a different view of the matter in the assessment year 1958-59.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Section 9(3) provides that the State Government may appoint Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges to exercise jurisdiction in one or more Courts of Session. Section 404, Cr. P. C. makes it clear that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 187,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 198,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "we see nothing confiscatory in nature if the revenue has been sought to be increased by imposition of additional tax to the tune of Rupees Two Crores Thirty Six Lakhs only.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "I find that result of TET was declared on 28.8.2011 thus first available occasion to hold selection came thereafter only as NCTE issued one Notification on 29.7.2011 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 were amended on 11.5.2011 thus it is not a case of gross delay.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 51,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 128,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 165,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 210,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 236,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The judgement of this Court in Neelam Rani's case (supra) has not been understood by the official respondents in its true perspective and they have prepared a combined merit list of all the candidates i.e. male and female and have not granted the requisite 50% reservation for the female candidates.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These documents were then forwarded to their b inkers in Calcutta, who, in their turn, handed them over to the buyers after the bills were retired.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 65,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When it cannot be definitely said that PW.2 is the author of the FIR, it cannot be definitely said that he has re-assailed from his original version, because what is the original version is not available.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Hence, by taking the multiplier of 16, the dependency loss would come to Rs. 19,30,752/-.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In proceeding to discuss this question we may consider a decision of the Court of Appeal in England in Carltona Ltd. v. Commissioners of Works and Others(1).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 99,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 156,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They joined Class III service as Overseers in the Irrigation Branch on Septem- ber, 18, 1953, October 6, 1949 and November 8, 1952 respec- tively in the erstwhile State of Punjab.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 92,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 109,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 130,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 178,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Bear Lake & River Water Works & irrigation Company and Jarvis- Conklin Mortgage Trust Company v. William Garland and Corey Brothers & Co.(').",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "D. W. 2 Jagru Rai has his own land at Bhatwalia at a distance of 4 or 5 bighas from the disputed plot.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 17,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 47,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On this letter on July 6, 1964, namely, within the period of one month specified as the period of limitation in Section 57 (3), the Wakf Board filed an application under Section 57 (3) of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 30,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 126,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 142,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 184,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(27) On the facts of this case it does not appear that this defect of jurisdiction can be cured by the application of Section 529 (f) Cr. P, C.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 118,
"end": 133,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 143,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A perusal of the minutes would show that the Hon'ble Minister had indeed issued the directions to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Wani, for issuing modified order under Section 138 Cr.P.C. to all the coal depot owners and in this meeting, it is noted that thereafter the S.D.M. on his part gave an assurance that the directions of the Hon'ble learned Minister would be implemented.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 129,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 175,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 183,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The legal position in respect of the blank signed cheques is as under:\n\n10. In Jaipal Singh Rana Vs. Swaraj Pal 149 (2008) \n\nDLT 682",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 163,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mr. Gavnekar submitted that the decisions in the case of (i) Mahibubi (supra), (ii) Bashir Abbas (supra), (iii) Lakhanlal Purohit (supra) and (iv) Keshav N. Bharti (supra) are rendered by the learned Single Judges and if this Court intends to take a different view, the matter should be referred to a larger Bench.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 69,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 96,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 129,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 163,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The F.I.R. was lodged to this effect and it was clearly stated that the death was due to electrocution and upon the villagers informing the local officials of the electric sub-station, the line was cut before the body could be removed.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The submission cannot be accepted for more than one reason.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "According to him, Mr. Lakshmisagar has committed contempt of Court by filing W.P. No. 28799 of 1999 seeking the aforesaid reliefs in respect of the orders of the learned Judge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 99,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the said case, the employees of the cooperative societies were sought to be disturbed after 20 years of their service.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "C.As. Nos. 1995-96 & 2386/72 allowed in part.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 28,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sudhi Chandran has been undergoing treatment for mental illness for the last more than 7 years and she is an inpatient of the Government Mental hospital, Peroorkada.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 164,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This plea found favour with the Trial Judge.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "\"The Indian Legislature when it enacted Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, no doubt had in mind the expressions used in the English cases \"a bare right of action' Or 'a mere right to litigate'.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 52,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 84,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the absence of any evidence with regard to the treatment on 1.5.2006, from the available evidence on record, it is shown that for the first time after the accident, the claimant went to Chigateri Hospital, Davanagere at 4.35 p.m. on 2.5.2006.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 71,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 219,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 244,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, it was restored in 2010 and numbered as Civil Appeal No.35 of 2010.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 78,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The report of the Inspection Team was placed before the State Level Standing Committee and the Committee in its meeting held on 24-2-2000 examined the relative merits of the application of the 1st respondent society and that of the Hussaini Educational Society, Nellore, as per the guidelines issued in G.O. Ms. No.398, Education, dated 4-12-1987 and keeping in view the report of the physical verification submitted by the Inspection Team.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 128,
"end": 137,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 269,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 346,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We uphold this view and make it applicable in the other two Appeals also.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that the complainant and other gawalas used to supply milk to the CBI officials free of cost and they were in the habit of getting MCD officials trapped.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 46,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 54,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 131,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 196,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The respondent and his companions must have seen and heard members of the raiding party coming close to them, and they must have fled or, at least, thrown away the incriminating articles from their possession.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On this point we say no more.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "This position is also stated by Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, 12th Edition p. 1725 where it is stated:\n \"As already stated, if reasonable and probable cause is found the question of malice or no malice is irrelevant.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 37,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 50,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was at the instance of the second respondent she attended the extraordinary general meeting of the members of the first respondent-company held on November 12, 1989, and exercised her vote against the petitioner with a view",
"entities": [
{
"start": 150,
"end": 167,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Was it a seizure by arbitrary power on behalf of the Crown of Great Britain, of the dominations and property of a neighbouring State, an act not affecting to justify itself on grounds of Municipal Law?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 75,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "To us, this contention also does not appear to hold any water.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "For these reasons we are of the view that the said statement by appellant Arun to Bhola Nath Das immediately on the publication of the photograph of Sadhana in Swadhinata was rightly admitted by the learned Judge m evidence and is an incriminating circumstance against appellant Arun.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 78,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 96,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 156,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 283,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This time he was admitted in Vivekanand Poly Clinic at Lucknow where he underwent another surgical operation and to save his life his injured leg was amputated.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 62,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is clear from the facts in S.P. Jain (supra) that the third respondent, the Krishi Utpadan Mandhi Samity, in whose favour the land was acquired for construction of market-yard, resolved on 13th January, 1989 to withdraw from the acquisition as it was suffering from a fund crunch and the proposed Mandhi site was far away from Baraut (para 5).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 39,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 107,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 210,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 336,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been so repeated by Eswarappa (D. W. 15).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 36,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "4. Director-Genera], Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi. \n 5.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 56,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is necessary to understand the decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Chand (supra) in the light of these provisions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 78,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was held by the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of G.E. Capital Transportation Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT vide order dated 24th Feb., 2006, reported in (2006) 101 TTJ (Del) 298 that interest on delayed payment of lease rent, hire purchase instalment etc. is not interest on loans and advances but is compensation for late payment and hence not exigible to interest tax.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 36,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 111,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 182,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "not actually served on the appellant as they had come back unserved upon the alleged refusal by the appellant to accept them.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Ext.P10 sale deed is void for all practical purposes.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is in his handwriting, which is a certificate of weighing.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "CITATION:\n 1977 AIR 2185\t\t 1978 SCR (1) 222 1977 SCC (4) 137 CITATOR INFO :\n APR\t 1978 SC 47\t (6,10,15)\n E\t 1980 SC 962\t (6,44,64,66,67,68,99,102,103,1 RF\t 1992 SC 604\t (96,97)\n\n\nACT:\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Ss. 397 and 482-Scope of.\nInterlocutory order--What is-Order compelling\t persons to face trial Without proper application of mind by",
"entities": [
{
"start": 200,
"end": 232,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 248,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is averred in the reply that the Respondent has 335000 shareholders, has 78 offices in India, 4 factories and employs around 4500 employees.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 95,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further investigation was handed over to Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (North).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 89,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to information to the police and their powers to investigate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 19,
"end": 45,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Whether the expenditure was incurred on account of a statutory obligation as in the case of Lakshmiji Sugar Mitts Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT or on a voluntary basis because of the assessee's desire to provide facilities to its employees on account of its expectations of better work from them, would not make any difference.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 132,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They are merely employees of the hotel and acted simply under order of their employer.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Cheque in question ie Ex. CW1/ G dt. 22.12.2004 was deposited for clearance on 05.01.2005.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 47,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 89,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Dilip Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P., this Court was not concerned with the question of the vires of Section 303, but Sarkaria, J., in his concurring judgment, described the vast sweep of that Section by saying that \"the section is Draconian in severity, relentless and inexorable in operation\" [SCC para 22, p. 567: SCC (Cri) p. 92].",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 38,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 114,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 128,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At this stage, it may be pointed out that Dilip in his petition under Sections 12 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act had described Smritikana, the present appellant, as a person of unsound mind represented by her father.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 47,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 88,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 114,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 139,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Now, the question that arises for consideration is that how the appeal can be entertained without original record.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The second respondent/appellant cannot be heard to contend that he had submitted Ext.B3 application for temporary permit and also remitted all requisite fee therefor on 14.3.2006 prior to the accident which had taken place at 7.40 a.m.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 169,
"end": 178,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We allow the appeal in part and modify the order of the Election Tribunal to this extent that the election of respondent No. 2 Vasant Rao only is declared to be void; the election of the appellant however will stand.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 127,
"end": 137,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent No. 1-Osmania University is at S.No. 5 in the Schedule.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 35,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The conviction of Maganlal under section 121 was thus upheld.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 26,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 44,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "3. An auntie was asking her: Why did she go to Sibpore.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "That was a case of a death by murder in which J.B. Mehta and M.U. Shah, JJ.observed (para 47) that within the total sum of Rs. 20,000/- claimed, the court could adjust between the loss to the dependency and the loss to the estate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 56,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 70,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Court in Statesman (P) Ltd. v. H.R. Deb104 had an occasion to examine the question who is a 'judicial officer' and Hidayatullah, C.J. speaking for the Constitution Bench answered the same thus : (SCR p. 620) 43 (1994) 3 SCC 440: JT (1994) 1 SC 290 104 (1968) 3 SCR 614: AIR 1968 SC 1495",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 47,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 132,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 232,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 273,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 291,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is true that the two writ petitions Nos. 916/1961 and 918/1961 filed by the appellants Rai, Ramkrishna & Ors. and M/s. Road Transport Co., Dhanbad & Ors. respectively in the High Court at Patna along with 18 others under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution had challenged the validity of the whole of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 65,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 93,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 105,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 140,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 149,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 196,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 244,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 264,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise as a private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favoritism and/or nepotism violating the soul of the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 298,
"end": 308,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 328,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The order of the Magistrate was made on the 24th of December, 1956.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 66,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Guruswamy's case arose under the Mysore Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder, as a perusal of the Report makes it clear beyond any doubt.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 50,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It will be in the interest of the Government to limit the amount of work to be carried out beyond April 1980 to the minimum so that the unascertained liability on the department is reduced to the minimum.\"",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(15) In Flowerv. Ebbw Vale Steel Iron and Coal Co. (1934)2 KB. 132, the following passage appears at page 154:",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 66,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In AIR 1961 SC 276, also the Supreme Court did not negative the power in the master to order interim suspension.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 18,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The argument which probably might have impelled Bhargava, J., to make the reference appears to be that in his view a lease of immovable property, being a transfer of the right to enjoy such property, could only be effected by the lessor, who was the person entitled to transfer such a right and that the lessee was not competent to transfer a right to enjoy such immovable property.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 56,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW10 SI Rakesh Kumar Bosh further deposed that he had prepared site plan, Ex. PW10/B of the spot and recorded statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. of the witnesses.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 25,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 137,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 148,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since the Nursing Home is owned by husband and wife in equal proportion, the income derived therefrom was rightly disclosed in the hands of two individuals and there does not exist any association of persons which could be assessed separately under the provisions of the Income-tax Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 271,
"end": 285,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"Internal disturance\", which falls short of resulting into 'failure of the constitutional machinery' in the State so as to make it impossible to function, is not intended in the Constitution to be a valid ground for making complete inroads by the Union by taking over completely all executive and legislative wings of a State.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 178,
"end": 190,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "F-1 Family Group started production and sale in different parts of the country, including Patna (Bihar).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 90,
"end": 95,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 102,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The report of IT Inspector, dt. 20th April, 1999 as also the note put up by the Asstt. CIT, Circle 1, Meerut, dt. 26th April, 1999, has been field as Annex. 5 to the writ petition.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 108,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 130,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Further suit No. 42 by the appellant's father was on the same finding decreed to the extent of half only; suit No. 77 of 1950 was decreed also to the extent of half and a permanent injunction was granted in favour of the respondent Smt. Daryao Kunwar as prayed by her in that suit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 125,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 250,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The impugned order records in details the contentions raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor in this regard.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In W.P. (C) 4506/2006, a compensation of Rs. 15 lakh has been claimed by the Petitioners, viz., Santosh Kumari, the widow of the deceased; Nitin Kumar and Rishi Pal, sons; Tirath Ram, the father and Suman Kumari, the mother.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 21,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 110,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 150,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 164,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 182,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 211,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The revenue being aggrieved by this order preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19663/2010 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and on 21.02.2012 it came to be disposed of by following order:\n\n \"In the Special Leave Petition, no reference was made to pending Writ Appeal No.2458 of 2010 filed by the assessee.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 96,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 126,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 144,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 285,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has also filed Criminal Revision No.820/1995 against accused/respondent Subhash for enhancement of his sentence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 47,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 82,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ex. P-2 is a notice terminating the tenancy of Bishansarup.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused and Inspector Rai Singh Khatri proceeded to Canara Bank, G.B.Road, Gaya and the Manager of the Branch Shri Vidhu Bhushan Thakur handed over a statement of account Ex.PW-18/A in the name of Jyoti Industries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 42,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 67,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 83,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 139,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 217,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2009-10, a proposal for withdrawal of the exemption was received from the Assessing Officer through the Director of Income-tax (Exemptions), Delhi on 21.12.2011.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 199,
"end": 204,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 218,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The second circumstance is that according to DSL, there was a further conversation between its Chairman and the Chief Engineer (Distribution) of MSEB at 9 p.m. on 28th April, 2001.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 48,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 149,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 179,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "For this purpose, he placed reliance on the decision of Tribunal, Ahmedabad in the case of Hynoup Food & Oil Industries Ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (Ahd) 556.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 75,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 163,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is the case that Govindbhai Desai was assaulted by two unknown persons at about 20-00 hours in the Gondal City, while he was proceeding on his Luna towards his house situated at Jain Derasar Street in Gondal city.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 113,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 215,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first is the Tribune case reported in -- 'Tribune Press, Lahore v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab . (C).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 105,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So far as the issue of age is concerned, learned Additional Advocate General submits that as per amended rules, one is entitled for relaxation in age by maximum period of five years thus a candidate cannot pray for age relaxation contrary to the rules so amended vide Notification dated 17.12.2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 287,
"end": 297,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Sirsi Municipality case (1973 (1) SCC 409) and Tewari's case (1964 (3) SCR 55) stand, however, on a different footing.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 46,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 57,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 82,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He denied having stated before the police that the accused Ganesh was possessing a stick and accused Dinkar was possessing Chopper.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 65,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 107,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[53 B]\nSalaman v. Secretary of State for India, [1966] I K.B.\t613,\nState of Saurashtra v. Menon Haji Ismail, [1960] 1 S.C.R.\n537 and Secretary of State in Council for India v. Kamachee Boye Sahaba, [1859] 13 Moore P.C. 22, referred to.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 65,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 131,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 225,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "] 1 S.C.R. 787. (4) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 448. \n\n(5) [1963] Supp. 2 S. C. R. 760. \n\nthough those others are similarly circumstanced.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 39,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 74,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The legal notices are proved as Ex. PW1/3A, Ex. PW1/4A to Ex.PW1/4(J).",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": ") Sector 62 (pending registration) \n\n4568/08 M/s Mast Craft Ltd. 3 star Plot SDC-H-2 18.4.2007 27.4.2007",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 43,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 192,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 243,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 261,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appellant Sukhbasi is a native of Behta, eight miles from the police station.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 43,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In view of such Scheme of Arrangement, the Board of Directors of the United Bank of India approved the transfer of credit facilities from M/s DAIL to the New Tobacco Company Limited.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 89,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 146,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 181,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Public Prosecutor referred to the judgment rendered in Pyare Lal v. State of Rajasthan wherein the Supreme Court has held that retracted confession may form the basis for conviction and there is no bar for basing the conviction only on the retracted confession.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 98,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 124,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The relevant details with regard to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the land acquisition case number, the date of declaration of award and the date of panchnama of handing over possession are as follows:\n3. Petitioners have received the amount of compensation as per the award declared under Section 11 of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 76,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 323,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We by forming our Khalistan Raj, will become separate from India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 64,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But that said, what is to happen if the panel goes off the rails?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Therefore, the conviction of P.W.7 under section 326 I.P.C is supported by legal evidence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 52,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 58,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before us a purported minute of the meeting dated 27.10.1993 has been placed which is in the following terms: \"It was decided that objection/ submission are to be given before the Krishnaunni Commission appointed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and it may be filed jointly or severally by the members of the Managing Committee after consulting with Devaswom Advocate Shri K.P. Dandapani of Ernakulam.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 202,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 248,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 361,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 376,
"end": 390,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 394,
"end": 403,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But it is now not necessary to do so in these cases in the view taken by my learned brothers and the order proposed by them will govern these cases. \n\n(1) [1958] S.C.R. 1, 21 and 24. \n\n(2) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 206, 213.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 155,
"end": 181,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 213,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After seizure what is to be done with the vehicle and procedure to be adopted by the officers are clearly laid down in Rules 27 and 28.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 119,
"end": 134,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, according to defendant no.9 Late Zamir Hassan never agreed to sell the lands covered under Ext.1.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 64,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(2) The Board may make a similar application to the Commission which may, in like manner, dispose of it.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "(Mrs. Perin Hoshang Davierwalla v. Mr. Kobad Dorabji Devierwalla (Bomby High Court) ; M/s. East India Ydyog Ltd.2; Sati Oil Udyog Ltd. v. Avanti Projects and Infrastructure Ltd. ; and Aventis Pasteur S.A v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. )",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 83,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 113,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 177,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 234,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has also identified mobile phone Ex.P1 make ALCATEL of black color bearing the IMEI numbers i.e. 860350011854187 and 860350011854195 as the same mobile which was recovered from the possession of accused Raman.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 206,
"end": 211,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The report lodged by Anandrao (PW 5) at Exhibit 34 has been duly proved in the testimony of Anandrao as well as the Investigation Officer (PW 17).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 29,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 100,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is the investigating agency which has relooked into the material collected earlier and into the material collected during further investigation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW\u00ad8, Ms.Shefali Barnala Tandon in her evidence has proved the statements of child N and M recorded by her U/s 164 Cr.P.C as Ex.PW8/Band Ex.PW8/C. \n U/s 7 & 8 POCSO Act r/w Section 354 IPC Page 9 of 31 SC No.122/2013: FIR No.146/2013: PS Ashok Vihar: State V/s Sundar DOD: 23.04.2015 13.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 31,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 114,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 121,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 159,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 169,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 185,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 189,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 217,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 250,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 268,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 284,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly in the case of -- \"Tej Bhan Madan v. Government of India', , it was held that under Article 226 the High Court has no power to give a direction to the opposite party by a writ of mandamus where the order sought to be challenged was passed at New Delhi by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 66,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 105,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 261,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 312,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This view has been followed by Lord Eldon in Miller v. War-mington ((1830) 1 J & W 484).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 41,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At the time of accident, he was 56 years old and was working as a Special Sub-Inspector of Police in the Tamil Nadu Police Service.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 130,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first case referred to is that of Revati Mohan Das v. Jatindra Mohan Ghose .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 78,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The propositions laid down by the Special Bench in Lalsons (supra) revolve around the adjustment of losses against export incentives under the proviso to Sub-section (3).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 58,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 169,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(V.K.JAIN) JUDGE JANUARY 18, 2010 bg",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 9,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 33,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Then the say of defendant No.5 in his evidence, all these are possible to read in favour of the plaintiff.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "My issue wise findings are as under: -",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The cheques were drawn in Delhi and received by the assessee in Aundh by post.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 31,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 69,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "5. Procedure on grant of interim-orders : If an interim order is granted at the first hearing by the Court, the Respondents would have the option of moving appropriate applications for vacating the interim order even before the returnable date indicated in the notice and if such an application is filed, it shall be listed as soon as possible even before the returnable date.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Ammini E.J., petitioner in O.P. No. 4319 of 1991 is also a Christian governed by the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 48,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "These allied Articles deal with privy purses, princely privileges guaranteed under the Covenants and Merger Agreements entered into by Rulers of Indian States and recognition of Rulers by the President under Article 366(22).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 208,
"end": 223,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Apex Court reversed such decision in case of Dhanbai Kanji (supra).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 14,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the side of the defendants the additional 8th defendant was examined as DW1 and and Ext.B1 Edavakayogam register for the period from 1912-1975 and Ext.B2 udambadi of the year 1912 and two decisions in Ext.B1 Register were got marked.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was observed by this Court in Krishan Gopal v. Prakash Chandra that\" \n\nelection petitions should ordinarily, if possible, be entrusted for trial to a permanent Judge of the High Court \"(SCC p. 137, para 23).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 65,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This appears clearly from the judgments of Lord Atkin (at p. 157; p. 491), Lord Thankerton (at p. 158; p. \n\n 493), Lord Macmillan (at p. 159; p. 498) and Lord Wright (at p. 162; p. 505) in The Cristina, (1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 147; [1938] A.C. 485.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 53,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 129,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 165,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 226,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 243,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Writ petition No. 21982 of 2007 has been filed by sole petitioner Smt. Sudesh seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat her within prescribed age limit and permit her to appear in the aforesaid examination after relaxing upper age limit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 31,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 77,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(Alok Aradhe) Judge Loretta Review Petition No.19101/2011 9.12.2014 Shri Praveen Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 12,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 57,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 67,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 86,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ravani, J. \n 1. Can the Industrial Court reappreciate and reweigh the evidence in exercise of its revisional power under Section 85 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ?",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 132,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 177,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Construing said Clause 12, the Supreme Court made the following observations : \n \".....The terms of Clause 12 do not afford scope for a liberal construction being made regarding the powers of the Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate upon a disputed question of breach as well as to assess the damages arising from the breach.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 25,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 44,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 109,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The decision of Madras High Court in The Management of W. India Match Co. Ltd. Vs. Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1958 Mad 398, 403 was cited before their Lordships.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 33,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 125,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He denied the suggestion that the deceased was not ill-treated by the accused.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "There can be no rigid formula of a reasonable classification and whether a classification is reasonable or not will have to be decided on the facts of each case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After referring, inter alia, to the provisions of section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the Supreme Court held:-",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 93,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 112,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The aforesaid amendment touching Sections 9 and 24 of the Act and thereafter issuing of show cause notice to the assessees regarding the imposition of penalty, inter alia, in terms of Section 50 of the Act, appears to have stirred the hornet's nest which has led to the filing of the amended petitions in this Court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 50,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 194,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "M. Utham Singh (PW-56) is the owner of Ebenezer Stores in Porur locality.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "However, he submitted that suitable action should be taken against the complainant and her sisters who have resiled from their previous statements made on oath under Section 164 Cr. P.C. \n\n10.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 177,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 186,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "ORIGINAL SIDE Present:\nThe Hon'ble Justice Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay And The Hon'ble Justice Tapan Mukherjee A.P.D. No. 179 of 2001 G.A. No. 597 of 2008 C.S. No. 216 of 1996 Oriental Bank of Commerce Versus Santosh Kumar Agarwal",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 69,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 109,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 132,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 153,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 174,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 330,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She was admitted in S.R.N. Hospital, Allahabad on 18.5.2003 at 5.25 p.m. and the doctor has found that burn injuries found on her person were about one-day old.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 46,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 59,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The prosecution case is that signature on the said record brought from the post office and the letter brought by P.W. 2 Raj Kishore Singh were that of Smt. Urmila stands fully established.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 137,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 162,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the result, we uphold the judgment and decree of the lower court and dismiss the appeal with costs.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Whether different ventures carried on by an assessee form parts of the same business must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case\".",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "After the appellant had been allowed in principle to withdraw from the 100% EOU Scheme by letter dated November 3, 1993 of the Ministry of Industry it had recognised its manufacturing activities as a DTA unit from December 6, 1993.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 103,
"end": 119,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 147,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 230,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mansingh Pawak (PW 10) deposed that he was posted as Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate at Porsa at that time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 92,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "When the learned Magistrate pronounced judgment of conviction on 10-1-2007, appellant Sunilkumar was not present.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 74,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 96,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Through SC no. 108/11 Dtd...16.10.2014 Pg... 56 of 66 these two pay-in slips Rs. 5000/- & Rs.20,000/- were deposited in the account of Dalip from Noida.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 25,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 38,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 140,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 151,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Although in 1968, the rules were amended to provide for the inclusion of certain specified long-term borrowings in the capital base, status qua ante was restored with effect from April 1, 1972.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 179,
"end": 192,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hence, the Miscellaneous Appeal No.485/2005 is hereby partly allowed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 43,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Dr. Shiv Prasad, Sr. Resident AIIMS hospital is PW9 who conducted the postmortem of the body of deceased Hardeep and got exhibited his report Ex.PW9/A and also deposed regarding his subsequent opinion with respect of knife in question. \n\nState vs. Talewar & Ors. \n\nFIR No. 139/08 8/26 PW9 has been duly cross examined by counsel for both the accused persons. \n\n14.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 15,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 44,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 112,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 261,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was alleged by the writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 15667 of 2013, namely, Ram Nath Rai, that the persons, who were much junior to him, in the Class IV posts, had been considered for promotion.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 68,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 90,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The accused/applicant is arrested by the Police Station Sanawad AJK, District Khargone in Crime No.410/2014 under sections 370(a), 376(d), 376(f), 372, 479, 419, 366, 366(a),373,493,347 of IPC and Section 3(1)\n(xii),3(2)(v), 5/6 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act and Sections 3/4, 16/17 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 67,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 86,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 185,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 192,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 228,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 267,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 291,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 348,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So, it is difficult to say as to when dead body was thrown in the Nahar or was thrown at the place, from where, it was recovered.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Dilip (P.W. 8) also said that the seizure memo was made at the Police Station Ex. P-7 spot map was also prepared at the Police Station.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the basis of the First informa-tion Report, the Police registered the case against seven persons, namely, Ashwani Suri, G. Sagar Suri (the first Appellant), Sukhvinder Singh, Shalini Suri, Shama Suri (the second appellant), Charanjit Singh and M.L. Kam-pani.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 121,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 136,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 176,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 190,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 202,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 242,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 260,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Relying on Rehman Shagoo Petitioners argued that Parliament lacks competence since the 'terrorism' in pith and substance covered under the Entry 1 (Public Order) of List II.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 24,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 59,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 146,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 172,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The first and the last note of each bundle had the initials of Pawan Kumar (PW1).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 74,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW3 is the then S.I. of Police of the Thannithodu Police Station, who detected the offence and seized the contraband article and the vehicle, which is used for the commission of the offence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 64,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "PW2 Chandra Shekhar has stated in Paragraph 4 that Exs.P-6 and P-7 were published during the election campaign in contravention of provisions of Section 127A of the Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 19,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 157,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was alleged that respondent No. 2, Bipin Vadilal Mehta was inducted as an Additional Director of the Company on 18-2-1982 and was appointed as Managing Director on the same date.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 57,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 124,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The appeal is preferred by the E.S.I. Corporation against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing its appeal.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 49,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 125,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Tribunal observed that the sale transaction of Jubilee Mills' ordinary shares was the main transaction in which the assessee earned the profit.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 64,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Court, by order dated 11th/14th March, 2011 granted the Motion by observing that \"evidently, there are disputes between the plaintiffs and first defendant, which have to be referred to the arbitration\".",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In fact, despite being repeatedly asked, Mr. Raju Joseph was unable to point out any distinction between raw rubber and latex.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 56,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Next day Bhanwar Singh died and offence under Section 302 has been added and after usual investigation, charge sheet has been filed against 9 accused persons including the appellants for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 302 and 307 IPC and the case was committed to Court of Sessions and thereafter transferred to Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bundi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 22,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 57,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 254,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 258,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 387,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "There can be no doubt that a case under Section 302 IPC or other serious offences like those under Sections 395, 307 or 304- B cannot be compounded and hence proceedings in those provisions cannot be quashed by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 CrPC or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 51,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 55,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 126,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 268,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 273,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the other hand, he denied having seen the occurrence; therefore, it is a mystery as to how S.I. Surjit Singh came to know on 31.08.1988 that PW2 Chanderhas was present near the spot of occurrence at the time of incident.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 111,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 138,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 158,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After investigation the prosecution presented the charge-sheet against Rakesh Kumar, husband of the deceased and Ram Piari, the mother-in-law of the deceased.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 83,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 122,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(iii) Against the order dated 20.08.1990, the Gaon Sabha Mandoli filed Appeal no. 134/191 in the Court of Sh. Ramesh Tiwari, Additional Collector, Delhi.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 40,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 64,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 89,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 123,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 152,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Criminal proceedings have been pending between the parties.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "These decisions in our judgment do not help the contention of Mr. Umrigar as we think that section 4 enumerates the classes of persons to whom - the power could be delegated or sub-delegated by the Central Government and it is not correct to say that the instrumentalities have not been selected by the Legislature itself.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 73,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 100,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 216,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Tulna Sheri (PW-13) the unfortunate victim in this case was studying in the third standard in St. Joseph Convent along with her class-mate Richa Dubey.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 112,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 150,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Not only was not she made to give the F. I. R. but also was she not examined under Section 162 Cr. P. C., till three days later.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 83,
"end": 94,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 104,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The learned Arbitrator has relied on Clause(a) of (7) of Section 31 of the Act and has awarded interest.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 67,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On 05.02.2015 the petitioner was declared successful and the respondent No.1 Abhaysingh was a defeated candidate, who lost the election by single vote having secured only 186 votes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 13,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 87,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Following cases need mention in this behalf :\n(i) Iqbal Kaur v. Pritam Singh .",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 76,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He was also empowered as the State Vs. Kesar Ali & Anrs., FIR No:93/2010 competent authority to grant the sanction for the prosecution under Arms Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 55,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 149,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 6 were appointed in the cadre of Prosecuting Sub-Inspector Grade-I, by one and the same order and as the petitioner was senior in the cadre of Sub-Inspector Grade-II, he shall rank senior to non-petitioner No. 6 in the cadre of Prosecuting Inspector Grade-I also.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "An agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the second defendant on 6-4-1965.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is worthy of note, however, that Kuppuswami Aiyar, J. did not say that the discovery of a new fact or new evidence must be of such a character that it was not known to the complainant when the prior complaint was brought and dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 52,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Last witness on the question of participation of this appellant is Lalita Devi (PW 29).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 78,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "So also the view taken by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala and Punjab and Haryana in the decisions referred to earlier do not declare the law correctly and shall to the extent they run counter to what we have said hereinabove stand overruled.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 101,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Annexures B and C certificates issued by Lakshmi Hospital and Krishna Hospital B.A. NO. 1163 OF 2010 :: 6 ::\nshow that Dr.K.A.Koshy and Dr.Serena were working from 21.6.2009 and 1.7.2009 respectively till date in the respective hospitals.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 57,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 78,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 131,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 145,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 173,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 186,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "it is a process of producing quality out of larger areas of equality extending",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "PW 66 examined the place of occurrence and also found plastic Chappals, material Exhibit-IX and IX/I, near the dead-body and also the Sindur and Elaichi Danas, Exhibit-VII, and the Jhola, material Exhibit-IV, in which a bomb and a Chader, Exhibit-VIII, and a read colour underwear, Exhibit-I/1, were found.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Sub-clause 4 of Regulation 8 reads as follows :\n\"Reg. 8(4) The Bureau RC shall invite comments/recommendations on the applications referred to in sub-regulation (3) from the follow-ing, namely :\n(i) the State Government concerned ;\n(ii) the affiliating University/State Board of Technical Education;\n(iii) Bureaus MPCD;\n(iv) Bureau BOS;\n(v) Bureau RA;\n(vi) the Regional Office.\"",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 28,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(M.K.Mudgal) Judge kkc Cr. A. No.10-15 16.1.2015. \n\n Shri Awdhesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant/ accused.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 11,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 38,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 48,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 77,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Respondent 1, President of India, Respondent 3, Chief Justice of India and Respondent 5, Governor of Uttar Pradesh were subsequently dropped and their names from the array of respondents were deleted.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 32,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 70,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 114,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In M/S Sat Pal & Co Vs. LT Governor, Delhi , special duty on import of country liquor in the Union Territory of Delhi was imposed which was challenged.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 42,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 117,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is not in dispute at Bar that the awards passed against M.P.S.R.T.C. remain unsatisfied for the years together and claimants are made to execute the award for years together often without success.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 71,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Under the circumstances we are unable to agree with the High Court that appellant Mohinder Singh was in possession of the weapon of offence at the point of time of the offence.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 96,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "After the new state of Bombay was\t constituted with territories drawn from\t various existing States including Hyderabad, under the States\tReorganisation\tAct,\n1956, equation\t of posts and\tdetermination of inter se seniority was\tdone by the Allocated Government Servants'\n(Absorption, Seniority. Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1957.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 29,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 129,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 172,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 347,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Even assuming that Ex.P-1-report was given to the Police at 8 am on 28.02.2008, in our opinion, the prosecution failed to explain the long delay of 8 hrs, i.e., the time gap between 8 am and 4 pm on 28.02.2008, in Ex.P-7- F.I.R. reaching the Court of the jurisdictional Magistrate.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 78,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 209,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The joint appeal filed by defendant no.3 & 9 being RCA 831/1996 was also dismissed.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 63,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Since brain is housed in the head, it is of utmost importance to protect the head against all injuries and accidents.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Niyogi A, J. C. reiterated the same view following Abdul Karim's case, supra.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 8,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 62,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Such action of assessee cannot be held either bogus or illegal in nature keeping in view the fact that the assessee itself reversed such entry in the immediately following year and avails the deduction only which is being claimed by the dealers.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Mr. Nadkarni relied upon the following passage of Frankfurter J., while expressing his view on 'Balance of interest.' : \n'I cannot agree in treating what is essentially a problem striking balance between the competing interest as an exercise in absolutes.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 12,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sub-rule (1) of Section 115 provides that every motor vehicle other than motor-cycles of engine capacity not exceeding 70 cc, manufactured prior to the first day of March, 1990, shall be maintained in such condition and shall be so driven so as to comply with the standards prescribed in these rules.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 27,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 176,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thereafter, in addition to the Government land which was transferred, the Government of Madhya Pradesh acquired land for BALCO under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on payment of compensation.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 102,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 126,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 181,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This mentally challenged girl was recovered from the jhuggi of appellant.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The said observation of the ICT independent engineers as quoted above, can by no stretch of imagination be treated to be an admitted amount or otherwise Patna High Court LPA No.2158 of 2015 dt.12-05-2016 an amount so determined, that would have bound the Corporation to make payment.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 153,
"end": 169,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 189,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 203,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This appeal by special leave seeks to challenge the decision rendered by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta confirming decree for possession passed against the appellant-defendant by the learned Judge, 7th Court of City Civil at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 1481 of 1986.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 137,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 267,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 298,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Vivian Bose, J., however, speaking for a Constitution Bench of this Court in Rajnarain Singh vs. The Chairman, Patna Administration Committee, Patna and Another [1955 (1) SCR 290] analysed the opinions of different learned Judges in Re: Delhi Laws Act (supra) and culled out the majority view thus:\n\"..that an executive authority can be authorized to modify either existing or future laws but not in any essential feature.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 179,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 251,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In these circumstances Shikha Sharma was released from Nari Niketan and was allowed to accompany her husband.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 36,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Four respondents i.e., Ashok Deepchand, Mahendra Kumar, Omprakash and Sunil claimed that they have nothing to do with ODA project, as they were appointed independently by IDA.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 38,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 54,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 65,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 75,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 121,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 174,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "I must bow with respect to the observations of Chinnappa Reddy J. in regard to the attitude of courts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 62,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "She, accordingly, filed another petition under Order 21, Rule 58, Civil P. C., and this was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 45 of 1946.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 64,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 77,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 137,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "On the basis of that demand draft, a fixed deposit receipt was issued by the Jamnagar branch of the Central Bank on November 8, 1944 in the name of Raghunath Prasad.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 85,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 112,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 132,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 164,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appellant Rakesh Kumar @ Bhutto helped appellant Parminder Singh Bajwa in reaching his goal with the help of appellants Ajay Kumar, Narender Kumar and Sunil Kumar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 70,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 130,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 146,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 162,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "But, what the affidavit which have been filed by the Stale Government would establish is that there was absolutely no material before the State Government on the basis of which it formed the opinion that the material contained in the play was such as would amount to offences punishable under Sections 153-A and 295-A of the Penal Code.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 293,
"end": 317,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 335,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The word 'Industrial dispute' is defined in Section 2(k) of the Act and means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 56,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "5.6. To claim that a particular statement is defamatory there should be publication to a third party and such publication should be of such a nature as is likely to cause appreciable injury to a person's reputation.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The relevant portions on which he relied are found at pages 863 and 865 in paras 10 and 16 which read as follows :",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The Delhi High Court in Kamalanand's case has decided that the Class IV employees of that court will get Punjab pay scales and Central D.A.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 20,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 34,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 111,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"This is, with respect, an unnecessary as well as an unwarranted acceptance of a limitation on legislative competence, and justifiable only as a matter of legislative policy of the referring legislature; see Laskin, Note (1956) 34 Can. Bar. Rav. 215; but cf. Bourne, Note, (1956) 34 Can.Bar. Rav. 500.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Both the aforesaid rejection orders( one by C.M.M. and the subsequent order by the Lower Revisional Court) were challenged by the widow in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 12865/2006 (Prem Kumari Mishra Vs. State of U.P.) before this court, which was allowed on 4.12.2006.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 136,
"end": 229,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 279,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Its life was extended subsequently by means of independent amending Acts, but even as last amended, it was due to expire on a certain date without any extension or any saying, except the one I have mentioned, being provided for.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "On appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the appellate authority allowed the appeal holding that the rig and compressor mounted on a lorry constituted an integral unit and the rig and compressor is eligible for depreciation at 30% prescribed for motor lorries.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It was submitted that the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar (verbatim) set of facts and evidence.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Petitioners Uma Shankar and Narender Kumar, claim to be in possession of Shop Nos.10A and 10 in the Wellesly Mess Market and assail the order dated 17.9.96, passed by the Additional District Judge as in C.W.No.3670/96.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 23,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 42,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 155,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 217,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It cannot be presumed by the use of the term \"area\", \"route\" or part thereof in the same section.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is a concurrent findings of the courts below and it is well-settled that the first appellate court is the final fact findig court.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "To this limited extent, the action of the AO in starting proceedings under Section 147 is open to challenge in a Court of law as held in S. Narayanappa v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 219 (SC).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 75,
"end": 86,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 181,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Other chapters in the Industrial Disputes Act lay down the law in respect of strikes and lock-outs, lay off, retrenchment and closure and penalties for breach of its provisions.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 45,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The order dated 15.10.2009 was challenged vide OA No. 97/2010 which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on 31.05.2011. \n\n2.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 26,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 61,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 118,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The deceased was taken to AIIMS where he was declared brought dead at 12.30 A.M. on 20.09.1986.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 31,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 94,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A.C. 88,\t Attorney General for\t Ontario v.\n Attorney General for the\tDominion and the Distillers and Brewers Association,[1896] A.C. 348, State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. and Ors., [1979] 3 SCR 709, G. K. Krishnan etc. v.\n The State\tof Tamil Nadu and Anr. etc. [1975] 2 SCR 715 @ 721, Commonwealth of Australia v. Bank of New South Wales [1950] A.C. 235 referred to.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 154,
"end": 266,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 361,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "K.S.Hegde, J, as His Lordship then was, observed:-",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 9,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the meantime, on receipt of the information about the admission of the injured including Chinnathambi, P.W.33, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Podanur Police Station, proceeded to Coimbatore Medical Collecte Hospital, Coimbatore, and questioned P.W.1, who gave a statement.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 104,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 176,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 239,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The said order reads as follows:-\"IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2039 of 2006 Chief Engg. T.N. Electricity Board & Another .. Appellants Versus Indiraniammal ..",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 201,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "At a meeting of the Board of Directors of N. R. Sarkar & Co., held on September 22, 1953, the appointment of appellant P. N. Taluqdar as Managing Director of N. R. Sarkar & Co. Ltd., was renewed for a period of seven years.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 60,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 88,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 133,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 181,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "While the observations of Gajendragadkar J. in Rangachari's case AIR 1962 SC 36 were quoted with approval, it was further observed in Narasingha Rao's case (AIR 1968 SG 349) :--\n \"As we have already stated, Articles 14 and 16 form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees \"and supplement each other.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 57,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 79,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 148,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 173,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 225,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Regarding the first circumstance that it was A1 Sunil who took the child from the care of PW8 Tara, prosecution has examined PW8 Tara and her neighbour PW12 - Dariba besides the evidence of PW10 Sharda.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 53,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 98,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 133,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 165,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 201,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In Article 329A an exercise of judicial power is the question for determination.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 15,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ramu (P.W. 9) and a few others were also with him.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 4,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Fundamental rights within their allotted fields trans- cend the legislative and executive power of the sovereign authority.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "What is the profit or gain which can be said to accrue or arise to the assessee when he makes over his personal asset to the partnership firm as his contribution to its capital?",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court was dealing with an issue whether the role of the appellant as a doctor in that case amounted to a rash or a negligent act as to endanger the life of the patient.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "If he has no-power at all to do the act complained of, he is as much subject to an injunction as he would be to a 'mandamus' if he refused to do an act which the law plainly required him to do.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Let explanation be called from the Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh (Biaora) regarding as to why non-bailable warrant issued against appellant No.6 Ratanlal S/o Khemraj has not been served.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 68,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 157,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 169,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "We have no proof of any of theses infirmities in this case.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Purshottam Das, defendant 9, Radhey ahyam, defendant No. 10 and Chandi Prasad Rao defendant 10A are defendants 2nd set.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 14,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 41,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The defendants' case on this point is that in resting her arm on the window still the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care of her safety and this was a contributory factor to the accident.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "It is not disputed that this branch was opened on the 28th July 1952 and stopped working on the 2nd August 1952 when the police raid took place.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 68,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 111,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "As the impugned modifications were made without affording the appellant reasonable opportunity for representing its case they are bad in law; (3) Even if the said proceeding is considered as an administrative proceeding, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on the basis of the rule laid down by this Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Ors. (1), and ( 4 ).",
"entities": [
{
"start": 320,
"end": 370,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The surveyor asked an acquaintance in Ahmadabad to go and verify the salvage and compare the same with damaged samples kept by the insured.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 47,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(4) That inasmuch as Messrs Goverdhandas could not supply the apparatus as per the specifications the order was cancelled on April 24, 1965 by letter Ext. P-17.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 125,
"end": 139,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "JUDGMENT:\nJ U D G M E N T S.B. SINHA, J :",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 36,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It was nobody's case that in providing interest-free loans by the assessee to its employees any expenditure had been incurred by the assessee-company.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The respondent therefore again made a representation to the inquiry officer on 30.11.2003 for supply of certified photocopies of the relevant documents.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 89,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The distinction which has been made between 'material facts' and 'particulars' was brought by Scott, L.J. in Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd. (1936) 1 KB 697 in the following passage : \nThe cardinal provision in Rule 4 is that the statement of claim must state the material facts.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 99,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 212,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is prayed in the application that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as the plaintiff has no right to restrained the defendant No.1 for sell of the suit property as per the Transfer of Property Act and suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as barred by Provisions of Sec.34 of Specific Relief Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 202,
"end": 226,
"label": "STATUTE"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 306,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 329,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the first instance, Mr.A.D.Desai contended that the petitioners might not have led full evidence before the District Court, knowing or at least believing that the proceedings before the District Court were illegal by reason of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 56B and that if that be the position, the petitioners would be considerably prejudiced by refusal to interfere with the order of the District Court in revision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 35,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 281,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sikri, J. (as he then was), speaking for the majority, said that the following definition of the word 'office' given by Rowlatt, J. in Great Western Rly. Co. v. Bater, (1920) 3 KB 266 was appropriate:--",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 127,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE AKM M.Cr.C. No. 8763/2009. \n\n 04/02/2015 Shri Wakeel Khan, learned counsel for the applicants.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 1,
"end": 17,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 50,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 82,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the cross-examination, PW.12 has admitted that her husband was also suspected and interrogated by police once; her statement was recorded on 30.1.2004 and till that day, she did not disclose about she talking with accused No.1 as aforementioned.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 153,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been submitted that para 6 of the 1987 Directions provides the mode of investment which is necessarily linked up with the rate of interest mandatorily and compulsorily required to be paid by every residuary non-banking company by para 5 of the 1987 Directions.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Since the complainant Mohd. Rafiq claims to be innocent, whereas the police, after carrying out investigation, has concluded he alongwith his co-accused is guilty of committing murder of Mohd. Rashid, investigation on the counter version given by the complainant would be a re- investigation and not only a further investigation by the police.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 199,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The next incidental question which arises for consideration is whether there has been a severance in status and a division as between Pennan III, Vellian and Anaikutti.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 134,
"end": 140,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 153,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 167,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Thus, the submission that the entire examination should be set aside also merits no consideration.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "He has also denied that Chiman Bhuriya took them near his house and one stone was seized from there in their presence, or that he also showed one toilet and thereafter, he took them the panchas and the police near Sukhi Canal and showed the place by stating that he and Kalji had thrown the dead-body in that canal by bringing it in a bundle.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 275,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\nCounsel has further submitted that accused got the matter referred to CC NO: 378/12 Mohd Afsar v/s Mohd Afroz Judgment dated 04.03.2014 8 of 17 \u00ad9\u00ad mediation center but there also he tried to buy time.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 110,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 136,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Will was also witnessed by another attesting witness Karnail Singh, who, as per the statement of DW-1 Pritam Singh, also signed the Will in the presence of Sarwan Singh and that of the scribe and even the photograph of Sarwan Singh was pasted on the Will and scribe also made entry of the Will in his register.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 70,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 118,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 172,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 235,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\n \u2794 It was also agreed that if he or his legal heirs refuses to execute sale deed/transfer documents of the tenanted premises in favour of the tenant, the advance amount of Rs. E. No. 468/06/03 Tulsi Dass v Ashok Kumar Kainth 9 of 21 two lacs would be returned to the tenant with interest @ 24% per annum.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In W.P. 907/86 (corresponding to W.A. 669/86) 2 petitioners working as Section Officers etc. (Cat. 5 of Divn. I) claimed equal salary with that of their junior Sri Shyam Sunder.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 14,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 44,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 176,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "M. F. A. 337/78 is against the common order of the Calicut Tribunal in O. A. Nos. 176/74 and 211/74, holding that the teak plantations involved in the two applications (894 acres in O. A. 176 and 343.95 hectares in O. A. 211) are eligible for exemption under Section 2 (f) (1) (i) (C) of the Vesting Act.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 67,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 99,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 191,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 224,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 284,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 292,
"end": 303,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Similarly the party No.1 will be entitled to construct the first floor on the main building and construction on the garrage.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "HC Devinder Kumar deposed that he had prepared the kalandra Ex.PW-23/A under Section 41 Cr.P.C. \n\n34.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 17,
"label": "CASE_NUMBER"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 87,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 95,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(l) It has come in evidence that Faiyaz Ahmad and Neyaz Ahmad reside at Aurangabad but they have not been examined by the plaintiff in support of his case although the plaintiff claims his title through them.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 45,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 61,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 82,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It has been argued on behalf of the appellant before us that when he accepted to conduct the course for four days in the A.P. Productivity Council for the benefit of the employees of the Girijan Co-operative Corporation, he was engaged in occasional work of a scientific or cultural character.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 121,
"end": 146,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 219,
"label": "ORG"
}
]
},
{
"text": "It is stated that Bhojraj went to the house of Rajendra Padmakar whereas, Ganesh Dhakde went to the house of Subhash Padmakar five minutes after the departure of the witness Bhojraj.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 25,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 64,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 87,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 125,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 181,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In my view, Explanation-I is not a mere explanation added to explain or elaborate Regulation No.67 (10), but it is an independent provision.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 103,
"label": "STATUTE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "He has deposed that they all saw Alrav in a pool of blood and Laxmi had also sustained injuries.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 38,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 67,
"label": "OTHER_PERSON"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Witness DW9 Sh. N.V.N Krishnan who was posted as Inspector of Police with CBI, ACB, New Delhi in January 2009 had identified his signatures on the seizure memo Ex.DW9/A vide which he had seized document related to this case during 06/11 26 of 95 a search conducted at the office premise of accused no.1 Sh. Anil Kumar Saini.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 30,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 93,
"label": "ORG"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 245,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 323,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court were heard and allowed by the Division Bench (M. Katju and Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, JJ.) vide common judgment and order dated January 27, 2004 reported in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of U.P. (connected with Moser Baer India Ltd. v. State of U.P.). \n\n4. State of U.P., being aggrieved, filed special leave petitions before the apex court.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 46,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 101,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 128,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 188,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 245,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 300,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 321,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 391,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Here, ad interim order of attachment was passed by the Vacation Judge who was sitting in vacation as District and Sessions Judge.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 128,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl Mc No. 1622 of 2006()\n\n\n1. T.R.Ajayan, S/O. O.Raman,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. M.Ravindran,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Mrs. Nirmala Dinesh, W/O. Dinesh,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.A.Kumar\n\n For Respondent :Smt.M.K.Pushpalatha\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R.Raman\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K.Mohanan\n\n Dated :07/01/2008\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 83,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 182,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 251,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 311,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 365,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 400,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 425,
"end": 436,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nR. Pandian And Anothera. Deivendran Son Of M. Ammavasithevar\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Tamil Naduthrough The Secretary, Department Of Home\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 72,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 118,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Additional Sessions \n Judge\u00adII, South District, Saket Court, Delhi.\n\nSession Case No. 59/2013\n\nIn the matter of :\n\nState \n\nVersus\n\n1. Ram Srijan Bhagat Kori,\nS/o late Chatu Ram,\nR/o H. No.619, Gali No.7B,\nShambhav Colony, Mandi Pahari, Delhi.\n\n\n2. Chanderwati Devi \nW/o Ram Srijan Bhagat Kori,\nR/o H. No.619, Gali No.7B,\nShambhav Colony, Mandi Pahari, Delhi.\n\n\n3. Urmila,\nD/o Ram Srijan Bhagat Kori,\nR/o H. No.619, Gali No.7B,\nShambhav Colony, Mandi Pahari, Delhi.\n\nFir No. : 11/2012.\nPolice Station : Fatehpur Beri.\nUnder section. : 308/34 Ipc.\n\nDate of assignment : 23.03.2013.\nReserved for order on : 17.05.2014.\nDate of decision : 31.05.2014.\n\nState v. Ram Srijan Bhagat & Ors., Fir No. 11/2012. Page 1 of 20\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 169,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 206,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 315,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 422,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 753,
"end": 758,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 762,
"end": 779,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 15339 of 2007(A)\n\n\n1. Vikram Sarabhai Educational Trust &\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. University Of Calicut,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Vice Chancellor,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.George Poonthottam\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Alexander Thomas,Sc,Kpsc\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Basheer\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N.Ravindran\n\n Dated :23/05/2008\n\n O R D E R\n K.Balakrishnan Nair,\n A.K.Basheer &\n P.N.Ravindran, Jj.\n -----------------------------------------\n W.P.(C) No.15339 Of 2007-A\n -----------------------------------------\n Dated 23rd May, 2008.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 107,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 203,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 272,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 330,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 385,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 419,
"end": 438,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 463,
"end": 474,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 499,
"end": 512,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 570,
"end": 589,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 622,
"end": 633,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 664,
"end": 677,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta And Honble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy \n\nM.A.C.M.A. No.2332 Of 2011 and batch \n\n02-04-2014 \n\nM/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited,Rep. by its Deputy Manager \n(Legal), 3-6-111/8, Ii Floor, Far East Plaza, Street No.18, Himayath Nagar,\nHyderabad. -....Appellant.\n\nSmt. Manju Devi, W/o.Late Yogendar Kumar Rai, Age 42 Years, Household, H. No.3- \n5-1415/A, Barkathpura, Hyderabad and four others. - -Respondents.\n\nCounsel for Appellant/s:Mr. T. Mahender Rao.\n Mr. Kota Subba Rao. \n .\nCounsel for Respondent/s : Mr. R.G. Siva Kumar.\n Mr. P. Ramakrishna Reddy.\n Mr. T. Mahender Rao.\n\nHead Note: \n\n?Cases referred : \n\n1. (2009) 6 Scc 121\n2. 2004 Acj 1 \n3. 2006 (6) Alt 147\n4. Air 2012 Sc 3104 \n5. Manu/Hp/1314/2010 \n6. 2013 Acj 145 \n7. 2004 13 Scc 224 \n8. 2010 (4) Ald 531 (Db)\n9. 2013 Acj 1403 \n\nHonble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta \nAnd \nHonble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy \n\nM.A.C.M.A. Nos.2332 Of 2011 & 1898 Of 2012 \n\nThis Court made the following :\n\n\nCommon Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 82,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 212,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 356,
"end": 366,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 529,
"end": 544,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 574,
"end": 588,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 637,
"end": 652,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 692,
"end": 712,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 751,
"end": 766,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 909,
"end": 913,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1034,
"end": 1050,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1087,
"end": 1110,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Date of Reserve: December 11, 2008\n Date of Order: February 18, 2009\n+ Cm(M) 133/1999\n% 18.02.2009\n Raghbir Singh ...Petitioner\n Through: Mr. K.D. Kaushal, Advocate\n\n Versus\n\n Sheela Wanti & Anr ...Respondents\n Through: Mr. G.D. Chopra, Advocate\n\n Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra\n\n1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the\n judgment? Yes.\n\n2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.\n\n3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 340,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 430,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 468,
"end": 480,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 558,
"end": 569,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 598,
"end": 618,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 5453 of 2003\n\nPetitioner:\nThe Divisional Controller, Ksrtc\t\t\t\n\n\nRespondent:\nVs.\n\nMahadeva Shetty\t and Anr.\t\t\t\t\n\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 122,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja\n Additional Sessions Judge\u00ad Special Ftc - 2 (Central)\n Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi. \n\n\nSessions Case No. : 09/13\nUnique Id No. : 02401R0553072012\n\n\nState versus Gaurav Maggo \n S/o Sh.Ashok Kumar Maggo\n R/o C\u00ad83, Gandhi Vihar,\n Delhi. \n\n\nCase arising out of:\n\n\nFir No. : 111/12\nPolice Station : Timarpur\nUnder Section : 376/417 Ipc\n\n\nJudgment reserved on : 17.02.2014\nJudgment pronounced on : 22.02.2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 150,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 221,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 272,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Xii Addl. City Civil And\n Sessions Judge (CCH.No.27), At Bangalore.\n\n\nPresent:Sri.Bhairappa Shivaling Naik, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl),\n Xii Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bangalore.\n\n Dated: This The 23Rd Day Of July 2015\n\n O.S.No.1401/2010\n\n Plaintiff:- Shri.Ramaraj,\n S/o.Sri.Kempaiah,\n Age 68 years,\n R/at: Mathrusree,\n No.21/32, 1st Main,\n 5th Cross, Bhyataranapura,\n Mysore Road,\n Bangalore -560 026.\n\n (By Sri. Ashok B.Patil,\n Advocate)\n\n -Vs-\n\n Defendants:- 1. Thimmegowda,\n S/o.Mariyappa,\n Aged about 47 years,\n R/at No.101/B,\n 20th Main Road,\n Marenahalli,\n Vijayanagar,\n Bangalore-560 040.\n 2 O.S.No.1401/2010\n\n\n\n\n 2. Smt.Mahadevamma,\n w/o. Chunetinikar\n aged about 61 years,\n R/at.Basaweshawara\n Nilaya, Manjunatha\n Nagara, Kytsandra Post,\n Tumkur.\n\n Or\n\n No.3, Barline,\n Dar Quarters,\n Tumkur.\n\n 3. Smt.M.Saroja,\n w/o.K.C.Lakshminarayana,\n aged about 51 years,\n r/at. No.R-23,\n Car Police Quarters,\n Sirsi Circle,\n Mysore road,\n Bengaluru -560018.\n\n (Deft.1 by Sri.CS\n Defts.2 &3 by\n Sri.C.Venkatesha-\n Advocates)\n\nDate of Institution of the suit : 26/02/2010\nNature of the suit : Declaration and\n Mandatory Injunction\nDate of commencement of\nrecording of the evidence : 13/10/2011\n 3 O.S.No.1401/2010\n\n\n\nDate on which the Judgment was\npronounced : 23/07/2015\nTotal Duration Years Months Days\n : 05 04 27\n\n\n\n (Bhairappa Shivaling Naik)\n Xii Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bangalore\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 129,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 341,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 684,
"end": 697,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 814,
"end": 825,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1194,
"end": 1210,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1796,
"end": 1804,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2923,
"end": 2947,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nUnion Of India\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nShri Gopal Chandra Misra And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 70,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S. S. Sangwan vs. Rajender Kumar Bansal Cc. No. 3116/12\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Swati Katiyar, Metropolitan\n Magistrate-05 (Ni Act), Dwarka Courts, Delhi\n\nCc No. 3116/12\nId No. 02405R0227002010\n\nSh. S. S. Sangwan\ns/o Sh. P. S. Sangwan\nR/o H. No. Rzf2/113,\nGali No. 5, F2 Block,\nNasirpur Road, Mahavir Enclave Ph-I,\nPalam, New Delhi-110045\n ...........Complainant\n Vs.\nSh. Rajender Kumar Bansal\ns/o Sh. Tulsi Ram Bansal\nr/o-426, Paschim Puri\nSikendra, Agra, Up-282007\n ..................Accused\n\nDate of Institution : 15.09.2010\nOffence Complained of : u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881\nPlea of Accused : Not Guilty\nDate of Reserving order : 18.12.2013\nDate of Decision : 04.01.2014\nDecision : Acquitted\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 39,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 171,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 230,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 491,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Ix Addl. Small Causes And\n Addl. Mact., Bangalore, (Scch-7)\n\n Dated this, the 29th day of September, 2015.\n\n\nPresent : Smt.Indira Mailswamy Chettiyar,\n B.Com., Ll.B. (Spl.),L.L.M.,\n Ix Addl. Small Causes Judge & Xxxiv Acmm,\n Court of Small Causes,\n Member, Mact-7, Bangalore.\n\n M.V.C.No.7875/2012\n\n\n1. Smt.Ningamma @ Lingamma, ..... Petitioners\nW/o Late B.H.Gangadharaiah,\nAged about 62 years,\nR/at No.45, 2nd Main Road,\nRaghava Nagar,\nNew Timber Yard Layout,\nBangalore-560026.\n\nHer Native Place Address :\nNo.86, Byadagere,\nKunigal Taluk,\nTumkur District.\n\n(By Sri. Venkatesha Naidu. R., Adv.,)\n\n V/s\n .....Respondents\n1. District Health Family\nWelfare Officer (D.H.W.O.),\nC/o G.V.K. Emergency\nManagement & Research Institute,\nS.T.D.C. Housing Board Colony,\nOpp. Govt. Unani Medical College,\nG.M.S. Compound,\nMagadi Road,\nBangalore-560079.\n\n2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nRegional Office,\n M.V.C.No.7875/2012\n 2 (Scch-7)\n\n6th Floor, Krishi Bhavan,\nHudson Circle,\nBangalore-560001.\n\n(Policy No.241400/31/11/01/00014183\nValid from 16.11.2011 to 15.11.2012)\n\n3. Thammaiah S/o Late Rangaiaha,\nNo.30, 8th Main, 9th Cross,\nAgrahara Dasarahalli,\nMagadi Road,\nBangalore-79.\n\n(Owner of Motor Bike bearing No.KA-02-\nEe-1890)\n\n(R-1 and R-3 Exparte)\n(R-2 By Sri. L. Sreekanta Rao, Adv.,)\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 185,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 435,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 692,
"end": 712,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 828,
"end": 866,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1050,
"end": 1081,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1367,
"end": 1376,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1559,
"end": 1575,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Patna High Court Cr. App (Db) No.404 of 2008 dt.16-07-2012 1\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Criminal Appeal (Db) No.404 of 2008\n ===================================================\n Manish Kumar son of Parsuram Thakur, resident of village Repura, P.S.Sakara, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar ... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 409 of 2008 =================================================== Chandan Kumar son of Ram Binoy Thakur, resident of village Harpur, P.S.Sakra, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 426 of 2008 =================================================== Nagendra Mishra son of Gaya Mishra,resident of village Sutihara, P.S.Mushahari, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 473 of 2008 =================================================== Pankaj Kumar Thakur son of Ram Chandra Thakur, resident of village Repura, P.S.Sakara, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s with Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 607 of 2008 =================================================== Nanhaki Chaudhary son of Maksudan Chaudhary, resident of village Dhali, P.S. Sakara, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s All the above five appeals are against the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2008 and order of sentence dated 28.03.2008 passed by Sri Ram Chandra Sahni, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. Ii, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 325 of 2002. \n\n ------------\n Appearance :\n (In Cr.App (Db) No.404 of 2008) For the Appellant/s :Mr.Saravan Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr.Pramod Kumar (In Cr. App (Db) No.409 of 2008) For the Appellant/s :Mr Saravan Kumar, Sr. Advocate Patna High Court Cr. App (Db) No.404 of 2008 dt.16-07-2012 2 Mr. Ambuj Nayan Chaubey Mr. Siddharth Harsh (In Cr.App (Db) No.426 of 2008) For the Appellant/s :Mr.Kailash Nath Diwakar,Advocate (In Cr. App (Db) No.473 of 2008) For the Appellant/s :Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Khan,Sr.Advocate (In Cr. App (Db) No.607 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Punam Srivastava Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Singh Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s: Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, App (in all the 5 appeals) =================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Shyam Kishore Sharma And Honourable Mr. Justice Amaresh Kumar Lal Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 95,
"end": 128,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 255,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 388,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 505,
"end": 518,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 637,
"end": 651,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 769,
"end": 784,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 903,
"end": 917,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1035,
"end": 1054,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1176,
"end": 1190,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1308,
"end": 1325,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1447,
"end": 1461,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1826,
"end": 1839,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1857,
"end": 1869,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1927,
"end": 1940,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2020,
"end": 2039,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2044,
"end": 2059,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2116,
"end": 2136,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2204,
"end": 2222,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2294,
"end": 2310,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2315,
"end": 2336,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2341,
"end": 2360,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2387,
"end": 2406,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2517,
"end": 2537,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2565,
"end": 2582,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose And The Hon'Ble Sri Vilas V. Afzulpurkar \n\nWrit Appeal No.1309 Of 2012 \n\n4-1-2013\n\nK. Raja Rao \n\nA.P. Industrial Development Corporation Limited (State Government Undertaking)\nRep. by its Managing Director Parishrama Bhavan, Fathemaidan Road Hyderabad and \nanother\n\nCounsel For Appellant: Sri E. Manohar, Senior Counsel for Sri V. Kishore \n\nCounsel For Respondent No.1: Sri S. Sreenivasa Reddy Counsel For Respondent No.2: G.P. for Revenue Head Note: \n?Citations: \n1. Air 1979 Sc 102 \n2. Air 1971 Ap 169. \n3. (2006) 9 Scc 617 \n4. Air 1999 Sc 1305 \n5. Aplj 1984(2) 173\n6. Air 1933 Pc 63 \n7. Air 1976 Sc 1309 8.1993 Supp.(1) Scc 499 \n9. (1979) 1 Scc 193 \n10. Air 2006 Sc 1874 \n11. 1939 Ac 439 \n12. (1918) 2 Kb 833 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 54,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 95,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 169,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 219,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 381,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 416,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 457,
"end": 476,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDate: 16.02.2015\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice R.Subbiah\n\n\t \t\t A.Nos.6809 to 6811 of 2014\nand\nA.Nos.6948 & 6949 of 2014\nand\nA.D.No.30964, 30779, \n29500, 40981 of 2014\nand\nA.D.No.38355 of 2007\nin\nE.P.No.48 of 1997\nin\nC.S.No.43 of 1962\n\nP-1 S.V.R. Saroja ..\n\nP-2 S.V.R. Vijaya ..\n\nP-3 S.V.R. Ramprasad ..\n\nP-4 S.V.R. Renuka Devi All Are Residing At L17/71 24Th St Anna Ngar East Chennai 102\t\t\t\t... Petitioners\n\n\tVs.\n\nR-1 S.V. Mathaprasad 20 Bajanaikoil St Rajakilpakkam Chennai 600 073\n\nR-2 Mrs. Rajaby Fathima Buhari Dead By Lrs\n\nR-3 A.M. Buhari (Dead) By Lrs\n\nR-4 Mohammed Basheer Buhari (Dead) By Lrs\n\nR-5 Mrs Zubeida Hamid .\n\nR-6 Mr Mohammed Farook ..\n\nR-7 Mrs. Maimeena Jamal ..\n\nR-8 Haja Mohideen Buhari ..\n\nR-9 Abdul Coder Buhari ..\n\nR-10 Mrs Mumtaj B Uhari 2 To 9 Are Legal Heirs Of 1St J.D.) Residing At Imperial Hotel No.5 Gandhi Irvin Road Egmore Chennai 8\n\nR-11 Mrs Shahira Basheer W/O Deceased Mohammed Basheer Buhri\n\nR-12 Mrs Fazeelath Siraj D/O Mohammed Basheer Buhri\n\nR-13 Mrs. Mahajubdeen Ibrahim D/O Mohammed Basheer Buhri\n\nR-14 Haja Abdul Nazeer D/O Mohammed Basheer Buhri\n\nR-15 Mrs Farzana Malik D/O Mohammed Basheer Buhri\n\nR-16 Haja Anwar Murad S/O Mohammed Basheer Buhri\n\nR-17 Mrs Zeenath Yusuf S/O Mohammed Basheer Buhri\n\nR-18 Haja Amed Imitaz S/O Mohammed Basheer Buhri\n\nR-19 Haja Mohammed Sameer S/O Mohammed Basheer Buhri\n\nR-20 Miss Roshanara Begam 10 To 19 Are Legal Heirs Of 3Rd J.D.) Residing At No.L 15 27Th Cross St Besant Nagar Chennai 90\n\nR-21 A.M.D. Buhari \t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondent\n\n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 101,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 303,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 326,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 336,
"end": 352,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 380,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 492,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 573,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 592,
"end": 603,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 624,
"end": 647,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 672,
"end": 685,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 697,
"end": 712,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 727,
"end": 741,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 751,
"end": 771,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 781,
"end": 799,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 814,
"end": 828,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 943,
"end": 958,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1006,
"end": 1021,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1061,
"end": 1080,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1115,
"end": 1132,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1171,
"end": 1184,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1219,
"end": 1235,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1274,
"end": 1287,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1322,
"end": 1338,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1373,
"end": 1393,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1433,
"end": 1448,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1552,
"end": 1565,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nBabu Ram Upadhya\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 38,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 85,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Gujarat\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 41,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\nOrder Sheet Sheet No...\n A.P. No. 251 of 2005\n\n In The High Court At Calcutta\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Original\n Side\n\n\n In the matter of:\n\n\n Union Of India\n Vs.\n Samarendra Nath Mukherjee\nBefore:\nThe Hon'ble Justice\nIndira Banerjee.\n\nDate: 09.04.2009\n Mr. N.R. Mukherjee .....for the Petitioner\n\n Mr. Moloy Kr. Ghosh.....for the Respondent\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 203,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 442,
"end": 456,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 537,
"end": 562,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 591,
"end": 606,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 664,
"end": 678,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 742,
"end": 757,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe Edward Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar, And Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Ajmer And Another.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 96,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Devendra Kumar Sharma\n Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Spl. Acts) Central\n Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi\n Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs D.D. Sehgal (through Lr)\n U/s 630 of Companies Act, 1956\n Cc No.1650/3\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 151,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 194,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 209,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Arb. A. No. 5 of 2012 & I.A. No. 22361 of 2012\n\n Reserved on: 11th January, 2013\n Decision on: 4th February, 2013\n\n Intertoll Ics Cecons. O & M Co. Pvt. Ltd. ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Ciccu Mukhopadhaya, Senior\n Advocate with Mr. Balaji\n Subramanian, Ms. Jasleen Oberoi and\n Ms. Rohini Sisodia, Advocates.\n\n versus\n\n National Highways Authority Of India .... Respondent\n Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Senior Advocate\n with Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Mr.\n Samanvya Dwivedi, Mr. Kunal Bahari\n and Ms. Monisha Handa, Advocates.\n\n And\n Arb. A. No. 6 of 2012 & I.A. No. 22363 of 2012\n\n Intertoll Ics Cecons. O & M Co. Pvt. Ltd. ..... Appellant\n Through: Through: Mr.Ciccu Mukhopadhaya,\n Senior Advocate with Mr. Balaji\n Subramanian, Ms. Jasleen Oberoi and\n Ms. Rohini Sisodia, Advocates.\n versus\n\n National Highways Authority Of India .... Respondent\n Through: Through: Mr. Parag P. Tripathi,\n Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhimanyu\n Bhandari, Mr. Samanvya Dwivedi, Mr.\n Kunal Bahari and Ms. Monisha Handa,\n Advocates.\n\n Coram: Justice S. Muralidhar\n\n\nArb. A. Nos. 5 & 6 of 2012 Page 1 of 23\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 312,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 382,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 454,
"end": 504,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 510,
"end": 524,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 565,
"end": 579,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 638,
"end": 674,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 725,
"end": 742,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 799,
"end": 817,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 853,
"end": 869,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 875,
"end": 887,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 926,
"end": 939,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1070,
"end": 1111,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1171,
"end": 1189,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1248,
"end": 1298,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1304,
"end": 1318,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1359,
"end": 1373,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1424,
"end": 1460,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1520,
"end": 1537,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1594,
"end": 1642,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1648,
"end": 1664,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1700,
"end": 1712,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1721,
"end": 1734,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1801,
"end": 1814,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 16206 of 2010(R)\n\n\n1. Jayachandran.C., Aged 38,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The High Court Of Kerala, Represented By\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary),\n\n3. State Of Kerala, Represented By The\n\n4. Krishnakumar.P., S/O.G.P.Panicker,\n\n5. Smitha.M., Uphar, Udaya Nagar,\n\n6. Muhammed Raees, S/O.Muhammed Basheer,\n\n7. Sulekha.M., Panamvilakam Veedu,\n\n8. Balakrishnan K.K., Kariyangatte House,\n\n9. Nazeera.S., 8/61, Nelsa,\n\n10. Babu.K., Charuvila Puthen Veedu,\n\n11. Kauser Edapagath, Zahira,\n\n12. Badharudeen.A., Panayil Veedu,\n\n13. Manilal C.S., Chennattu House,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Mathai M Paikaday(Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Sri.A.Mohamed Mustaque\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.J.Chelameswar\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon\n\n Dated :13/09/2010\n\n O R D E R\n J.Chelameswar, Cj. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n W.P.(C)Nos. 16206 and 16207 of 2010\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 89,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 196,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 298,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 319,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 344,
"end": 359,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 383,
"end": 392,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 432,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 460,
"end": 470,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 513,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 539,
"end": 549,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 569,
"end": 600,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 607,
"end": 631,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 638,
"end": 667,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 674,
"end": 686,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 743,
"end": 763,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 804,
"end": 822,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 857,
"end": 870,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 895,
"end": 916,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 953,
"end": 966,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 974,
"end": 995,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Present: Hon'ble Shri Justice R.C. Mishra\n Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Jain\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Misc. Cr. Case No.1983/2011\n Rahis Ahmed, son of Aziz Ahmed,\n aged about 50 years, Resident of 1002,\n Panchtantra Towers, Yari Road, Andheri (West)\n Mumbai - 400 061 (Mah) ...Petitioner\n vs.\n State of Madhya Pradesh, through Sho\n P.S. State Economic Offence, Investigation Bureau\n Bhopal (M.P.) ...Respondent\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Counsel with Shri S.A. Khan,\nAdvocate for the petitioner.\n Shri Umesh Pandey, Standing Counsel for the respondent/State\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nDate of Hearing : 11.04.2011\nDate of Order : 22.07.2011\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 261,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 333,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 609,
"end": 620,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 943,
"end": 966,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1246,
"end": 1265,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1292,
"end": 1301,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1342,
"end": 1354,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 30.06.2008\n\nCoram: \n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran \nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.N.Basha\n\nCriminal Appeal No.1110 of 2006\n\n\nChinnappan alias Karuppusamy\t\t\t... Appellant\n\n\nvs.\n\n\nState, by Inspector of Police, \nDharapuram Police Station, \nErode District. \n(Cr.No.216/2006).\t\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\n\tAppeal against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode District dated 24.11.2006 made in S.C.No.132 of 2006.\n\n\t\tFor Appellant\t:\tMr.S.Ashok Kumar, S.C.\n\t\t\t\t\t\tFor Mr.A.K.Kumaraswamy\n\n\t\tFor Respondent :\tMr.N.R.Elango\n\t\t\t\t\t\tAdditional Public Prosecutor\n----\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 113,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 154,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 218,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 249,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 512,
"end": 525,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 545,
"end": 560,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 584,
"end": 594,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-1-\n\n\n In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh : Addl. Sessions Judge\n Spl. Judge: Ndps (Nw): Rohini Courts: Delhi\n\n In the matter of :\n Sc No. 64/12\n Fir No. 210/12\n Ps. Crime Branch\n U/s 21 Ndps Act\n State\n Versus\n Mohd. Niyaz\n S/o Late Sh.Kurban Ali\n R/o H.No. E-2609, J.J.Colony,\n Bawana, Delhi\n\n Date of receipt : 19.10.2012\n Date of arguments : 08.01.2014\n Date of announcement : 08.01.2014\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 120,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 445,
"end": 450,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 487,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Crl.L.P. No. 257 of 2013\n\nIcon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate\n\n versus\n\nAggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Sanjay Manchanda & Mr.\n Anand Chaudhari, Advocates\n\n With\n\n Crl.L.P. 258 of 2013\n\nIcon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate\n\n versus\n\nAggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Sanjay Manchanda & Mr.\n Anand Chaudhari, Advocates\n\n With\n Crl.L.P. 259 of 2013\n\nIcon Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate\n\n versus\n\nAggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Sanjay Manchanda & Mr.\n Anand Chaudhari, Advocates\n With\n Crl.L.P. 260 of 2013\nCrl.Lp. Nos. 257-262 of 2013 Page 1 of 14\n Icon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate\n\n versus\n\nAggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Sanjay Manchanda & Mr.\n Anand Chaudhari, Advocates\n\n With\n Crl.L.P. 261 of 2013\n\nIcon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate\n\n versus\n\nAggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Sanjay Manchanda & Mr.\n Anand Chaudhari, Advocates\n And\n Crl.L.P. 262 of 2013\n\nIcon Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate\n\n versus\n\nAggarwal Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Sanjay Manchanda & Mr.\n Anand Chaudhari, Advocates\n\n Coram: Justice S. Muralidhar\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 113,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 211,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 291,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 344,
"end": 360,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 408,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 503,
"end": 526,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 616,
"end": 626,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 677,
"end": 706,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 759,
"end": 775,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 808,
"end": 823,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 913,
"end": 935,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1026,
"end": 1036,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1087,
"end": 1116,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1168,
"end": 1184,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1219,
"end": 1234,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1369,
"end": 1392,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1490,
"end": 1500,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1551,
"end": 1580,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1632,
"end": 1648,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1681,
"end": 1696,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1786,
"end": 1809,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1907,
"end": 1917,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1968,
"end": 1997,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2049,
"end": 2065,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2100,
"end": 2115,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2179,
"end": 2202,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2300,
"end": 2310,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2361,
"end": 2390,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2442,
"end": 2458,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2491,
"end": 2506,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2542,
"end": 2555,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl Rev Pet No. 3953 of 2007()\n\n\n1. Moosakoya, S/O.Muhammed,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The State Of Kerala, Represented By\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Babu S. Nair\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B.Koshy\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.Hema\n\n Dated :05/12/2007\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 87,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 194,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 305,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 383,
"end": 392,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 424,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Anurag Sain, Adj\u00ad03 (East), \n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\n Rca No.: 90/14\n Unique Case Id No. 02402C0253912014 \n\nSh. Ashok Kumar Jaitly,\nS/o Late Devraj Jaitly,\nR/o 12/80, Second Floor,\nGeeta Colony, \nDelhi\u00ad110031\n ........Appellant\n\nSmt. Manjeet Kaur,\nW/o Late Sh. Surjeet Singh,\nR/o F\u00ad78, Rajouri Garden,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110027.\n ........Respondent\n\nDate of institution of appeal : 25.08.2014\nDate of reserving judgment : 27.08.2014\nDate of pronouncement : 29.08.2014\n\nJudgment \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 165,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 337,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n Writ Petition (L) No. 634 Of 2009\n\n\n\n\n \n \n 1. Partha Ghosh, )\n Chartered Accountant of Mumbai )\n Inhabitant, having his office at )\n Price Waterhouse & Co. 252, )\n Veer Savarkar Marg, Shivaji Park, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Dadar (West), Mumbai - 400 028. )\n\n 2. D.V. P. Rao, )\n Chartered Accountant of Mumbai )\n\n\n\n\n \n Inhabitant, residing at 3/1F, )\n Durga Niketan, Thakurli East,\n ig )\n Dist. Thane, Dombivali 421 201. ).. Petitioners\n \n Versus\n \n\n\n 1. The Institute of Chartered Accountants)\n of India, having its office at )\n \n\n\n\n Icai Bhavan, Indraprastha Marg, )\n New Delhi - 110 002 and )\n Mumbai Office at Icai Bhavan, )\n Western India Regional Office, )\n\n\n\n\n\n Cuffe Parade, Colaba, )\n Mumbai - 400 005. )\n\n 2. The Disciplinary committee of )\n\n\n\n\n\n the Institute of Chartered Accountants)\n of India, having its office at Icai )\n Bhavan, Indraprastha Marg, )\n New Delhi - 110 002. )\n\n 3. Amarjit Chopra, )\n\n\n\n\n \n 2\n\n Vice President of the Institute of )\n Chartered Accountants of India, )\n and a Member of the Disciplinary )\n Committee having his office at )\n\n\n\n\n \n Icai Bhavan, Indraprastha Marg, )\n New Delhi - 110 002. )\n\n\n\n\n \n 4. Akshykumar Gupta, )\n Member of the Disciplinary )\n Committee, having his office at )\n Icai Bhavan, Indraprastha Marg, )\n\n\n\n\n \n New Delhi - 110 002. )\n\n 5. G. Ramaswamy, )\n Member of the Disciplinary )\n\n\n\n\n \n Committee, having his office at )\n Icai Bhavan, Indraprastha Marg,\n ig )\n New Delhi - 110 002. ).. Respondents\n --\n \n Shri I.M. Chagla along with Shri Atul Rajadhyaksha, Gaurav Joshi i/by\n Dave & Girish & Co. for the Petitioners.\n Shri D.D. Madon along with Shri A.S. Doctor i/by Kanga & Co. for the\n Respondents.\n \n\n\n --\n \n\n\n\n Coram : Swatanter Kumar, C.J. And\n S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.\n\n\n\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 323,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 659,
"end": 670,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1066,
"end": 1423,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1452,
"end": 1667,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1695,
"end": 1709,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1844,
"end": 2189,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2278,
"end": 2294,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2585,
"end": 2597,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2990,
"end": 3001,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3018,
"end": 3035,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3037,
"end": 3049,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3109,
"end": 3119,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3136,
"end": 3147,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3264,
"end": 3279,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3322,
"end": 3340,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jaipur \n\nBench, Jaipur\n\n(1) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4379/2012\nDewan Syed Aley Rasool Ali Khan vs. Altaf Hussain & Ors.\n\nWith \n(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15228/2013\nAbdul Kalam & Anr. vs. District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer & Ors.\nWith \n(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15275/2013\nSyed Gulzar Hussain & Anr. \nvs. \nDistrict & Session Judge, Ajmer & Ors.\n\nDate ::13.11.2013\n\nCommon Judgment \n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 55,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 146,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 164,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 234,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 285,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 336,
"end": 355,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 407,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Tapadia Rr/B. 1 / 60 Cra/395/2015\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Civil Revision Application No. 395 Of 2015\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. Magnum Developers and Ors. Applicants\n\n Vs\n\n 1. Lal Shah Baba Dargah Trust\n\n\n\n\n \n and Anr. .. Respondents\n\n\n Mr. Y. H. Muchhala, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Girish Godbole,\n\n\n\n\n \n Senior Advocate a/w S/Shri Vaibhav Nagvekar, Ajay Panicker and\n Rashda Ainapore, i/b. Ajay Law Associates for Applicants.\n \n Mr. Sagheer A. Khan a/w Mr.Sharique Nachan and G.D.Shaikh i/b\n Judicare Law Associates, Advocates for respondent no.1.\n \n Coram : R.G.Ketkar,J.\n Reserved On: 14/08/2015\n Pronounced On : 11/09/2015\n \n \n\n\n\n Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 102,
"end": 136,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 409,
"end": 426,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 554,
"end": 580,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 747,
"end": 761,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 789,
"end": 803,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 895,
"end": 911,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 913,
"end": 926,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 935,
"end": 950,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1036,
"end": 1051,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1059,
"end": 1074,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1079,
"end": 1089,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1248,
"end": 1258,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 19Th Day Of February 2013\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Subhash B Adi\n\n Regular First Appeal No.683/2003\n C/W\n Regular First Appeal Cross Objection No.3/2004\n\n\nIn R.F.A.No.683/2003\n\nBetween :\n\n1 S P Subba Rao\n Major\n\n Since Dead By His Lrs\n\n 1(a) S.Narayana Rao\n Aged About 58 Years\n\n 1(b) S.Ramakrishna Rao\n Aged About 54 Years\n\n 1(c) S.Raja Rao\n Aged About 52 Years\n\n 1(d) S. Prakash Rao\n Aged About 50 Years\n\n All Are Sons Of Late Subba Rao\n All Are R/At Vidyanagara\n Krishna Badvane\n Sira Town, Sira Taluk\n Tumkur District - 572 137\n 2\n\n2 S P Siddrama Rao\n\n3 S P Shivaji Rao\n\n4 S P Rama Rao\n\n5 S P Deva Rao\n\n All Are Majors And S/O Late S.B.Panduranga Rao\n No.1,3 And 4 Are Residents Of Sira Town\n No.2 Is Residing In Bangalore\n No.5 Is Residing At\n Chikkanahalli, Sira Town ...Appellants\n\n(By Sri. S R Krishna Kumar, Adv., A/W\nSri. Udaya Holla, Sr. Counsel )\n\n\nAnd :\n\n1 M Lakshmana Rao\n\n2 M Siddoji Rao\n\n3 M Deva Rao\n\n4 M Ramesh Babu\n\n5 M Harinatha Rao\n\n6 M Sridhar\n\n7 M Deepak\n\n\nAll Are Majors And\nS/O Late Mallaiah Rao\nAll Are R/At Balaji Nagar,\nSira Town ...Respondents\n\n(By Sri. M K Bhaskaraiah, Adv., A/W\n Sri. Yoganarasimha, Sr. Counsel For C/R-1To R-7 )\n 3\n\n\nIn R.F.A.Cr.Ob.No.3/2004\n\nBetween :\n\nAnd :\n\n1 M Lakshmana Rao\n\n2 M Siddoji Rao\n\n3 M Deva Rao\n\n4 M Ramesh Babu\n\n5 M Harinatha Rao\n\n6 M Sridhar\n\n7 M Deepak\n\nAll Are Majors And S/O Late Mallaiah Rao\nAll Are R/At Balaji Nagar,\nSira Town , Tumkur District. ...Cross Objectors\n\n(By Sri. Vardhaman V Gunjal, Adv., A/W\n Sri. Yoganarasimha, Sr. Counsel )\n\nAnd :\n\n1 S P Subba Rao\n\n2 S P Siddrama Rao\n\n3 S P Shivaji Rao\n\n4 S P Rama Rao\n\n5 S P Deva Rao\n\n All Are Majors And S/O Late S.B.Panduranga Rao\n No.1,3 And 4 Are Residents Of Sira Town\n 4\n\n No.2 Is Residing Chikkanahalli,\n Sira Taluk, Tumkur District. ...Respondents\n\n(By Sri. S R Krishna Kumar, Adv., A/W\nSri. Udaya Holla, Sr. Counsel For R-1 To R-5 )\n\n\n Rfa No.683/2003 Is Filed Under Section 96 Of Cpc Against\nThe Judgment And Decree Dated 27.3.2003 Passed In\nO.S.No.75/95 On The File Of The Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Madhugiri,\nPartly Decreeing The Suit For Partition And Separate\nPossession.\n\n R.F.A.Cr.Ob.3/2004 Is Filed Under Order 41 Of Rule 22 Of\nCpc Against The Judgment And Decree Dated 27.3.2003 Passed\nIn O.S.No.75/1995 On The File Of The Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.)\nMadhugiri, Partly Decreeing The Suit For Partition And\nSeparate Possession & The Cross-Objectors Herein Prays To\nSet Aside The Findings With Respect To The Item Nos. 3,4 & 5\nOf The Plaint Schedule.\n\n These Appeal And Cross Objection Coming On For\nHearing This Day, The Court Delivered The Following:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 189,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 367,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 422,
"end": 436,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 484,
"end": 501,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 549,
"end": 559,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 607,
"end": 621,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 845,
"end": 861,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 871,
"end": 886,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 896,
"end": 908,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 918,
"end": 930,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1171,
"end": 1188,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1205,
"end": 1216,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1249,
"end": 1264,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1274,
"end": 1287,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1297,
"end": 1307,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1317,
"end": 1330,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1340,
"end": 1355,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1365,
"end": 1374,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1384,
"end": 1392,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1532,
"end": 1547,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1565,
"end": 1578,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1698,
"end": 1713,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1723,
"end": 1736,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1746,
"end": 1756,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1766,
"end": 1779,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1789,
"end": 1804,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1814,
"end": 1823,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1833,
"end": 1841,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1980,
"end": 1998,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2016,
"end": 2029,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2061,
"end": 2074,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2084,
"end": 2100,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2110,
"end": 2125,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2135,
"end": 2147,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2157,
"end": 2169,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2437,
"end": 2454,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2471,
"end": 2482,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n% Rcr No. 120/2011\n+ Date of Decision: 11th July, 2011\n\n# Vijay Nayyar ...Petitioner\n! Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate\n\n Versus\n\n$ Om Prakash Malik ....Respondent\n Through: Mr. N.N Aggarwal & Mr. Rohit\n Gandhi, Advocates\n\n Coram:\n* Hon'Ble Mr. Justice P.K.Bhasin\n\n1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n to see the judgment?(No)\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? (No)\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 184,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 295,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 370,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 450,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 457,
"end": 496,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 550,
"end": 560,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honourable Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy And The Honourable Sri Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal \n\nCriminal Appeal Nos.172 of 2015 And Batch \n\n20-01-2017 \n\nShaik Akram Appellant \n\nThe National Investigation Agency Rep. by its Special Public Prosecutor High\nCourt of Judicature at Hyderabad For the State of Telangana and the State of\nAndhra pradesh Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam Senior Counsel, for Mr. T. Prasanna Kumar & Mr. D. Purnachandra Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor, National Investigation Agency Head Note: \n?Citations : 1. (1979) 4 Scc 172 \n 2. (2014) 6 Scc 59\n 3. (2013) 13 Scc 1\n 4. Air 1963 Sc 822\n 5. (2014) 14 Scc 295\n 6. Air 1952 Sc 16\n 7. (1978) 1 Scc 405\n 8. (2010) 6 Scc 614\n 9. (2001) 9 Scc 642\n 10. 1990 Crl Lj 215\n 11. Air 1979 Sc 1705\n 12. 2010 Law Suit (Bom.) 915\n 13. (2013) 14 Scc 266 The Honble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy And The Honble Sri Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal Criminal Appeal NOs.172, 175 And 311 Of 2015 Dated:20-1-2017 The Court Made The Following: \nCommon Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 47,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 94,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 187,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 235,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 419,
"end": 440,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 465,
"end": 482,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 489,
"end": 510,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 544,
"end": 566,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 967,
"end": 987,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1015,
"end": 1029,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore\n (Scch-8)\n Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., Ll.B.,\n Xii Additional Small Causes Judge\n and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.\n\n Dated this the 27th day of August 2015\n\n M.V.C. Nos.8161/2011 & 1118/2012\n\nPetitioner in Mvc Shri B.V.Pradeep,\n8161/2011 Son of B.V.Venkatachalapathy,\n Aged about 24 years,\n Residing at No.5, 13th Cross,\n Wilsongarden,\n Bengaluru-560 027.\n Also at No.32, Bagepalli Town,\n \"D\" Division,\n Chickballapur District.\n (Shri P.Shivakumar, Advocate)\n\nPetitioner in Mvc Shri A.M.Narendra Babu,\n1118/2012 Son of A.M.Muninagappa,\n Aged about 24 years,\n Residing at No.252, Narasepura,\n Vidyaranyapuram Main road,\n Bengaluru-560 097.\n Also at Attibele Village,\n Hosakote Taluk,\n Bengaluru Rural District.\n (Shri M.E.Mohan Kumar,\n Advocate)\n\n V/s.\nRespondents in 1. Venkata Choudary Pattipatti,both the cases Son of P.Venkatanaidu, Residing at No.3/61, 2 Scch-8 Mvc 8161/2011 & 1118/2012 Nadimipalli Village, Gugudu Post, Narapala-515 425, Andhrapradesh State. \n\n Dead by his L.Rs. \n\n 1(a) Venkatanaidu, Son of Patti Patti, Residing at M.Gopal Naidu, Nallacherlapalli village, Mudigabba (Mandalam), Ananthapuram District, Andrapradesh 515 159. \n\n (Exparte)\n\n 2. The Manager, Chola-MS General Insurance Company Limited, Dare House, 2nd floor, No.2 N.S.C., Bose Road, Chennai-600 001. \n\n (Shri Y.P.Venkatapathi, Advocate)\n\n 3. Shri N.V.Rajan, Son of Varadarajulu, No.145, Green View Homes, Kamaraj Road, Bharathi Road, Bengaluru. \n\n (Exparte)\n 4. The Manager, The New India Assurance Co. \n\n No.19/4, Saranchal Arcade, 1st Floor, Dinnuer Main road, R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru. (Shri Srinivasa T.P., Advocate)\n 3 Scch-8 Mvc 8161/2011 & 1118/2012\n\n\n\n\n Common Judgment\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 118,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 350,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 703,
"end": 715,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 751,
"end": 768,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1129,
"end": 1144,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1219,
"end": 1246,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1443,
"end": 1455,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1619,
"end": 1734,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1745,
"end": 1761,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1783,
"end": 1792,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1902,
"end": 2020,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2034,
"end": 2048,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur\n\n Single Bench : Before Justice J.K. Maheshwari\n\n Misc. Appeal No. 3927 Of 2010\n\n Shivnarayan Mahant\n\n -Versus-\n\n Registrar, Public Trust and others\n\n_____________________________________________________\n\nShri Girish Shrivastava, Advocates, for the appellant.\nSmt. Sheetal Dubey, Govt. Advocate for respondent no.1.\nShri Avinash Zargar, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 to 7.\n___________________________________________________\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 101,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 190,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 282,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 344,
"end": 362,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 412,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 469,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated:29.10.2012\n\nCoram:\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice M.Venugopal\n\nC.M.A.No.1347 of 2011\n\n\n\n\n\nM/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nDivisional Office,\nVellore.\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant/2nd Respondent\n\nVs.\n\n1.K.Dhanalakshmi\n2.K.Karthikeyan\n3.K.Saravanan\n4.K.Sarathkumar\n5.L.Srinivasan\n6.Saroja\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents 1 to 6/Claimants\n\n7.G.Selvakumar\n8.Uma Maheswaran\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents 7 & 8/Respondents 1 & 3\n\n(Respondents 7 & 8 exparte in Lower Court)\n\n\n\n\nPrayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.09.2010 in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District.\n\n\t\tFor Appellants\t\t\t: Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan\n\n\t\tFor Respondents 1 to 6\t\t: Mr.G.Vinodhkumar\n\n\t\tFor Respondents 7 & 8\t\t: Exparte\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 114,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 178,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 264,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 280,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 294,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 310,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 325,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 334,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 388,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 405,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 772,
"end": 788,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 821,
"end": 834,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Civil Revision No.105/2015\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Bench At Gwalior\n\n Civil Revision No.105/2015\n\nPetitioner....... Vijay Sood\n\n Vs.\n\nRespondents..... Kanak Devi and others\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri N.K.Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Shri Sanjay Sharma,\nAdvocate for the petitioner.\nShri V.K.Bhardwaj, Sr. Advocate with Shri Anoop Gupta,\nAdvocate for the respondent No.1.\nDate of hearing : 01/02/2016\nDate of order : 29/03/2016\nWhether approved for reporting : Yes\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 120,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 227,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 320,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 419,
"end": 428,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 453,
"end": 466,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 502,
"end": 514,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 539,
"end": 550,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Sanjay Sharma : Special Judge (Ndps) /\n Addl. Sessions Judge, (North\u00adEast): Karkardooma Courts, \n Delhi\n\n\nSc No. : 17/10\nFir No. : 77/10\nPs : Crime Branch\nUnder Section : 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the Ndps Act\nCase Id : 02402R0215232013\n\nState Versus Sanjeev Kumar (in Jc)\n S/o Sh. Bhola Shah\n R/o Sikta Bazar, Ps Sikta \n District Betia, Bihar\n\nDate of Institution : 31.07.2010\nDate of reserving order : 28.07.2014\nDate of Judgment : 06.09.2014\n\n J U D G M E N T \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 151,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 494,
"end": 499,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 555,
"end": 568,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\n\nDated : 02/08/2006\n\n\nCoram:\nThe Honoruable Mr.Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla\nand\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.Murgesen\n\n\nW.A.(MD)No.135 of 2006\nW.A.(MD)No.136 of 2006\n\n\nR.Shanmugaiah\t\t\t\t... Appellant in\n\t\t\t\t\t both the W.As.\n\nvs.\n\n\n1.P.S.Lakshmanakumar\n\n2.Regional Transport Authority,\n Virudhunagar District,\n Virudhunagar.\n\n3.The State Transport Appellate\n Tribunal, High Court Campus,\n Chennai-600 104.\t\t\t... Respondents in\n\t\t\t\t\t both the W.As.\n\n\nW.A.No.135/2006: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order\nof the learned single Judge, dated 29.03.200, made in W.P.No.10481/2005.\n\nW.A.No.136/2006: Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order\nof the learned single Judge, dated 29.03.200, made in W.P.No.10482/2005.\n\n\n!For Appellant ... Mr.M.Palani\n\n^For Respondent ... Mr.M.Ajmalkhan\nNo.1\n\t\t\nFor Respondent\t ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu,\nNo.2\t\t\tSpl.Govt.Pleader.\n\n\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 123,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 164,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 228,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 300,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 374,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 376,
"end": 460,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 845,
"end": 853,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 880,
"end": 891,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 925,
"end": 939,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur\n\n\n First Appeal No : 175 Of 2011\n\n Smt. Madina Begam & Anr.\n - V/s -\n Shiv Murti Prasad Pandey & Ors.\n\n\nPresent : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.\n\n Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vimla Jain\n ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate with Shri Sushil\n\n Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants.\n\n Shri J.L.Soni, Advocate for Respondent No.1 & 2.\n\n Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, learned Government Advocate\n\n for Respondent No.3.\n\n Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate , Shri L.S.\n\n Singh, Sr. Advocate with Shri Kaustub Jha & Shri Lav\n\n Kush Mishra, Advocates for Respondent Nos.4 & 5.\n\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 140,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 243,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 310,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 367,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 477,
"end": 491,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 512,
"end": 534,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 592,
"end": 600,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 656,
"end": 670,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 749,
"end": 763,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 793,
"end": 811,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 836,
"end": 847,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 855,
"end": 878,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n+ Cs(Os) No.614A/2002\n 23rd February, 2010\n\nM/S. Simplex Concrete Piles (India) Ltd.\n\n ...Petitioner\n Through: Mr. V.P.Chaudhry, Senior Advocate with\n Mr. G. Tushar Rao, Advocate and Mr.\n Nitinjiya Chaudhry, Advocate.\n Versus\n\nUnion Of India ....Respondent. Through: Mr. B.V. Niren, Advocate.\n\n\nCoram:\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice Valmiki J.Mehta\n\n 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? \n\n 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n\n 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes\n\n % Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 53,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 221,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 357,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 424,
"end": 437,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 514,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 548,
"end": 562,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 665,
"end": 675,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 716,
"end": 731,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 09/08/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A. Kulasekaran \n\nW.P.No.18050 of 2005 \n and\n W.P.No.18051 of 2005 \n\nR. Kumar .. Petitioner in\n W.P.No. 18050\n\n1. Ramdass Bharadwaj \n2. Meerabhat \n3. Sukanya Rao \n4. Shantharam Bharadwaj .. Petitioners in\n5. Achyut Bharadwaj Wp No. 18051\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.State of Tamil Nadu\n rep. By its Secretary to Government\n Highways Department \n Fort St. George\n Chennai 600 009\n\n2. The Member Secretary \n Chennai Metropolitan Development\n Authority\n Chennai 600 008\n\n3. The District Collector\n Kancheepuram District\n Kancheepuram \n\n4. The Special Tahsildar (L.A.)\n I.T. Expressway Scheme .. Respondents in Tambaram both the Writ\n Chennai 600 047 Petitions\n\n Wp No. 18050 and 18051 of 2005: Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Declaration declaring that the notification issued by the first defendant in G.O. Ms. No. 92, Highways (Hw1) 25.04.2005, published in Gazzette No.II (2)/Hw/(3 40-e-2)/ 2005 under Section 15 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 20 01 in so far as it relates to acquisition of the property of the petitioner situated at Government Manavari Survey No.277-5 (part) now sub-divided as 277-5B, No.44, Kottivakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District, beyond 23 feet from the existing Western boundary of the petitioner's land as per the sanctioned plan and master plan of the second respondent, is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and colourable exercise of power, and inconsistent with the petitioner's lawful right acquired and become final under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 as per the permission issued by the 2nd respondent. \n\n!For Petitioner : Mr. K.M. Vijayan, Senior Counsel\n for M/s. La and Law in both the\n Writ Petitions\n\n\n\n\nFor Respondents : Mr. P.S. Raman\n Additional Advocate General\n assisted by\n Mr. M. Dhandapani\n Additional Government Pleader\n\n\n:Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 123,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 196,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 303,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 318,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 334,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 360,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 390,
"end": 406,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 439,
"end": 460,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 567,
"end": 659,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 664,
"end": 727,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 734,
"end": 788,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1956,
"end": 1969,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2138,
"end": 2149,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2291,
"end": 2305,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nIns.APP.No. 74 of 2005()\n\n\n1. Employees' State Insurance Corporation,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Leela, W/O. Late Appunni,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Anil Prasad (Minor),\n\n3. Archana (Minor), -Do- -Do-.\n\n4. M/S. Sivasakthy Engineering And\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.Sankarankutty Nair\n\n For Respondent :Sri.K.Anand (A.201)\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Ramkumar\n\n Dated :27/07/2009\n\n O R D E R\n V. Ramkumar, J.\n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n Ins. Appeal No. 74 of 2005\n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n Dated: 27th day of July 2009\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 110,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 189,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 269,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 290,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 343,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 406,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 445,
"end": 452,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 486,
"end": 496,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 563,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "*1* wp.2720.13.group.as.lbt\n\n\nkps\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Writ Petition No.2720 Of 2013\n\n\n\n\n \n 1 Municipal Labour Union.\n Anant Bhuvan, Veer Savarkar Marg,\n Teen Petrol Pump,\n\n\n\n\n \n Thane (West).\n\n 2 P.M.C. Employees Union, Pune.\n Shramik, Shivaji Nagar,\n\n\n\n\n \n Pune-5.\n\n 3\n \n Pimpari Chinchwad Mahanagarpalika\n Karmachari Mahasangh, Gr. Floor,\n Office of the Pimpari Chinchwad\n \n Mahanagarpalika, Pimpari,\n Pune-18.\n\n 4 Rashtriya Nagpur Corporation\n Employees Association,\n \n\n\n Shramik Bhawan, Near Geeta Mandir,\n \n\n\n\n Subhash Road, Nagpur.\n\n 5 Navi Mumbai Municipal Mazdoor Union,\n F-2, B-3, Sector-1,\n\n\n\n\n\n Vashi, Navi Mumbai. ..Petitioners\n\n -Verus-\n\n 1 The State of Maharashtra.\n Through it's Secretary,\n\n\n\n\n\n Urban Development Department,\n having his office at Mantralaya,\n Mumbai.\n\n 2 Thane Municipal Corporation.\n Through it's Municipal Commissioner.\n\n 3 Pune Municipal Corporation.\n Through it's Municipal Commissioner.\n\n\n\n\n \n *2* wp.2720.13.group.as.lbt\n\n\n\n\n 4 Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal\n\n\n\n\n \n Corporation.\n Through it's Municipal Commissioner.\n\n\n\n\n \n 5 Nagpur Municipal Corporation.\n Through it's Municipal Commissioner.\n\n 6 Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation.\n\n\n\n\n \n Through it's Municipal Commissioner.\n ..Respondents\n\n Along With\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No.3039 Of 2013\n\n Sulbha Rambhau Ubale.\n -versus-\n ig ..Petitioner\n\n The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents\n \n With\n Writ Petition No.3040 Of 2013\n\n Sunil Dayandev Kamble. ..Petitioner\n \n\n\n -versus-\n \n\n\n\n The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents\n\n With\n Writ Petition No.3041 Of 2013\n\n\n\n\n\n Naresh Ganpat Mhaske and another. ..Petitioners\n -versus-\n The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n ...........\n Ms.Neeta Karnik, for the Petitioners.\n\n Mr.S.K.Shinde, Special Counsel with Mr.A.B.Vagyani, Government Pleader \n with Mr.Afroz Shah, for the Respondent/State.\n\n Mr.A.A.Garge, for the Respondent/ Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation.\n\n Mr.R.R.Pitale, for the Respondent/ Thane Municipal Corporation.\n\n\n\n\n \n *3* wp.2720.13.group.as.lbt\n\n\n Mr.R.S.Khadapkar, for the Respondent/ Pune Municipal Corporation.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.G.H.Keluskar, for the Respondent/ Pimpari Chinchwad Municipal \n Corporation and for Respondent No.2 in Wp/3039/2013.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.Abhijit Kulkarni, for the Respondent No.2 in Wp/3040/2013.\n ...........\n\n Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari\n\n\n\n\n \n And\n B.P. Colabawalla, Jj.\n\n Reserved on : 31st July, 2014\n\n\n\n\n \n ig Pronounced on : 01st October, 2014\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 102,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 375,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 539,
"end": 567,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 712,
"end": 745,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 922,
"end": 950,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1092,
"end": 1127,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1265,
"end": 1285,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1438,
"end": 1465,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1525,
"end": 1551,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1769,
"end": 1795,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2026,
"end": 2054,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2114,
"end": 2147,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2581,
"end": 2601,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2770,
"end": 2791,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2877,
"end": 2897,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3043,
"end": 3063,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3133,
"end": 3153,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3254,
"end": 3266,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3297,
"end": 3307,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3333,
"end": 3344,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3378,
"end": 3388,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3424,
"end": 3433,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3498,
"end": 3508,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3735,
"end": 3748,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3898,
"end": 3910,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4106,
"end": 4122,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4266,
"end": 4284,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 4469,
"end": 4485,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh Balwant Rai Bansal, \n Additional District Judge\u00ad02, South East, \n Saket Courts, New Delhi\n\n\nCivil Suit No. 194/12\n\n\nRaghubir Singh & Ors. \n .......... Plaintiffs \n\n Versus\nHans Raj \n ......... Defendant\n\n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 138,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 179,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 318,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 cr.apeal-20.11--\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay.\n Appellate Jurisdiction.\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No. 20 Of 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n With\n Criminal Application No. 798 Of 2011 \n\n\n\n\n \n The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant.\n\n V/s.\n\n\n\n\n \n Jagan Gagansingh Nepali \n @ Jagya and another. ... Respondents.\n\n And\n \n Smt.Sandhya Prafulla Patil. ... Intervener.\n \n Mrs.A.S.Pai, Addl.P.P. for the appellant- State.\n \n\n\n A.M.Saraogi with Priyatosh R. Tiwari\n \n\n\n\n for respondent No.2.\n\n Amit Desai, Senior Advocate with Gaurish Kadam\n and Ravi Kamat i/b. V.V.Purwant for the \n\n\n\n\n\n applicant (in Appa No.798/2010)\n\n Shrikant Shivade with Ashish S. Sawant\n for the intervener.\n\n\n\n\n\n And\n Criminal Appeal No. 407 Of 2011\n\n\n The State of Maharashtra. ... Appellant.\n\n V/s.\n\n Devendra Baburao Jagtap \n alias J.D. And others. ... Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n 2 cr.apeal-20.11--\n\n\n\n\n \n Mrs.A.S.Pai, Addl.P.P. for the appellant-State.\n\n S.R.Chitnis, Senior Advocate with Ms.Pooja P.\n\n\n\n\n \n Bhosale for respondent No.1.\n\n A.M.Saraogi for respondent No.2.\n\n\n\n\n \n And\n Criminal Bail Application No. 600 Of 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n Shri Sanjay Bhairu Waskar. ... Applicant.\n\n V/s.\n \n The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent.\n \n Aabad H.H.Ponda with Daljeet Singh Bhatia\n \n\n for the applicant.\n \n\n\n\n Mrs.A.S.Pai, Addl.P.P. for the respondent- State.\n\n\n\n\n\n Coram: Mohit Shah, C.J., B.R.Gavai, J.\n And Mrs.ROSHAN Dalvi, J. \n\n Dated : 5th August 2011. \n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 431,
"end": 451,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 535,
"end": 558,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 669,
"end": 691,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 746,
"end": 753,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 805,
"end": 816,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 822,
"end": 841,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 881,
"end": 891,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 914,
"end": 927,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 937,
"end": 947,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1022,
"end": 1038,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1044,
"end": 1060,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1186,
"end": 1206,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1252,
"end": 1275,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1541,
"end": 1548,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1591,
"end": 1602,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1628,
"end": 1636,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1690,
"end": 1697,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1725,
"end": 1736,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1940,
"end": 1960,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2035,
"end": 2055,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2112,
"end": 2127,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2133,
"end": 2153,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2202,
"end": 2209,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2280,
"end": 2290,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2299,
"end": 2308,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2322,
"end": 2334,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated:20.04.2009\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice G.Rajasuria\n\nS.A.No.329 of 2009\nand\nM.P.No.1 of 2009\n1. Balamani\n2. Murugesan\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellants\n\nvs.\n\nS.Balasundaram\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\n\tThis second appeal is filed against the judgement and decree dated 05.07.2006 made in A.S.No.92 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.11.2005 made in O.S.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Bhavani.\n\t\t\t\n\tFor Appellants : \tMr.N.Manokaran\n\tFor Respondent : Mr.P.Valliappan\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 159,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 172,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 214,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 539,
"end": 550,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 589,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Smt Justice T. Rajani \n\nCriminal Petition No.7501 of 2011 \n\n07-11-2017 \n\nP.Bhaskara Rao Appellant \n \nSmt.Kusumanchi Surekha and another. Respondents \n\nCounsel for the appellant: Sri T.Niranjan Reddy For Mrs.D.Sangeetha Reddy \n\nCounsel for the Respondents: Sri Y.Rama Rao (R1) Public Prosecutor (R2) \n\n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n\n1. 2013(3) Scc 330 \n2. (2013) 10 Scc 591 \n3. Air 1992 Sc 604 \n4. 1994(2) Scc 277 \n5. Air (Scw)-2009-0-3336 \n6. 2012 Cj (Sc) 1081 \n\n\nSmt Justice T. Rajani \n\nCriminal Petition No.7501 of 2011 \nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 93,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 162,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 243,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 269,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 326,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 561,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Anjani Mahajan, Civil Judge\u00ad10 \n (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi\n Suit No. 113/07\nUnique Id No. 02401C0230122007\nMemo Of Parties\n\n\n1. Sh. Mahender Singh\n2. Sh. Raj Roop Singh\n3. Sh. Padam Singh\nAll Sons of Late Sh. Srikishan\nR/o Village Chhawla,\nMohalla Kaba, New Delhi\u00ad110071\n ...........Plaintiffs\n Versus\n1. Smt. Kusum Lata\nW/o Sh. Raj Pal @ Raju\n2. Smt. Rekha Rani\nW/o Sh. Satish Goswami\n3. Smt. Sheila\nW/o Late Sh. Hari Kishan\n4. Smt. Shakuntala\nW/o Sh. Narender Kumar\n5. Smt. Urmila\nW/o Sh. Ram Mohan\nAll R/o Village Chhawla,\nMohalla Kaba, New Delhi - 110071\n6. Smt. Nirmala\nW/o Sh. Chandrasekhar\nR/o 9/609, Mahadev Gali, \nMoti Katra, Agra, U.P. \n\n\nSuit No. 113/07 Sh. Mahender Singh & Ors. Vs. Smt. Kushum Lata & Ors. 1/29\n 7. Smt. Chandra Kanta\nW/o Late Sh. Srikishan\nR/o Village Chhawla, \nMohalla Kaba, New Delhi \u00ad 110071\n ..........Defendants\n\nDate of institution of the Suit: 03.03.2007\nDate on which judgment was reserved: 28.01.2014\nDate of pronouncement of Judgment: 31.01.2014 \n\n Suit For Declaration/Cancellation Of Will Dated 22.01.1997 \n And Permanent Injunction\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 229,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 251,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 270,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 511,
"end": 521,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 553,
"end": 563,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 595,
"end": 601,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 635,
"end": 645,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 677,
"end": 683,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 768,
"end": 775,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 874,
"end": 888,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 905,
"end": 916,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 956,
"end": 969,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar And The Honble Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti \n\nCriminal Appeal No.1418 Of 2010 \n\n08-09-2016 \n\nS.K.Musthaq Ahmed @ Goremiyan and others---Appellant \n\nThe State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Public Prosecutor.. Respondent\n\n\nCounsel for the Appellant:S.V./Bhuvaneswari\n\nCounsel for respondent: Public Prosecutor\n\nHead Note: \n\n\n? Cases Referred: \n\n1.2008 (8) Supreme 178 \n2.1989 Supp (2) Supreme 706 \n\nThe Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar \n\nAnd \n\nThe Honble Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti \n\nCriminal Appeal no.1418 of 2010\nJudgment \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 82,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 188,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 244,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 333,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 521,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 562,
"end": 581,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\nDated: 13.02.2009\nCoram:\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.K.Misra\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.Sasidharan\nW.P.Nos.24453, 37206 to 37208, 28434, 31619, 23942, 23072 and 29715/2004 and 26228/2005 and 3162/2006\n\n1.S.Ponnusamy\n2.K.Jayaraman \n(writ petition dismissed as against the second\npetitioner alone by order dated 8.8.2006)\n\n3.M.Loganathan\n(writ petition dismissed as against the third\npetitioner alone by order dated 10.07.2007)\n\n4.C.Selvaraj\n5.V.Narayanasamy\n6.A.K.Rajaduraivelpandian\n7.D.Xavier\n8.D.Ravikarathikayan\n9.C.Rengaswamy Pandian \t\t\t ... Petitioners\n \n Vs.\n\t \n1.Government of Tamil Nadu,\n Rep. By its Secretary,\n Rural Development (Css.I) Department,\n Fort St. George, Chennai \u0016 600 009.\n\n2.The Director of Rural Development,\n Pangal Building, Saidapet,\n Chennai \u0016 600 015.\n\n3.The Chief Engineer,\n Highways Department,\n Chepauk, Chennai \u0016 600 005.\n4.D.Ramasamy\n5.S.Muthusamy\n6.v.Suresh\n7.P.Selvaraj\n8.S.Thanikachalam\n9.S.Sadaiappan\t\n10.P.Sankarapandian\n11.C.Sakthimurugan\n12.E.Sivakumar\n13.Madasamy Sundararaj\t \t\t\t... Respondents\n\n\tPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of mandamus directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to absorb the services of the petitioners as Assistant Executive Engineers in the 1st respondent department in the original posts earmarked for the personnel from Highways Department.\n\nAppearance :-\nMr.N.Muthukumarasamy, Sr. Counsel,\nfor Mr.Balan Haridas,\nfor petitioners in\t\t\t... \tW.P.Nos.31619/2004, 37206 \t\t\t\t\t\t\tto 37208/2004, 26228/2005\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t24453/2004\n\nMrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Counsel,\nfor Ms.Gladys Daniel,\nfor petitioners in\t\t\t... \tW.P.Nos.29715/2004, \t\t\t\t\t\t\t23072/2004\n\nMr.R.Singaravelan\nfor petitioners in\t\t\t...\tW.P.No.23942/2004, \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t3162/2004\n\nMr.P.S.Raman, Addl. Advocate General,\nassisted by Mr.K.Elango, Special Govt. Pleader \nfor Government \n\nMrs.C.N.G.Ezhilarasi\nfor Tnpsc.\n\nMrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan,\nfor M/s.Sudha Ravi Associates\n\nMr.Srinath Sridevan,\nfor impleaded respondent in W.P.No.24453/2004\n\nCommon Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 151,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 268,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 282,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 388,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 492,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 493,
"end": 509,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 510,
"end": 535,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 536,
"end": 546,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 547,
"end": 567,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 568,
"end": 590,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 684,
"end": 710,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 822,
"end": 901,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 910,
"end": 977,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 979,
"end": 991,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 992,
"end": 1005,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1006,
"end": 1016,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1017,
"end": 1029,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1030,
"end": 1047,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1048,
"end": 1062,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1064,
"end": 1083,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1084,
"end": 1102,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1103,
"end": 1117,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1118,
"end": 1140,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1497,
"end": 1514,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1536,
"end": 1549,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1659,
"end": 1677,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1699,
"end": 1712,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1782,
"end": 1796,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1863,
"end": 1872,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1913,
"end": 1921,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1967,
"end": 1983,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2000,
"end": 2021,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2057,
"end": 2073,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'Ble Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti \n\nM.A.C.M.A.Nos.2967 of 2014 \n\n04-12-2014 \n\nReliance General Insurance Co. Ltd rep. by its Manager...Appellant\n \n\nT.Laxman Goud and others.... Respondents Counsel for the appellant:Sri T.Mahender Rao Counsel for Respondents:Sri K.Harimohan Reddy Head Note: \n? Cases referred:\n2001(1) Alt 495 (D.B) 2006 Acj 855 2001(6) Ald 844 (Db) 2011 (2) Ald 3 2005 (4) Alt 503 2007(2) Alt 503 2010 (6) Scj 886 2001(8) Scc 197 2009 Acj 1298 2014 Acj 1565= 2014(6) Scale 55 (2013) 9 Scc 54 The Honble Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2967 of 2014 & 3060 of 2014 Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 132,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 212,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 285,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 331,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 593,
"end": 611,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Sh Rajesh Kumar Singh\n Additional District Judge-05, Central District\n Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi\n\nUnique Id No. 02401C0215802008\nSuit No.108/13\n\nGurcharan Singh (Deceased)\nThrough LRs\n(i) Smt. Maya Devi (wife)\n(ii) Sh. Trilochan Singh (son)\n(iii) Sh. Amarjeet Singh (son)\n All R/o C-84, Fateh Nagar,\n Jail Road, New Delhi-110015.\n\n(iv) Sh. Gurbaksh Singh (son)\n R/o 10503/6, Near Aggarwal Dharamshala,\n Ambala City, Haryana\n ........Plaintiffs\n Versus\n1. Union of India\n Through its Secretary\n Ministry of Urban Development, Nirman Bhawan,\n Maulana Azad Road, New Delhi\n\n2. Delhi Development Authority\n Through its Vice Chairman\n Vikas Sadan, Ina, New Delhi\n ........Defendants\n\n Date Of Institution: 12.02.2008\n Judgment Reserved On: 07.06.2014\n Date Of Judgment: 16.08.2014\n\n\n\nSuit No. 108/13 Page 1 of 21 pages\n 2\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 51,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 150,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 214,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 627,
"end": 641,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 768,
"end": 795,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-1-\n\n\n T He Hig H C Our T Of Ka R Na T A Ka\n Cir C Uit B E Nc H A T D Ha R W A D\n\n Date D This Th E 15 T H Da Y Of Mar Ch 20 13\n\n Pres Ent\n T He Ho N 'B L E M R . Jus Tice B .V .P I Nt O\n And\n T He Ho N 'B L E M R . Jus Tice H.S .K E M P A N Na\n\n Crimi Nal Appe Al No. 2633/ 20 11\n\n\nBetween:\n\nSri Chandrappa S/o.Durgappa Patil\nAge: 45 years, Occ: Retd. Military Service,\nR/o. Ankalagi, Tq: Gokak,\nDist: Belgaum.\n ... Appellant.\n\n(By Shri Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, Advocate.)\n\nAnd:\n\nThe State of Karnataka,\nThrough Cpi, Gokak Circle, Gokak,\nNow rep. by Spp.\n ... Respondent.\n\n(By Shri V.M.Banakar, Addl. Spp.)\n\n This criminal appeal is filed under section 374(2)\nof Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the judgment of\nconviction and order of sentence dated\n18.12.2010/23.12.2010 passed by the Presiding\nOfficer, Fast Track Court and Addl. Sessions Judge,\n -2-\n\n\nHukkeri, sitting at Gokak, in S.C.No.102/2009, for the\noffences punishable under sections 302, 304 part Ii,\n324, 326, 504 of Ipc and under Section 30 of the\nIndian Arms Act, etc.,.\n\n This criminal appeal coming on for further hearing\nthis day, B.V.Pinto, J., delivered the following\njudgment.\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 265,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 319,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 391,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 567,
"end": 588,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 612,
"end": 630,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 752,
"end": 763,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1330,
"end": 1339,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.4/1: Ps Tilak Marg : U/s 195 Ipc Dod: 30.10.2013 \n\n\n In The Court Of Vidya Prakash: Chief Metropolitan \n Magistrate: Central District: Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi \n\nCc No.:4/1\nPs: Subzi Mandi \nU/s : 195 Ipc\nUnique Id No.: 02401R0063352011\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 161,
"end": 174,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 252,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.MC.No. 2188 of 2004()\n\n\n1. C.K.Aboobacker, S/O. Late Moideen,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Rahiyanath, D/O. Late Kutty Hassan,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State Of Kerala,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.C.Khalid\n\n For Respondent :Sri.K.M.Sathyanatha Menon\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\n\n Dated :22/07/2008\n\n O R D E R\n R. Basant, J.\n -------------------------------------------------\n Crl.M.C. No. 2188 of 2004\n -------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 87,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 190,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 279,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 327,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 387,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 421,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 489,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh. Balbir Singh Rana Vs. Smt. Harcharan Kaur\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Chander Shekhar \n District & Sessions Judge (North\u00adWest) \n Room No. 401 : Rohini Courts: Delhi.\n\nArct No. 114/11\n\nDate of institution : 29.03.2004\nDate of hearing arguments : 06.01.2014\nDate of Judgment : 22.01.2014\n\nIn the matter of:\n\nShri Balbir Singh Rana\nS/o Shri Lehri Singh\nR/o : 133, Sainik Vihar, Pitampura, \nDelhi\u00ad110 034. ........Appellant\n \n Versus\n\nSmt. Harcharan Kaur,\nW/o Late Shri Malik Singh, \nR/o : C\u00ad37, Bhajanpura, \nDelhi. ..........Respondent\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 46,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 226,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 521,
"end": 538,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 764,
"end": 778,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 itxa1539-10\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Income Tax Appeal No.1539 Of 2010\n\n\n\n\n \n The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-IV ]\n R. No.663, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ]\n Mumbai - 400 020. ] ..Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n \n V/s.\n \n \n Shri Bharat R. Ruia (Huf) ]\n Phoenix Mills Premises, ]\n 462 Senapati Bapat Marg, ]\n \n\n\n Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400 013. ] ..Respondent.\n \n\n\n\n Mr. Vimal Gupta Mrs. Padma Divakar, Advocates for the appellant.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. J.D.Mistri, senior Advocate with A.K.Jasani for the respondent.\n\n Dr. K. Shivram. Advocate for the intervenor.\n\n\n\n\n\n Coram : J.P. Devadhar And Mrs. R.S, Dalvi, Jj.\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 98,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 383,
"end": 409,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 671,
"end": 685,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 922,
"end": 933,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 939,
"end": 952,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 996,
"end": 1006,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1029,
"end": 1039,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1069,
"end": 1079,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1132,
"end": 1145,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1155,
"end": 1158,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1158,
"end": 1165,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 15847 of 2008(J)\n\n\n1. Subramanian, S/O. Parangodankutty,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The District Collector, Malappuram.\n\n3. The Tahsildar,\n\n4. The Sub Inspector Of Police,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Babu S. Nair\n\n For Respondent :Government Pleader\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Giri\n\n Dated :19/11/2008\n\n O R D E R\n \"C.R.\"\n V.Giri, J.\n ------------------------------------------------------------\n W.P.(C).No.15847, 27536, 27541,\n 27645, 27686, 27697, 27733, 27863,\n 27805,27926, 28078, 28756, 29047,\n 29272, 29355, 29408, 29609, 29672,\n 29707, 29708, 29719, 29960, 29961,\n 29963, 30666, 30825, 31414, 32817,\n 32886, 33830 & 34066 of 2008\n -------------------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 85,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 200,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 285,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 303,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 336,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 376,
"end": 388,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 473,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 611,
"end": 617,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan \nAt Jaipur Bench Jaipur\n\nD.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6090/2004\n\nKishore Rungta \t\t\t V/s State of Rajasthan & \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t ors.\n\n\nDate when the Order was\nreserved\t\t\t\t\t:- \t\t \t20.3.2012\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\nDate of pronouncement of\nOrder\t\t\t\t\t:-\t \t 23.7.2012\n\n\nPresent\n\nHon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Arun Mishra \nHon'ble Ms.Justice Bela M.Trivedi\nReportable\n\nMr.Paras Kuhad,Sr.Advocate with\t)\nSunil Nath, Vivek Dangi\t\t\t)-for the petitioner.\nPriyanka Nahata & Vishal Sharma\t)\n\nMr.G.S.Bapna, Sr.Advocate &\t\t)\nAdvocate General with\t\t\t)- for the State\nV.Garg & Sarvesh Jain\t\t\t)\n\t\nMr.S.M.Mehta, Sr.Advocate with\t)\nAnil Mehta and Nitin Jain\t\t)- for respondents.\n\nMr.N.S.Vashistha and \t\t\t)\nMr.Vishal Singh\t\t\t\t)-for respondent no.6.\n\n\nOrder\n\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 130,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 169,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 376,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 411,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 427,
"end": 438,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 458,
"end": 468,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 481,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 506,
"end": 521,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 524,
"end": 537,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 544,
"end": 553,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 613,
"end": 619,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 622,
"end": 634,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 644,
"end": 653,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 674,
"end": 684,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 689,
"end": 699,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 725,
"end": 738,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 751,
"end": 763,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reported\n*In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n+ Rfa 72/2005\n\n\nCapt. Praveen Davar (Retd.) & Anr. ..... Appellants\n Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Advocate\n with Mr. Pankaj Gupta and\n Mr. J.K. Sharma, Advocates.\n\n versus\n\nHarvansh Kumari And Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Ravinder Nath, Mr. P.K. Jain,\n Mr. Rajesh Roshan, and\n Mr.D.N. Jha, Advocates.\n\n% Date Of Decision: August 27, 2010\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Reva Khetrapal\n\n1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed\n to see the judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n\n3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 49,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 109,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 186,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 244,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 286,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 342,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 405,
"end": 418,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 424,
"end": 433,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 459,
"end": 472,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 501,
"end": 509,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 616,
"end": 630,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 15.03.2013\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.Manikumar\n\nC.M.A.No.2539 of 2012\n\nA.Elango\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\t\n\nVs.\n\n1.R.Natarajan\n\n2.The National Insurance Company Ltd.,\nNo. 751, Anna Salai, Chennai -2\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the decree and Judgment, dated 17.12.2007 made in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.747 of 2005, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Iii Court of Small Causes), Chennai.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFor Appellant \t\t\t:\tMrs.M.Malar\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFor 2nd Respondent\t\t: Mr.J.Chandran\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 140,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 193,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 262,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 588,
"end": 595,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 632,
"end": 642,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(Crl.).No. 377 of 2008(S)\n\n\n1. Safiya, Aged 49 Years, S/O.Ubaid,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Rep. By Secretary,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The District Magistrate And District\n\n3. Superintendent Of Central Prison,\n\n4. The District Superintendent Of Police,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Rajit\n\n For Respondent :Government Pleader\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T.Sankaran\n\n Dated :12/12/2008\n\n O R D E R\n \"C.R\"\n\n Kurian Joseph & K.T.Sankaran, Jj.\n -----------------------------------------\n W.P(Crl.)No.377 of 2008-S\n -----------------------------------------\n Dated this the 12 day of December, 2008\n th\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 81,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 196,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 338,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 381,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 421,
"end": 426,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 505,
"end": 518,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 543,
"end": 555,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 671,
"end": 684,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 687,
"end": 699,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Criminal Appeal (Db) No.1078 of 2012\n===========================================================\nAgainst judgment and order dated 28.8.2012 passed by the Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge Iv, Araria in Sessions Trial No.846 of 2003/ Tr. No.259 of 2011, arising out of Jokihat P.S.Case No.169 of 1999. \n\n===========================================================\n1. Parmeshwar Mandal S/O Late Ram Swaroop Mandal R/O Village - Bagnapur, P.S. - Jokihat, Distt. - Araria .... .... Appellant/s Versus\n1. The State Of Bihar\n2. Khelaland Mandal S/O Late Sakaldeo Mandal\n3. Deonarayan Mandal S/O Sakaldeo Mandal\n4. Shobhanand Mandal S/O Sakaldeo Mandal\n5. Munna @ Ranjeet Kumar S/O Khelaland Mandal\n6. Deepak Kumar Mandal S/O Khelanand Mandal\n7. Bachu Mandal S/O Shobha Mandal\n8. Pankaj Kumar Mandal S/O Deo Narayan Mandal .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Appellant/s : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, Adv. \n\nFor the Respondent/s : Mr. A. Sharma, App =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Jayanandan Singh And Honourable Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi Cav Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 431,
"end": 448,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 569,
"end": 583,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 587,
"end": 603,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 632,
"end": 649,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 673,
"end": 690,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 714,
"end": 735,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 760,
"end": 779,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 804,
"end": 816,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 838,
"end": 857,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1003,
"end": 1024,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1060,
"end": 1069,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1165,
"end": 1181,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1209,
"end": 1229,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nMACA.No. 1472 of 2004()\n\n\n1. V.R. Raveendran, S/O. Velayudhan Nair,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. M. Sarojini, W/O. Late K.A. Chandran,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Shyam Prasad, S/O. Late K.A.Chandran\n\n3. C. Krishna Kumar, S/O.Late K.A.Chandran\n\n4. Binu, S/O. Late Viswanathan\n\n5. The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.S.V.Balakrishna Iyer (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Sri.V.Chitambaresh\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :20/01/2010\n\n O R D E R\n R.Basant & M.C. Hari Rani,Jj\n\n ==============================\n\n M.A.C.A. No. 1472 Of 2004\n\n ============================\n\n Dated This The 20Th Day Of January 2010\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 86,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 194,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 281,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 326,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 358,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 390,
"end": 422,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 462,
"end": 482,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 527,
"end": 541,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 567,
"end": 575,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 601,
"end": 614,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 661,
"end": 669,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 672,
"end": 686,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. R.K. Gauba: District & Sessions \n Judge (South District) Saket: New Delhi\n\n\nCriminal Revision No. 146/13\nId No.: 02406R0115582013 \n\nAmarjeet Singh\nOffice of Executive Engineer, B\u00adIi,\nSouth Zone, Sdmc,\npresently posted as Junior Engineer (South Zone),\nSdmc. ... Revisionist\n Versus\n 1. The State of Nct of Delhi\n through The Commissioner of Police\n Police Headquaters,\n Ip Estate, New Delhi.\n 2. Residents Welfare Association\n Chandan Colony, Saidulazab, \n New Delhi 30 \n Through Its General Secretary\n Mr. Pavit Singh s/o Sh. Satbir Singh\n R/oRZ\u00ad56, Chandan Colony,\n Saidulazab, New Delhi\u00ad30.\n 3. Mr. Suresh Parshad (Builder)\n D\u00ad47, Paryavaran Complex,\n New Delhi 110030 (Construction site). ... Respondents \n\n\nInstituted on: 07.05.2013\nJudgment reserved on:12.11.2013\nJudgment pronounced on:12.11.2013\n\nCrl. Rev. No. 146/2013 Amarjeet Vs. State & ors. Page No. 1 of 24\n J U D G M E N T \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 170,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 391,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 493,
"end": 576,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 731,
"end": 745,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 974,
"end": 982,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 987,
"end": 992,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan \nAt Jaipur Bench, Jaipur\n\n\n1.\tD.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7296/2014\n\tDesh Raj Kharera\tV/s Union of India & ors.\n\n2.\tD.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1411/2014\n\tPinkcity Expressway Ltd. V/s Lalit Kumar Sharma & ors.\n\n3.\tD.B.Civil Contempt Petition No.1482/2014\n\tLalit Kumar Sharma V/s Shri Shashank Shekhar & anr.\n\n4.\tD.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6419/2014\n\tLalit Kumar Sharma V/s Union of India & ors.\n\n5.\tD.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7329/2014\t\n\tKumari Carrying Corporation & ors. V/s Union of India & ors.\n\n\n\nDate of Order::-\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t11.8.2015\n\n\nPresent\n\nHonble Chief Justice Mr.Sunil Ambwani\nHonble Mr.Justice Ajit Singh\n\nMr.Rajesh Yadav\t\t\t\t\t)\nMr.Prateek Kasliwal\t\t\t\t)- for the petitioners\nMr.Pushkar Taimni\t\t\t\t)\n\n\nMr.N.M.Lodha, Advocate General\t\t)\nwith Mr.Vishal Sharma\t\t\t\t)\t\nMr.Sheetanshu Sharma\t\t\t\t)\nMr.R.D.Rastogi,Addl.Solicitor General\t)\nwith Mr.Sandeep Pathak\t\t\t)\nMr.Ashish Tiwari\t\t\t\t\t)\nMs.Sneha Singh\t\t\t\t\t)\nMr.R.N.Mathur\t\t\t\t\t)\nMr.Shovit Jhajaria\t\t\t\t)\nMr.Prateek Mathur\t\t\t\t)-for the respondents.\nMr.Prashant Kumar Sharma\t\t\t)\nMr.Anirban Bhattacharya\t\t\t)\nMr.Angad Mirdha\t\t\t\t\t)\nMr.Virendra Lodha\t\t\t\t)\nMr.Jai Lodha\t\t\t\t\t)\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 131,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 150,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 232,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 255,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 327,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 353,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 403,
"end": 421,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 426,
"end": 440,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 491,
"end": 518,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 530,
"end": 544,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 624,
"end": 637,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 656,
"end": 666,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 671,
"end": 683,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 693,
"end": 709,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 739,
"end": 753,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 764,
"end": 773,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 803,
"end": 816,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 826,
"end": 843,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 852,
"end": 863,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 897,
"end": 911,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 919,
"end": 932,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 942,
"end": 953,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 963,
"end": 973,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 983,
"end": 998,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1007,
"end": 1021,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1051,
"end": 1072,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1080,
"end": 1100,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1108,
"end": 1120,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1130,
"end": 1144,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1153,
"end": 1162,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr. Justice Shaji P.Chaly\n\n Thursday, The 2Nd Day Of June 2016/12Th Jyaishta, 1938\n\n WP(C).No. 17165 of 2016 (U)\n --------------------------------------------\n\n\nPetitioner(S) :\n--------------------------\n\n 1. Yamaha Sub Dealers Association Of Kerala,\n A Society Registered Under The Travancore-Cochin\n Literary, Scientific And Charitable Societies Act, 1955\n And Having Its Registered Office At \" Parijatham\"\n Chithiyoorkodu, Kollode Post,\n Thiruvananthapuram 695 571,\n Represented By Its Secretaryrakesh Roshan.\n\n 2. K. Mohanan Nair,\n Adithya Yamaha, Tc 1/1854-1,Opposite Al Saj Hotel,\n Kazhakootam Post, Thiruvananthapuram 695 582.\n\n\n By Advs.Sri.K.K.Dheerendrakrishnan\n Sri.N.Krishna Prasad\n Sri.P.G.Pramod\n\nRespondent(S) :\n----------------------------\n\n 1. State Of Kerala,\n Represented By Its Secretary,\n Motor Vehicles Department, Government Secretariat,\n Thiruvananthapuram 695 001.\n\n 2. The Transport Commissioner,\n Trans Towers, Opposite Womens College,\n Vazhuthacad, Thiruvananthapuram\n\n By Sr.Government Pleader Smt.K.A.Sanjeetha\n\n This Writ Petition (Civil) Having Come Up For Admission\n On 25-05-2016, Along With W.P(C).No.17610 Of 2016 And\n W.P(C).No.18020 Of 2016, The Court On 02-06-2016 Delivered\n The Following:\nMsd.\n\f\nWP(C).No. 17165 of 2016 (U)\n-----------------------------------------\n\n Appendix\n\nPetitioner(S)' Exhibits :\n\nExhibit P1 True Copy Of The Circular No.16/2016\n Dated 05/05/2016.\n\nExhibit P2 True Copy Of The Certificate Of Registration\n Dated 26/04/2016.\n\nExhibit P3 True Copy Of The Certificate Pertaining To\n The Second Petitioner.\n\nExhibit P4 True Copy Of The Specimen Of Tripartite\n Agreement.\n\nExhibit P5 True Copy Of The Billed Dated 16/01/2016 Issued To\n Sri. Omanakuttan.\n\nRespondent(S)' Exhibits :\n\n Nil\n\n //True Copy//\n\n\n P.S.Tojudge.\n\nMsd.\n\f\n\n\n C.R.\n Shaji P. Chaly, J.\n --------------------------------------------------\n W.P.(C) Nos.17165, 17610 & 18020 of 2016\n -----------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2016\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 160,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 434,
"end": 474,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 873,
"end": 888,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1062,
"end": 1084,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1119,
"end": 1135,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1170,
"end": 1180,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1249,
"end": 1264,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1464,
"end": 1600,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1651,
"end": 1664,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2984,
"end": 2998,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh\n ASJ/Special Judge : Ndps(N-W) : Rohini Courts : Delhi\n\n\nIn the matter of :\n Sc No. 108/11\n State Vs. Dayanand etc.\n Fir no. 104/11\n Ps Crime Branch\n U/s 20/29 Ndps Act\n State\n Versus\n1) Dayanand @ Vishal\n S/o Sh. Indrasen Pandit\n R/o Village Bagan,\n Post Babu Bishupur,\n Distt. Gopalganj, Ps Yadavpur,\n Siwan, Bihar.\n2) Rajiv Kumar Mishra\n S/o Sh. Bashistha Mishra\n R/o Village & Po Barai Patti,\n Ps Yadav Pur,\n Distt. Gopal Ganj, Bihar.\n3) Pramod Behera\n S/o Bhagwan Behera\n R/o Village Katda,\n Ps Jarapada,\n Distt. Angul, Orissa.\n\n\n Sc no. 108/11 Dtd...16.10.2014 Pg... 1 of 66\n 2\n\n\n 4) Bir Bahadur @ Lal Bahadur Yadav @ Vishal\n S/o Sh. Pritam Yadav\n R/o Village Dharampur,\n Ps Yadavpur,\n Distt. Gopal Ganj, Bihar.\n 5) Dalip Behra\n S/o Sh. Kailash Behra\n R/o Village Katda,\n Ps Jarpada,\n Distt. Angul, Orissa.\n Date of receipt : 13.10.2011\n Date of arguments : 23.09.2014\n Date of announcement : 16.10.2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 57,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 116,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 246,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 261,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 472,
"end": 477,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 515,
"end": 532,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 689,
"end": 707,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 843,
"end": 856,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1099,
"end": 1135,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1274,
"end": 1285,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh Ajay Kumar Jain, Presiding Officer: \nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal: South East District/Saket \n Courts Complex/New Delhi\n\n\nSuit no. 264/11/09\nFir No. 291/09\nPs. Kalkaji\nUid No. 02403C0312532009\nDhanwant Singh & anr Vs. Bal Kishan & ors. \n\n\n Fatal Case \n\n\n1. Dhanwant Singh S/o Sh. Daujeeram \nR/o Nagala Duli, Po Nagla Khangar, Tehsil Shikohedbad\nDistric Firozabad, U.P.\n\n\n2. Rajni Devi W/o Sh. Dhanwant Singh\nR/o Nagala Duli, Po Nagla Khangar, Tehsil Shikohedbad\nDistric Firozabad, U.P. \n .............Petitioners/claimants\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n1. Bal Kishan S/o Sh. Jalim Singh (driver)\nR/o Village jatavu, Ps Narki, \nDistrict Firozabad, U.P \nAt present: H\u00ad16/90, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi\u00ad110062\n\n\n2. Iqbal Singh S/o Sh. Santokh Singh (registered owner)\nR/o 13/156, Geeta Colony, Delhi \u00ad110031\n\n\n3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.\nFai House 2nd floor, 10, Shahid Jeet Singh Marg, \nQutub Institutional Area, New Delhi.\n\nSuit No\u00ad264/11/09, Dhanwant Singh & anr. Vs. Bal Kishan & anr. 1 /18 \n 4. Sh. Sarvesh Pal S/o Ram Gopal (subsequent owner)\nR/o F\u00ad2/888, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi\u00ad110062\nAlso at: R/o Village Gadhiya, Suhagpura, P.S Jaithura,\nDistt. Eita, U.P.\nAlso at: R/o H. No. H\u00ad16/90, Sangam Vihar, Delhi\u00ad110062.\n ......................Respondents\nDate of Institution : 01.08.2009\nDate of reserving judgment/order : 12.08.2014 \nDate of Pronouncement : 12.08.2014 \n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 154,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 242,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 263,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 348,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 452,
"end": 462,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 798,
"end": 808,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 951,
"end": 962,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1049,
"end": 1087,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1196,
"end": 1210,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1222,
"end": 1232,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1258,
"end": 1269,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Ravinder Singh\u00adIi\n Metropolitan Magistrate\n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi\n\nCase No. : 2966/12\nUnique Case Id No. : 02405R00067412011\n\n\nM/s Vandana Carpets\nThrough its Proprietor Sh. Shukal Gupta.\n\n17\u00ad24, Ranaji Enclave, Part\u00adII\nNear Sanatam Dharm Mandir\nUttam Nagar, Najafgarh Road\nNew Delhi\u00ad110043 .......................................Complainant\n\n\n Versus\n\n1) Anuj Chandra\n \n2) Neelu Chandra\n\nBoth R/o 3/15, Shanti, Niketan,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110021\n\nAlso at:\nJ\u00ad705, Som Vihar Apartments\nOpposite Sangam Cinema\nR.K Puram\nNew Delhi .......................................Accused\n\n\n\nDate of Institution: 01.02.2011\nPlea of the accused: Pleaded Not Guilty\nDate of Reserving Judgment: 12/09/2014\nSentence or final Order: Acquitted\nDate of Judgment: 27/09/2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 141,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 228,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 530,
"end": 542,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 551,
"end": 564,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 28Th Day Of October 2013\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice N. Ananda\n\n Criminal Appeal No.582/2009 C/W\n Criminal Appeal Nos.584/2009, 585/2009 & 586/2009\n\n\nBetween:\n\nM.M.Vijayaraghavan, Major\nOcc: Cashier (Udc)\nCentre For Aeronautical\nSystems Studies & Analysis, (Cassa)\nMinistry Of Defence, Drdo\nNew Thippasandra, Bangalore\nNow R/At No.1, I Floor\n'New Lakshmaiah Buildings'\n15Th Cross, Nagavara Palya\nC.V.Raman Nagar\nBangalore-560 093. ... Common Appellant\n\n(By Sri B C Muddappa, Adv.)\n\n\nAnd:\n\n\nState By\nCentral Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi)\nA.C.B, Bangalore. ... Common Respondent\n\n(By Sri C H Jadhav, Senior Advocate)\n 2\n\n\n\n CRL.A.No.582/2009 Is Filed Under Section 374(2)\nCr.P.C., Praying To Set Aside The Impugned Judgment\nOf Conviction Dated 16.6.2009, Passed By The Xxi\nAdditional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge\nFor Cbi Cases, Bangalore In Spl.C.C.No.131/1999 & Etc.\n\n\n CRL.A.No.584/2009 Is Filed Under Section 374(2)\nCr.P.C., Praying To Set Aside The Impugned Judgment\nOf Conviction Dated 16.6.2009, Passed By The Xxi\nAdditional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge\nFor Cbi Cases, Bangalore In Spl.C.C.No.132/1999 & Etc.\n\n\n CRL.A.No.585/2009 Is Filed Under Section 374(2)\nCr.P.C., Praying To Set Aside The Impugned Judgment\nOf Conviction Dated 16.6.2009, Passed By The Xxi\nAdditional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge\nFor Cbi Cases, Bangalore In Spl.C.C.No.133/1999 & Etc.\n\n\n\n CRL.A.No.586/2009 Is Filed Under Section 374(2)\nCr.P.C., Praying To Set Aside The Impugned Judgment\nOf Conviction Dated 16.6.2009, Passed By The Xxi\nAdditional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge\nFor Cbi Cases, Bangalore In Spl.C.C.No.134/1999 & Etc.\n\n\n These Appeals Coming On For Final Hearing This\nDay, The Court Delivered The Following:\n 3\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 176,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 300,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 597,
"end": 609,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 626,
"end": 666,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 734,
"end": 744,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n+ 1. Crl. A. 186/1992\n\n# Mukesh .....Appellant through\n! Mr.P.K. Dey, Amicus Curiae\n and Ms. Purnima Sethi, Adv.\n\n versus\n\n$ State ..... Respondent through\n^ Mr. Manoj Ohri, Adv.\n\n With\n\n 2. Crl. A. 189/1992\n\n Suresh .....Appellant through\n Mr.P.K. Dey, Amicus Curiae\n and Ms. Purnima Sethi, Adv.\n\n versus\n\n State ..... Respondent through\n Mr. Manoj Ohri, Adv.\n\n\n Date of Hearing : 15th July, 2008\n\n% Date of Decision : 01st August, 2008\n\n Coram:\n* Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V.K. Shali\n\n 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be\n allowed to see the Judgment? Yes\n\n 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n\n 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported\n in the Digest? Yes\n\n\n\n\nCrl.A.186/1992 & 189/1992 Page 1 of 42\n Vikramajit Sen, J.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 90,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 182,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 254,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 399,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 484,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 568,
"end": 576,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 635,
"end": 648,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 698,
"end": 703,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 791,
"end": 801,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 992,
"end": 1006,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1033,
"end": 1043,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1426,
"end": 1440,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Cs No. 1966/2014 Bhana Mal Rana @ Bhagwan Singh vs. Sanjay Rana & Ors. Dod: 01.04.2015\n\n\n\n In The Court Of Addl. District Judge\u00ad01:\n South\u00adWest District: Dwarka Courts: New Delhi\n Presided By :Ms. Pinki\n\n Civil Suit No. 1966/2014\n\n\n\nIn The Matter Of : \n\nMr. Bhana Mal Rana @ Bhagwan Singh \nS/o Late Mr. Uday Singh\nR/o House No. 375, \nVill & Po Bijwasan\nNew Delhi \u00ad 110061\n .....Plaintiff\n (Through Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate)\n\n Versus\n\n1. Mr. Sanjay Rana \n S/o Sh. Bhana Mal Rana @ Bhagwan Singh\n R/o Plot No. 587, \n Village & Post Office Bijwasan.\n\n2. Ms. Lalita \n W/o Mr. Sanjay Rana\n Village & Post Office Bijwasan\n New Delhi \u00ad 110061\n ....Defendants\n ( Defendant No. 1 and No. 2 are Exparte) \n\n\n\n\nSuit for Recovery of Possession, Permanent and Mandatory Injunction \"Dismissed \" Page 1 of 27\n Cs No. 1966/2014 Bhana Mal Rana @ Bhagwan Singh vs. Sanjay Rana & Ors. Dod: 01.04.2015\n\n\nDate of Institution of Suit : 27.03.2012\nDate of reserving judgment : 31.03.2015\nDate of pronouncement : 01.04.2015\n\n Suit For Recovery Of Posession, Permanent And \n Mandatory Injunction \n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 57,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 73,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 223,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 270,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 394,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 645,
"end": 657,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 742,
"end": 753,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 882,
"end": 888,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1315,
"end": 1345,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1350,
"end": 1361,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n+ W.P.(C)6955/2007 & Cm Nos. 13208/2007, 13714/2007\n# Narender Kumar Jain ...Petitioner through\n! Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.\n with Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv.\n -versus-\n$ Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi ...Respondent through\n^ Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv. for Rcs\n Mr. R.N. Bhardwaj, Adv. for\n Respondent No.3\n\n With\n\n W.P.(C)6956/2007 & Cm Nos.13209/2007, 14385/2007\n\n Narender Kumar Jain ...Petitioner through\n Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv.\n with Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv.\n -versus-\n\n Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi ...Respondent through\n Mr.V.K. Tandon, Adv. for\n Rcs\n Mr. R.N. Bhardwaj, Adv.\n for Respondent No.3\n Mr. K.C. Mittal, Mr. Anil\n Kumar & Mr. Saurabh\n Sharma, Advs. for\n Respondent Nos.5 & 7\n\n Date of Hearing : 18th September, 2008\n\n% Date of Decision : 21st October, 2008\n\n Coram:\n* Hon\u201fBle Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen\n Hon\u201fBle Mr. Justice S.L. Bhayana\n\n 1. Whether reporters of local papers may\n be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes\n 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n 3. Whether the Judgment should be\n reported in the Digest? Yes\n\n\n\nWp(C)6955/2007 Page 1 of 33\n Vikramajit Sen, J.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 44,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 125,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 209,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 273,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 332,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 400,
"end": 411,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 463,
"end": 476,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 626,
"end": 645,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 715,
"end": 729,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 783,
"end": 793,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 832,
"end": 853,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 920,
"end": 931,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1018,
"end": 1031,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1130,
"end": 1141,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1147,
"end": 1191,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1206,
"end": 1254,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1495,
"end": 1509,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1535,
"end": 1547,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1874,
"end": 1888,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Judgment reserved on: 11.07.2011\n\n% Judgment delivered on: 11.11.2011\n\n\n+ I.A. No. 13741/2006 in Cs(Os) 2282/2006\n\n Super Cassettes Industries Limited ..... Plaintiff\n Through: Mr Amit Sibal with Mr Jagdish\n Sagar, Advocates\n\n\n versus\n\n Mr Chintamani Rao & Ors. ..... Defendants\n Through: Ms Pratibha M Singh & Mr Deepak\n Gogia, Advocates\n\n And\n\n+ I.A. No. 13743/2006 in Cs(Os) 2283/2006\n\n Yashraj Films Private Limited ..... Plaintiff\n Through: Mr. Jagdish Sagar, Advocate\n\n\n versus\n\n Mr Chintamani Rao & Ors. ..... Defendants\n Through: Ms Pratibha M Singh & Mr Deepak\n Gogia, Advocates\n\n And\n\n+ I.A. No. 9900/2006 in Cs(Os) 1706/2006\n\n (India Tv) Independent News Services Pvt. Ltd.\n ..... Plaintiff\n Through: Ms Pratibha M Singh & Mr Deepak\n Gogia, Advocates\n\n versus\n\n Yashraj Films And Anr. ..... Defendants\n Through: Mr Amit Sibal with Mr Jagdish\n Sagar, Advocates\n\n\n\n\nCS(OS)Nos. 1706/2006 & 2282-83/2006 Page 1 of 73\n Coram:\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may\n be allowed to see the judgment? : Yes\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? : Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported\n in the Digest? : Yes\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 46,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 241,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 309,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 363,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 430,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 508,
"end": 524,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 530,
"end": 574,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 685,
"end": 714,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 784,
"end": 797,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 849,
"end": 863,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 940,
"end": 956,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 962,
"end": 1006,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1117,
"end": 1152,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1255,
"end": 1271,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1277,
"end": 1322,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1371,
"end": 1384,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1489,
"end": 1499,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1508,
"end": 1565,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1690,
"end": 1702,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ajay Goel, Additional District Judge-12\n Central District:Delhi\n (One of the Oldest Probate Petition)\nPc-57/13/97\n\n\n In the Matter of:\n\n Ms. Anju Kapoor\n d/o late Sh . Atam Swarup Khanna,\n r/o C-4/140, Safdarjung Development Area,\n New Delhi.\n\n .................. Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n\n 1) State\n 2) Sh. Anil Khanna\n s/o late Sh. Atam Swarup Khanna,\n r/o D-837(IInd floor),\n New Friends Colony,\n New Delhi.\n 3) (a) Mrs. Gita Khanna,\n w/o late Sh. Ajay Khanna\n (b) Ms. Jyotsana\n d/o late Sh. Ajay Khanna\n (c) Master Arav Khanna\n s/o late Sh. Ajay Khanna\n All residents of\n r/o D-837(first floor),\n New Friends Colony,\n New Delhi.\n 4) Master Rajat Khanna\n through father & natural guardian\n Sh. Anil Khanna,\n\nPc-57/13/97 Page:-1/36\n r/o D-837(IInd Floor),\n New Friends Colony,\n New Delhi.\n 5) Ms. Nikki Kapoor\n d/o Ms. Anju Kapoor\n r/o D-837(Ground Floor),\n New Friends Colony,\n New Delhi.\n Presently at 5062 Alder Irvine, California 92612\n U.S.A.\n\n ......Respondents\nDate of Institution: 10.10.97\nDate of Assignment to this court: 22.7.13\nDate of Arguments: 19.3.14\nDate of Decision: 9.4.14\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 25,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 218,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 456,
"end": 461,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 485,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 626,
"end": 637,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 693,
"end": 701,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 762,
"end": 773,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 925,
"end": 944,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1175,
"end": 1187,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "State Vs. Tej Kumar @ Tinku\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain\n Additional Sessions Judge-01 ( Central): Delhi\n\nSc No. 53/13\nId No. : 02401R0121122013\n\n\n Fir No. : 266/12\n Police Station : Prasad Nagar\n Under Section : 342/377 Ipc &\n 6/8 Pocso Act\n\n\n State\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n\n Tej Kumar @ Tinku\n S/o Sh. Roshan Lal,\n R/o H. No. 16/168-I ,\n Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh,\n Delhi.\n\n\n .........Accused\n\n\n\n Date of Institution : 12.03.2013\n Date of judgment reserved on : 17.02.2014\n Date of judgment : 28.02.2014\n\n\n\nPresent: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the\n State.\n Sh. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, Amicus Curiae for the\n accused\n\n\nSc No. 53/13 Page 1 of 36\n State Vs. Tej Kumar @ Tinku\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 10,
"end": 27,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 72,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 434,
"end": 439,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 490,
"end": 507,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 917,
"end": 928,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1008,
"end": 1021,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1211,
"end": 1216,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1221,
"end": 1238,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Judgment reserved on: 05.07.2013\n\n% Judgment delivered on: 11.09.2013\n\n+ W.P.(C) 5812/2011\n\n Taskinuddin & Ors ..... Petitioners\n Through: Mr. M. Sufian Siddiqui, Rakesh\n Bhugra, M. Tabishzia, Advocates\n\n versus\n\n State (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate for\n respondent No.1.\n Mr. G.S. Singh, Advocate for\n respondent No.2.\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 203,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 319,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 372,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 386,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 453,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 525,
"end": 538,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 634,
"end": 644,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 746,
"end": 758,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reported\n* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n\n+ Fao 488/1999\n\n\nAmi Chand & Anr ..... Appellants\n Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n\nJai Prakash & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate for\n the respondent No.3\n\n\n% Date of Decision : October 12 , 2011\n\nCoram:\nHon'Ble Ms. Justice Reva Khetrapal\n1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed\n to see the judgment?\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?\n3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 53,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 107,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 217,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 267,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 371,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 538,
"end": 552,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradeesh Jabalpur\n (Writ Petition No. 1692/2014)\n M/s. Mp Amrl (Bicharpur) Coal Company Ltd.\n Vs.\n Kemli Bai and others\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPresent : Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nCounsel for Petitioner Shri Naman Nagrath Senior\n Advocate with Shri Himanshu\n Mishra, Advocate\nCounsel for respondent No. 1 to 19 Shri Himanshu Mishra\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 38,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 142,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 219,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 365,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 495,
"end": 508,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 578,
"end": 636,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 695,
"end": 710,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n\n\n+ Omp No. 16/2003\n\n\n\n\n Reserved on : November 14, 2008\n\n Date of Decision : April 17, 2009\n\n\n\n\nNational Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. .....Appellant\n\nThrough : Mr. R.P. Bhat, Sr. Advocate, with\n\nMr. Chirag M. Shroff, Advocate.\n\n\n\n\nVersus\n\n\n\n\nWig Brothers Builders and Engineers Ltd. .....Respondent\n\nThrough : Mr. P.V. Kapoor, Sr. Advocate, with\n\nMr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Advocate.\n Coram:\n\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal\n\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see\n the judgment? Yes\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 44,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 221,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 275,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 317,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 344,
"end": 384,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 427,
"end": 438,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 464,
"end": 479,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 520,
"end": 532,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Date of Reserve: 30.7.2009\n Date of Order: 17th September, 2009\n\nEx. P. No. 275/2007\n% 17.09.2009\n\n Naval Gent Maritime Limited ... Decree Holder\n Through: Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Advocate with\n Ms. Ekta Kapil, Mr. Anish Kapur &\n Mr. Kuber Dewan, Advocate\n\n Versus\n\n\n Shivnath Rai Harnarain (I) Ltd. ... Judgment Debtor\n Through: Mr. Chetan Sharam, Sr. Advocate with\n Mr. Anshuj Dhingra and Mr. Anubhav Mehrota, Advs.\n\n\nJustice Shiv Narayan Dhingra\n1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the\n judgment? Yes.\n\n2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.\n\n3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 387,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 468,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 512,
"end": 522,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 528,
"end": 539,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 570,
"end": 581,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 629,
"end": 660,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 726,
"end": 739,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 782,
"end": 796,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 805,
"end": 820,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 838,
"end": 858,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 03.10.2012\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mrs. Justice Aruna Jagadeesan\n\nC.M.A.No.2484 of 2003\n\n\nThe Branch Manager,\nNew India Assurance Co. Ltd.,\nNo.105, Railway Station Road,\nTirupattur,\nVellore District. \t\t ... Appellant \n\n\t\t\t\t\t..vs..\n\n1.Malliga\n\n2.Kavitha Lakshmi\n\n3.R.Pannerselvam\t\t\t \t\t \t \t ... Respondents\n \nPrayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Special Judge (Mact), at Krishnagiri, Dharmapuri in M.C.O.P.No.49 of 2002 dated 20.01.2003.\n\t For Appellant\t : Mr.R.Sivakumar\n For Respondent-1 & 2\t : Mr.P.Tamilavel\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 112,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 247,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 336,
"end": 345,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 364,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 382,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 718,
"end": 729,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 777,
"end": 788,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh.R P Pandey:\n Special Judge-01 (Cbi) : Rohini Courts:Delhi\n\n\n\nCbi No.77/08\n Rc-17(A)/2005/Scu-V/Cbi/Scr-Ii/Delhi\n U/S 120-B, 420, 468, 471 Ipc & Pc Act 1988\n\n\n Id No.02404Ro650672007 (Swarn Cghs)\n\n\nCentral Bureau of Investigation\n\n Vs.\n\n 1. Gokul Chand Aggarwal\n s/o Late Sh.Jagdish Prasad\n r/o A-603 and 703 Ashoka Apartments\n Plot No.36/2, Sector-9\n Rohini, Delhi-85\n\n 2. Narayan Diwakar\n s/o Late Chatti Lal\n r/o G-30, Masjid Modh, Greater Kailash\n Part-II, New Delhi-48\n\n 3. Daya Nand Sharma\n s/o late Sh.Ram Diwaya Sharma\n r/o-1378, Rani Bagh, Shgakur Basti\n Delhi-34\n\n\nCbi Vs. Gokul Chand Aggarwal & Ors (Swarn Cghs) Cbi No.77/08\n\n Page No.1 of 68\n 4. Uday Shankar Bhatnagar\n s/o late Sh.S S Bhatnagar\n r/o-B-4/74, Type-II, Delhi Administration Flats\n Timar, Delhi\n\n 5. Faiz Mohammad\n s/o Sh.Gulam Mohammad\n r/o 3794, Ahata Kitara, Pahari Dheeraj\n Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi-6\n\n 6. Ashwani Sharma s/o late R K Sharma\n r/o-291A, Pocket-C, Mayur Vihar\n Phase-II, Delhi\n\n 7. Naveen Kaushik s/o late Sh.M D Sharma\n r/o-I-2/38, 2nd Floor, Sector-16, Rohini\n New Delhi-110085\n\n 8. Kamal Singh s/o late Sh.Bakhtawar Singh\n r/o-677, VPO-Badli, Delhi\n\n\n Date of filing charge sheet : 29.03.07\n Reserved for Order : 28.02.14\n Date of Order : 04.03.14\n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 81,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 285,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 330,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 465,
"end": 480,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 587,
"end": 603,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 698,
"end": 701,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 706,
"end": 726,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 817,
"end": 839,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 960,
"end": 973,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1091,
"end": 1105,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1199,
"end": 1213,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1320,
"end": 1331,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 23..01..2009\n\nCoram: \n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice S. Palanivelu\n\nC.R.P. (P.D.) Nos.4315 and 4316 of 2008 \nand M.P.Nos.1 of 2008\n \nRajalakshmi Sivakumar\t\t ... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1. N. Rajavelu\n2. Sanjeevi\n3. Munuswami\n4. Pushpa\n5. Kamala Subramanian\n6. Selvam\n7. Kasthuri Selvam\n8. J. Saraswathi Ammal\t ... Respondents(R2 to R6 given up as they remained exparte in the suit) C.R.P.Nos.4315 and 4316 of 2008 are filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 27.02.2008 made in I.A.Nos.15546 and 15545 of 2007 respectively in O.S.No.8879 of 1997 by the Xiv Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. \n\t\tFor Petitioner : Mr. T. Paranthaman\n For Respondent : Mr. G. Jermiah\nC O M M O N O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 116,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 204,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 257,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 269,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 282,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 292,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 314,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 324,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 343,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 366,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 761,
"end": 775,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 815,
"end": 825,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 07/07/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Markandey Katju, Chief Justice \nand \nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla \n\nW.P.No.13056 of 2005 \nand \nW.P.Nos.37061 and 37062 of 2002 \nand \nW.P.Nos.27001, 15546, and 35868 of 2003 \nand \nW.P.Nos.33390, 34853, 34854, 35969, 35970, 35972, 35973, 37144, 37145, \n36239, 36533, 36810, 37460, 15840, 17352, 24396, 24394, 24395, 24468, 24469, \n24470, 37153, 37154, 9319, 27167, 27498, 27620, 32294, 37076, \n37632, 39208, 14276, 24449, 24500, 25168, 25169, 26934, 27072, 27291, \n29114, 32929, 32930, 39396, 4248, 21843, 22420, 23482, 35176, 34990 \nand 17256 of 2004 \n\nand \n\nW.P.Nos.4575, 2722, 2729, 3069, 3754, 5263, 5277, 5602, 154, 431, 5937, \n6447, 6594, 6701, 7428, 7440, 8394, 10207, 8245, 9665, 10148, 10206 \n10849, 11574, 11615, 11657, 12037, 12077, 12163, 13502, 17298 to 17304, \n4872, 4873, 892, 1813, 3995, 4724, 5744, 6376, 6544, 6969, 7243 \n, 7418, 7914, 7915, 7934, 8367, 8634, 8820, 9301, 9302, 9507, 9726,\n9732, 12375, 12666, 12701, 13768, 15701, 4870, 5368, 9299, 9747, 5069, \n11105, 11106, 12005, 12145, 12146, 14727, 15152, 17563, 17787, \n3763, 4973, 7543, and 12072 of 2005 \n\nand \n\nW.A.No. 2261 of 2004 \n\n\nW.P.No.13056 of 2005 \n\nM/s.Digivision Electronics Ltd.,\nRegistered Office at No.A5 & 6,\nIndustrial Estate,\nGuindy, \nChennai - 32. ..Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Indian Bank,\n rep. by its Deputy General Manager,\n Head Office,\n 31, Rajaji Salai,\n Chennai - 1.\n\n2. Indian Bank,\n rep. by its Branch Manager,\n Guindy Branch,\n Gst Road,\n Guindy,\n Chennai - 32. ..Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n Prayer: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution\nof India for the issuance of writ of mandamus, writ of certiorari, direction,\netc.,\n\nFor Petitioners :: Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel\n For Mr.M.Sukumar\n Mr.R.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel\n For M/s.Narmada Sampath\n Mr.A.Thiagarajan\n Ms.S.Shyamala\n Mr.T.Sivanantham\n Mr.R.Ganesh Ram\n Mr.Raghul Bajaj\n Mr.K.Selvaraj\n\nFor Respondents :: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Senior Counsel\n For Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia\n Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Addl. Solicitor\n General for Mr.S.Manikumar, Scgsc\n\n Mr.N.V.Srinivasan\n For M/s.N.V.S.Associates\n\n Mr.F.B.Benjamin George\n M/s.Murthy & Vasan\n M/s.Rangarajan & Prabhakaran\n N.Rajendran\n\n\n:O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 192,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1283,
"end": 1314,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1448,
"end": 1459,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1561,
"end": 1572,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1922,
"end": 1931,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1979,
"end": 1988,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2016,
"end": 2031,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2123,
"end": 2136,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2164,
"end": 2174,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2202,
"end": 2215,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2243,
"end": 2255,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2283,
"end": 2295,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2323,
"end": 2333,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2373,
"end": 2384,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2432,
"end": 2446,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2474,
"end": 2485,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2543,
"end": 2554,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2590,
"end": 2604,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2682,
"end": 2701,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2730,
"end": 2744,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2773,
"end": 2797,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2822,
"end": 2833,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Puneet Pahwa \n Metropolitan Magistrate \u00ad 01 (N.I. Act)\n Patiala House Courts : New Delhi\n\n\n\nUco Bank Employees Trust Nidhi.\n48\u00adB, Lig Dda Flats, \nRampura, Delhi\u00ad110035\n ....................... Complainant\n\n Vs.\n\n\nSh. R.K. Kumar (Member No. 874)\n60, Uco Apartments, Plot No. 34, \nSector\u00ad9, Rohini, New Delhi\u00ad85.\n\n\nAlso at\n\n\nH. No. 11, Pocket G\u00ad8,\nSector\u00ad11, Rohini, New Delhi\u00ad85.\n . ................................Accused\n\n\n\nCase Number. : 3014/1\n\n\nDate of Institution of Present Case. : 20.12.2010\n\n\nOffence Complained Of. : U/s 138 Ni Act\n\nCase No. 3014/1 \n Plea of the Accused. : Not Guilty\n\n\nArguments Heard On. : 28.01.2014\n\n\nFinal Order. : Convicted.\n\n\nDate of Judgment. : 22.02.2014\n\n\n\n - :: Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 137,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 171,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 337,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "ash 1 wp-2903.11\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n Criminal Writ Petition No. 2903 Of 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n Kumar J. Sujan & Others. .. Petitioners\n Vs\n The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents\n\n\n\n\n \n -\n\n Shri A.A. Kumbhakoni along with Shri Ravi Gurnani and Shri Shardul \n Singh i/by Shri Sudhan Y. Amare and Ms. Deepali Prabhukhanolkar for \n\n\n\n\n \n the Petitioners.\n Mrs. A.S. Pai, App for the Respondent No.1-State.\n \n Shri R.Satyanarayanan for the Respondent No.2.\n Shri Kevic Setalwad, Additional Solicitor General along with Ms. \n Sushma Nagraj and Shri Anupam Surve i/by Shri Sandeep K. Shinde for \n \n Respondent No.3.\n -\n \n\n Coram : A.S. Oka & Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Jj \n \n\n\n\n Date On Which Submissions Were Heard : 20Th October, 2012\n\n\n Date On Which Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 146,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 404,
"end": 418,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 501,
"end": 525,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 660,
"end": 675,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 692,
"end": 704,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 714,
"end": 733,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 739,
"end": 759,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 768,
"end": 791,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 874,
"end": 882,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 954,
"end": 970,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1008,
"end": 1024,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1088,
"end": 1101,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1111,
"end": 1123,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1134,
"end": 1151,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1260,
"end": 1268,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1276,
"end": 1293,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 922 of 2006()\n\n\n1. Prabhakaran @ Puli Prabhakaran,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala.\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Grashious Kuriakose\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :05/03/2006\n\n O R D E R\n R.Basant & M.C.Hari Rani, Jj.\n * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n Crl.A.No.922 of 2006\n ----------------------------------------\n Dated this the 5th day of March 2010\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 101,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 190,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 293,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 379,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 405,
"end": 418,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 466,
"end": 474,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 477,
"end": 490,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Sanjay Sharma : Special Judge (Ndps) /\n Addl. Sessions Judge, (North-East): Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\nSc No. : 93/2007\nFir No. : 464/2007\nPs : Nand Nagri\nUnder section : 21/61/85 Ndps Act\nCase Id : 02402R0533762007\n\nState Versus 1. Surender Kumar\n S/o Sh. Attar Singh Fouzi\n R/o Mohalla Kotla Chungi,\n Gali No. 5, Firojabad, (U.P.)\n\nDate of Institution : 02.08.2007\nDate of reserving order : 21.10.2014\nDate of Judgment : 10.12.2014\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 338,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 384,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nMACA.No. 223 of 2007()\n\n\n1. National Insurance Company Ltd.,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.C.Chacko, S/O. M.C.Chacko,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Ameena Enterprises, Represented By\n\n3. Gracy George,\n\n4. Santhamma Jessee,\n\n5. Molly George,\n\n6. Vinny George,\n\n7. Sherly Thomas,\n\n8. Bejoy George,\n\n9. Roy George,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Rajan P.Kaliyath\n\n For Respondent :Sri.S.Sreekumar\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Balakrishnan\n\n Dated :22/07/2011\n\n O R D E R\n R.Basant & N.K.Balakrishnan, Jj.\n ***********************\n M.A.C.A Nos.223 and 243 of 2007-B\n *****************************\n Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 101,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 185,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 270,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 291,
"end": 303,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 325,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 343,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 349,
"end": 361,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 380,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 398,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 404,
"end": 414,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 454,
"end": 470,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 520,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 546,
"end": 554,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 579,
"end": 595,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 639,
"end": 647,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 650,
"end": 666,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\nDated : 14-7-2009\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.Chockalingam\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Karnan\nCRL.A.Nos.39, 47, 85, 92 and 165 of 2006\nAppu @ Deepan Kumar\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant/A-4\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t in Ca 39/2006\n\nSanjay Sudanthiranathan\t\t\t\t.. Appellant/A-5\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t in Ca 47/2006\n\nK.M.V.Anand\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant/A-1\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t in Ca 85/2008\n\n1.Murali\n2.Sathish\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellants/A-2 &\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t A-3 in \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Ca 92/2006\n\nIndira @ Victoria\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant/A-6\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t in Ca 165/2006\n\nvs\n\nState rep. By:\nDeputy Superintendent of Police\nCrime Branch Cid\nOrganised Crime Unit\nChengai East, Chennai 600 002.\n(Crime No.521/2003)\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondent/ Complainant in all appeals Criminal appeals preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai at Poonamallee, made in S.C.No.311 of 2004 dated 8.12.2005. \n\n For Appellants : Mr.K.Kannan in Ca 39/2006 Mr.T.K.Sampath in Ca 47/2006 Mr.S.Doraisami in Ca 85/2006 Mr.R.Sankarasubbu in Ca 92/2006 Mr.V.Gopinath Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Mahendran in Ca 165/2006 For Respondent : Mr.N.R.Elango Additional Public Prosecutor Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 147,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 208,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 279,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 337,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 394,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 404,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 473,
"end": 490,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 543,
"end": 548,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 949,
"end": 957,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 975,
"end": 986,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1004,
"end": 1015,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1033,
"end": 1047,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1065,
"end": 1075,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1098,
"end": 1109,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1145,
"end": 1155,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice V.K.Mohanan\n\n Friday, The 19Th Day Of October 2012/27Th Aswina 1934\n\n CRL.A.No. 1214 of 2001 (B)\n ------------------------\n [Against The Judgment Dtd.16.6.2001 In\n Cc.391/1997 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chalakudy]\n\n\nAppellant(S)/Complainant:\n-------------------------\n Lt.Col.N.D.Joy,\n S/o.Late N.P.Devassy,\n residing at 26/2867, Sajanas,\n Thevara, Cochin-13\n\n\nBy Adv.Sri.P.A.Chandran\n Smt.Rani Joy\n\nRespondents(S)/Accused And State:\n---------------------------------\n 1. Dr.Josephkunju,\n C/o.F3-70,\n Priyadarsini Nagar,\n Paravattany, Thrissur.\n\n 2. Jena Joseph,\n W/o.Joseph Kunju, -do-\n\n 3. Joraj Joseph, S/o.Josephkunju,\n -do- -do-\n\n 4. Dil Raj Joseph, S/o.Josephkunju,\n -do- -do-\n\n 5. State of Kerala, represented by the\n Public Prosecutor,High Court of Kerala,\n Ernakulam.\n\n\n R1-R4 By Adv. Sri.V.John Sebastian Ralph\n R1-R4 By Adv. Sri.K.J.Joseph (Ernakulam)\n R1-R4 By Adv. Smt.Preethy Karunakaran\n R5 By Public Prosecutor Smt.S.Hyma.\n\n\n This Criminal Appeal Having Been Finally Heard On 12-10-2012,\n\nThe Court On 19.10.2012 Delivered The Following:\n\f\n Appendix\n\nAppellant's Exhibits:\n\nAnnexure-AA : True copy of the judgment dated 22.3.2006 in\n\nO.P.No.7681/02 by this Court.\n\nAnnexure-BB: True copy of the order dated 9.4.2003 in I.A.No.2579/02\n\nin O.S.No.3560/01 in the First Additional Munsiff Court, Thrissur.\n\n\n\n\n -true copy-\n\n\n\n\n P.S.To Judge.\n\f\n\n\n V.K.Mohanan, J.\n --------------------------------------\n Crl.A.No. 1214 of 2001\n --------------------------------------\n Dated this the 19th day of October, 2012\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 138,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 492,
"end": 499,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 600,
"end": 612,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 713,
"end": 724,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 817,
"end": 828,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 874,
"end": 886,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 947,
"end": 961,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1022,
"end": 1037,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1161,
"end": 1183,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1216,
"end": 1226,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1271,
"end": 1290,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1328,
"end": 1334,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1891,
"end": 1902,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nEarabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Karnataka\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 42,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 80,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ramesh Kumar,\n Addl. District Judge-04: Central: Delhi\n\n Date of institution : 21.06.1996\n Announced on : 21.08.2014\nIn re:\n Suit no. 18/08\n\n\n1. M/s. P & S (India) Corporation\n 59-Okhla Industrial Estate-III\n New Delhi-110020\n (through it's Proprietor Sh. Vipan Sharna)\n\n2. Sh. Vipan Sarna\n S/o Late V.N. Sarna\n R/ B-272, Greater Kailash Part-I,\n New Delhi.\n ... Plaintiffs\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n1. M/s. Premier Tools\n Through Sh. K.C. Bajaj,\n Sole Proprietor,\n 59, Okhla Industrial Estate , Phase-III\n New Delhi-110020.\n\n2. M/s. Premier Tools\n A Registered Partnership Firm\n Through its partner Shri K.C. Bajaj\n 59, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III\n New Delhi- 110020\n\n3. Shri K.C. Bajaj\n C-123, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III\n New Delhi-110020.\n\n\n4. Shri K.C. Bajaj\n 59, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III\n New Delhi - 110020\n\n5. Shri K.C. Bajaj\n N-87, Greater Kailash-I\n New Delhi- 110048\n\n6. Shri L.C. Bajaj\n Karta of Shri Lal Chand Amresh Huf\n C-1, Kailash Colony,\n New Delhi - 110048\n\n7. Shri Suresh Kumar Nanda\n Karta of Shri Suresh Kumar Nanda Huf\n 218, Okhla Industrial Estate\n New Delhi - 110020\n\n8. Shri Suresh Kumar Nanda\n Karta of Shri Suresh Kumar Nanda Huf\n S-417, Greater Kailash- Part- I\n New Delhi- 110048\n\n9. Mrs. Sangeeta Bajaj\n C-1, Kailash Colony\n New Delhi- 110048. ... Defendants\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 28,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 268,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 388,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 582,
"end": 600,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 716,
"end": 734,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 879,
"end": 889,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 966,
"end": 976,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1051,
"end": 1061,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1119,
"end": 1129,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1223,
"end": 1241,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1345,
"end": 1363,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1469,
"end": 1483,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Daya Prakash, Asj-02\n New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts\n New Delhi\n\n\nCase Id No. 02403R0724332006\nSession Case No. 117/13\n\n\nState Versus 1 Maurif Qamar @ Nawab\n 2 Irshad Ali @ Deepak\n\nFir No. : 10/2006\nU/s: 121/121A/122/123/120B Ipc\n & 4/5 Explosive Substance Act\n & 25 Arms Act\nPs: Special Cell\n\n\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 125,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 188,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 262,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 341,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Vbc 1/71 wp33.12.resv\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No.33 Of 2012\n \n\n M/s.Mahalaxmi Cotton Ginning Pressing \n\n\n\n\n \n and Oil Industries, Kolhapur. ...Petitioner.\n Vs.\n The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.\n ....\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.V.Sridharan, Senior Advocate with Mr.V.P. Patkar, \n Mr.C.B.Thakar, Mr.Ratan Kumar Samal, Mr.Jitu D.Patel and \n \n Mr.M.M.Vaidya for the Petitioner.\n Mr.D.J.Khambata, Advocate General with Mr.E.P.Bharucha, Senior \n Advocate, Mr.D.A. Nalavade, Government Pleader, Mr.Vinay \n \n A.Sonpal, A Panel Counsel, Mr.B.B.Sharma, Agp, Ms.Naira \n Jejeebhoy and Ms.S.E.Bharucha for the Respondents.\n .....\n \n\n\n Coram : Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud And\n R.D.Dhanuka, Jj. \n \n\n\n\n \n May 11, 2012.\n\n\n\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 132,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 421,
"end": 554,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 631,
"end": 651,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 794,
"end": 805,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 841,
"end": 854,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 864,
"end": 874,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 881,
"end": 902,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 909,
"end": 923,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 969,
"end": 979,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1009,
"end": 1021,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1048,
"end": 1060,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1089,
"end": 1104,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1135,
"end": 1140,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1176,
"end": 1184,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1214,
"end": 1224,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1238,
"end": 1243,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1249,
"end": 1258,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1266,
"end": 1278,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1405,
"end": 1420,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1477,
"end": 1488,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Ix Addl. Small Causes And\n Addl. Mact., Bangalore, (Scch-7)\n\n Dated this, the 13th day of August, 2015.\n\n\nPresent : Smt.Indira Mailswamy Chettiyar,\n B.Com., Ll.B. (Spl.), L.L.M.,\n Ix Addl. Small Causes Judge & Xxxiv Acmm,\n Court of Small Causes,\n Member, Mact-7, Bangalore.\n\n M.V.C.No.7561/2012\n\n1. Smt. Shobha. H., ..... Petitioners\nW/o M.S. Shivanna,,\nAged about 32 years.\n\n2. M.S. Thejeswini,\nD/o M.S. Shivanna,\nAged about 13 years.\n\n3. M.S. Yashaswini,\nD/o M.S. Shivanna,\nAged about 11 years.\n\n4. Shivalingaiah,\nS/o Late Byranna,\nAged about 60 years.\n\n5. Smt. Marakka,\nW/o Shivalingaiah,\nAged about 55 years.\n\n(Since Petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors\nrepresented by mother Smt.Shobha.H.)\n\nAll are residing at:\nVidyanagar, Kalya Gate,\nWard No.31, Magadi Town,\nRamanagar District.\n\n( By Sri. B.S. Manjunath, Adv.,)\n M.V.C.No.7561/2012\n 2 (Scch-7)\n\n\n V/s\n\n1. Shriram General Insurance ....Respondents\nCo. Ltd.,\nNo.5, Ii Floor, White House,\nSt. Marks Road,\nBangalore - 01.\n\n(Insurance Policy\nNo.10003/31/13/153849\nValid from 17.07.2012 to 16.07.2013)\n\n2. Jayaraj,\nS/o Govindaswamy,\nNo.57-2, Hospet Road,\nMagadi Town,\nRamanagar District.\n\n(R.C. Owner of Tata Sumo bearing\nRegistration No.KA-01-B-9220)\n\n(R-1 - By Sri. K. Prakash, Adv.,)\n(R-2 Exparte)\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 87,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 182,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 423,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 511,
"end": 526,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 572,
"end": 587,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 633,
"end": 646,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 696,
"end": 703,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 926,
"end": 940,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1108,
"end": 1133,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1317,
"end": 1324,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1479,
"end": 1489,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWp(C) No. 17522 of 2006(J)\n\n\n1. Joseph, S/O.Augustine Raphel,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Special Tahsildar (L.A),\n ... Respondent\n\n2. District Collector,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.B.Gopakumar\n\n For Respondent :Government Pleader\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T.Sankaran\n\n Dated :24/08/2007\n\n O R D E R\n K.T. Sankaran, J.\n -------------------------------------------\n W.P.(C) No. 17522 Of 2006 J\n -------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 24th day of August,2007\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 80,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 197,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 271,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 322,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 413,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 487,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Judicature Madhya Pradesh,\n Jabaplur\n\n Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J.\n\nCriminal Appeal No.884 Of 1998\n\n\nAshok & others. A.F.R.\n Vs.\nState of Madhya Pradesh. Judge\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n-----\nShri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the appellants.\n\nShri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/\nState.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n-----\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 114,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 157,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 228,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 349,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 399,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 1853 of 2005\n\nPetitioner:\nM/s Master Marine Services Pvt. Ltd. \t\t\t\n\nRespondent:\nMetcalfe & Hodgkinson Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. \t\t\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 88,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 137,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Rachna Tiwari Lakhanpal\n Scj/Rc(West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi\n\n\nS. No.\u00ad 385/2010\nUnique case Id : 02401C\u00ad024346\u00ad2010 \n\n\nSh. Rohtas Chandra,\nS/o Late Sh. Chandermal,\nR/o Wz\u00ad69, Khampur,\nWest Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110008 ...............Plaintiff\n\n\n Versus\nSh. Anup Singh,\n2365, Khampur, West Patel Nagar,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110008\n\nAnd also at :\n House No. F\u00ad133, Vikas Puri, \n New Delhi ....................Defendant\n\n\nDate of institution of the suit : 04.06.2010\nDate of reserving Judgment : 20.02.2014\nDate of pronouncement : 06.03.2014\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 113,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 190,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 480,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nLA.App..No. 121 of 2008()\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala Rep. By The\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Jose Simon,S/O.Chummar, Cherukara,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Addl.Advocate General\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Raju K.Mathews\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pius C.Kuriakose\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :23/01/2009\n\n O R D E R\n C.R.\n\n Pius C. Kuriakose & M.C. Hari Rani,Jj\n\n ==============================\n\n L.A.A.Nos.121, 132,135,722 & 732 Of 2008 &\n L.A.A.No.1791/2007, L.A.A.Nos.832, 1336,1553,& 1086 Of\n 2008\n ============================\n\n Dated This The 23Rd Day Of January 2009\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 88,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 183,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 346,
"end": 360,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 402,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 428,
"end": 441,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 546,
"end": 563,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 566,
"end": 580,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nReserve Bank Of India\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nPeerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd.Ors. And Vice\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 99,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru\n\n Dated This The 17Th Day Of July 2017\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice N.K. Sudhindrarao\n\n M.F.A.No.5061/2014\n C/W\n M.F.A.No.3224/2014\n And\n M.F.A.No.3225/2014(MV)\n\nIn M.F.A.No.5061/2014:\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Ramaiah @ Ramanna\n S/O Gaviappa\n Aged About 51 Years\n\n2. Smt.Jayamma\n W/O Ramanna\n Aged About 44 Years\n\n Both The Appellants Are\n Residing At No.20/A, 6Th Cross\n Om Shivashakthi Nagar\n Chunchaghatta Main Raod,\n Bengaluru - 560 062.\n\n Both Were Previously Resided\n At No.1354, 8Th Cross\n Shivashakthi Nagar\n Chunchaghatta Main Raod,\n Bengaluru - 560 062.\n ...Appellants\n(By Sri. F S Dabali, Advocate)\n 2\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. R.D.Palaksha\n S/O Dhanaguru Shetty\n Age Major, Residing\n At No.317/5, Nimishambha\n Layout, Kuvempu Nagar\n Mysuru - 570 001.\n\n2. The Regional Manager\n United India Insurance\n Company Limited\n M.G. Road\n Bengaluru - 560 001.\n ...Respondents\n\n(By Sri C S Prem Kumar, Advocate For R-1\nSri B C Seetharama Rao, Advocate For R-2)\n\n This Mfa Is Filed Under Section 173(1) Of Mv Act\nAgainst The Judgment And Award Dated 2.1.2014\nPassed In Mvc No.1854/2013 On The File Of The Xxi Acmm\n& Xxiii A.S.C.J., Bengaluru, Allowing The Claim Petition\nFor Compensation And Seeking Enhancement Of\nCompensation.\n\nIn M.F.A.No.3224/2014:\n\nBetween:\n\nUnited India Insurance Co., Ltd.,\nRegional Office\nKrishi Bhavan Building\nNrupathunga Road\nBengaluru - 560 009\nRep. By Its Mr.Sandeep Kumar\nAdministrative Officer.\n ...Appellant\n(By Sri B C Seetharama Rao, Advocate)\n 3\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Sri Yashawanth Kumar N\n S/O Nagaraja M\n Aged About 22 Years\n Residing At No.132,\n Beereshwara Nagar\n Kuvempu Road\n Bengaluru - 560 062.\n\n2. Sri Chandraiah Y B\n Major, No.19, I Cross\n Cholur Palya, Magadi Road\n Bengaluru - 560 023.\n (Previous Rc Owner Of\n Cab No.Ka.02/D-5542)\n\n3. Sr R D Palaksha\n Major, S/O Dhanaguru Shetty\n No.317/5, Nimishambha Layout\n Kuvempunagar,\n Mysuru - 570 001.\n (Insured Of Cab No.Ka.02/D-5542)\n ...Respondents\n(By Sri C S Premkumar, Advocate For R-3\nNotice To R-1 & 2 Is Held Sufficient\nV/O Dated:17/7/2017)\n\n This Mfa Is Filed Under Section 173(1) Of Mv Act\nAgainst The Judgment And Award Dated 2.1.2014\nPassed In Mvc No.3508/2012 On The File Of The Xxi Acmm\n& Xxiii Ascj, Bengaluru, Awarding Compesnation Of\nRs.2,65,408/- With Interest @ 6% P.A From The Date Of\nPetition Till Deposit.\n\nIn M.F.A.No.3225/2014:\n\nBetween:\n\nUnited India Insurance Co., Ltd.,\nRegional Office\nKrishi Bhavan Building\nNrupathunga Road\n 4\n\n\nBengaluru - 560 009\nRep. By Its Mr.Sandeep Kumar\nAdministrative Officer.\n ...Appellant\n\n(By Sri B C Seetharama Rao, Advocate)\nAnd:\n\n1. Sri Ramaiah @ Ramanna\n Aged About 51 Years\n S/O Gaviappa\n\n2. Smt.Jayamma\n Aged About 44 Years\n W/O Sri Ramanna\n\n Both Are Residing At No.20/A\n 6Th Cross Om Shivashakthi Nagar\n Chunchaghatta Main Raod,\n Bengaluru - 560 062.\n ...Respondents\n\n(By Sri F S Dabali, Advocate, For R-1 & 2\n Sri C S Premkumar, Advocate For R-3)\n\n This Mfa Is Filed Under Section 173(1) Of Mv Act\nAgainst The Judgment And Award Dated 2.1.2014\nPassed In Mvc No.1854/2013 On The File Of The Xxiii\nAdditional Small Causes Judge, Xxi Acmm, Court Of\nSmall Causes, Mact, Bengaluru, Awarding A\nCompesnation Of Rs.7,03,260/- With Interest @ 6% P.A\nFrom The Date Of Petition Till The Date Of Deposit By\nRespondents In Both The Cases.\n\n These MFAs Coming On For Admission This Day,\nThe Court Delivered The Following:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 177,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 403,
"end": 420,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 487,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 911,
"end": 921,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 978,
"end": 990,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1144,
"end": 1257,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1323,
"end": 1337,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1360,
"end": 1378,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1705,
"end": 1737,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1933,
"end": 1951,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2013,
"end": 2031,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2193,
"end": 2207,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2366,
"end": 2378,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2597,
"end": 2610,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3006,
"end": 3038,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3270,
"end": 3288,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3316,
"end": 3333,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3390,
"end": 3397,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3646,
"end": 3656,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3685,
"end": 3698,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 812 of 2004\n\nPetitioner:\nNaveen Kohli\t\t\t\t\t \n\nRespondent:\nNeelu Kohli\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 63,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 101,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay \n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No.192 Of 1990\n (By State against acquittal)\n\n\n\n\n \n The State of Maharashtra ).. Appellant \n\n Versus\n\n\n\n\n \n Suresh Shankar Jadhav, )\n Age : 21 years, R/o. Gursale,\n ig )\n Tal. Khatav, Dist. Satara. ).. Respondent\n (Org.Accused)\n \n Shri P.S. Hingorani, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. \n Shri M.K. Kocharekar for the Respondent.\n \n\n\n Coram : Swatanter Kumar, C..J &\n S.C. Dharmadhikari, J \n \n\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 417,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 521,
"end": 542,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 859,
"end": 873,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 930,
"end": 945,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1006,
"end": 1021,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1062,
"end": 1080,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nM.P. V. Sundararamier & Co.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Andhra Pradesh& ANOTHER(with connected petition\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 39,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 86,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nDelhi Transport Corporation\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nD.T.C. Mazdoor Congress\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 39,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 82,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRattan Lal\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Punjab\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 57,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Patna High Court C. Rev. No.481 of 2016 dt.17-05-2017 1\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Civil Review No.481 of 2016\n In\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9402 of 2011\n ===========================================================\n Sulabh International Social Service Organisation through its Treasurer- Aparesh Roy Sulab New Pataliputra. Colony Ps Pataliputra. Colony . Patna Bihar .... .... Petitioner Versus\n 1. Regional Provident Commissioner, Bihar, R Block Road No. 6, P.S.- Secretariat, Patna-800013\n 2. Employees Provident \"Fund Organisation through the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, having head office at Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14 Bhikhaji Cama Place, P.S.- Rk Puram, New Delhii -110066. ... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Advocate Mr. Arindam Mukherjee, Ms. Gargi Tuli & Mr. Anujit Sinha, Advocates For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma & Mr. Kumar Ganesh Gunjan, Advocates =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 117,
"end": 150,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 392,
"end": 440,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 575,
"end": 666,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 671,
"end": 709,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 987,
"end": 1000,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1019,
"end": 1036,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1042,
"end": 1052,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1059,
"end": 1071,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1110,
"end": 1124,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1139,
"end": 1156,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1163,
"end": 1182,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1284,
"end": 1307,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRamesh Babulal Doshi\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Gujarat\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 72,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAjay Hasia Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nKhalid Mujib Sehravardi & Ors. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 70,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honourable Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao \n\nWrit Petition Nos.9920 of 2017 And Batch \n\n11-07-2017 \n\nW.P.No.9920 of 2017: \n\nNerajala Nageswara Rao and anotherPetitioners \n\n\n1.Union of India and three othersRespondents W.P.No.9921 of 2017: \nRevuru Ramana Reddy and 5 others . Petitioners Vs. \n\n1.Union of India and three others Respondents W.P.No.10189 of 2017: Chilaka Venkata Subba Reddy and 4 others . Petitioners\n231 Vs.\n1.Union of India and two others Respondents \nW.P.No.12389 of 2017: \nChalla Venkata Subba Reddy . Petitioner\n Vs.\n1.Union of India and two others Respondents \n\nCounsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Ramesh Babu Counsel for the Respondents: Sri S.S.Varma, Standing Counsel for Highways Learned Government Pleaders for Land Acquisition Head Note: \n? Cases referred:\n 2012(2) Ald 387 2 2005(13) Scc 477 3 2017(3) Ald 421 4 2007 (13)Scc 186) 5 2006(1) Ald 511 6 2009(16) Scc 2008 7 2017(5) Scc 20 Honourable Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao Writ Petition Nos.9920, 9921, 10189 and 12389 of 2017 Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 160,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 204,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 274,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 324,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 404,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 456,
"end": 472,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 541,
"end": 567,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 619,
"end": 635,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 713,
"end": 726,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 760,
"end": 769,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1041,
"end": 1059,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nTax Reference Case 9-10 of 1986\n\nPetitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay Etc.\n\nRespondent:\nPodar Cement Pvt. Ltd. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 93,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 134,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nDr. Mahesh Chand Sharma\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSmt Raj Kumari Sharma And Ors\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 76,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nSt Rev No. 439 of 2004()\n\n\n1. Smt.Lalitha Jain,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.V.V.Asokan\n\n For Respondent :Government Pleader\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.H.L.Dattu\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M.Joseph\n\n Dated :29/11/2007\n\n O R D E R\n H.L.Dattu,C.J. & K.M.Joseph,J.\n ----------------------------------------------------------------------\n S.T.Rev.Nos.439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444,\n 445 & 446 of 2004\n -----------------------------------------------------------------------\n Dated, this the 29th day of November, 2007\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 88,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 177,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 271,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 368,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 403,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 463,
"end": 472,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 490,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nChandra Deo Singh\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nProkash Chandra Bose & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Wppil/3/2011\t 41/ 41\tJudgment \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIn\nThe High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nWrit\nPetition (Pil) No. 3 of 2011\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature: \n \nHonourable\nThe Chief Justice Mr.Bhaskar Bhattacharya \n \n\n\n \n\nHonourable\nMr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala\n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\nPatel\nVipulkumar Ramjibhai \n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nState\nOf Gujarat Through Additional Chief Secretary & Others\n \n\n=========================================\n \nAppearance : \nMr\nTejas M Barot for\nthe Petitioner \nMr Kb Trivedi, Advocate Genera, with Mr Pk Jani,\nGovernment Pleader with Ms Sangita Vishen & Ms Krina Calla,\nAssistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 \nMr\nDevang Vyas for Respondent No.3 \nDeleted for Respondent : 4, \nMr\nPs Champaneri for Respondent\nNo.5 \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCoram\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHonourable\n\t\t\tThe Chief Justice Mr.Bhaskar Bhattacharya\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHonourable\n\t\t\tMr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 8/11/2012 \n\n \n\n \n \nCav\nJudgment \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 83,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 217,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 262,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 981,
"end": 1007,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1023,
"end": 1039,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1148,
"end": 1161,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1186,
"end": 1196,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1223,
"end": 1230,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1259,
"end": 1273,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1279,
"end": 1290,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1356,
"end": 1367,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1421,
"end": 1434,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1587,
"end": 1607,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1681,
"end": 1694,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMotor Owners Insurance Co. Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nJadavji Keshavji Modi & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 84,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\u00ad1\u00ad\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Daya Prakash: Presiding Officer Labour\n Court No. Xvi: Karkardooma Courts : Delhi\n\n\nLca No. 69/10\n\n\nSh. Rajan\nS/o Sh. Mool Chand\nC/o Room No. 95, Barracks No. 1/10\nJam Nagar House\nShahjahan Road\nNew Delhi.\nR/o House No.17/37, Kalyanpuri main Road,\nDelhi\nGokulpuri, Delhi\u00ad95. ...... Workman\n\n\n\nVersus\n\n\n\nHardayal Municipal Public Library\nThrough its Hony Secretary\nGandhi Ground, \nChandni Chowk\nDelhi\u00ad110006. ...... Management\n\n\n\n Date of Institution : 05.03.10\n Judgment reserved : 01.09.10\n Date of decision : 07.10.10\n\n\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 39,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 117,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 147,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 372,
"end": 405,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n% Judgment delivered on: 09.01.2015\n+ W.P.(C) 4330/2012\nMaharashtra Hybrid Seed Co. ..... Petitioner\n versus\nUnion Of India And Anr ..... Respondents\n\n+ W.P.(C) 4365/2012\nSungro Seeds Ltd ..... Petitioner\n versus\nUnion Of India And Anr ..... Respondents\n\n+ W.P.(C) 4366/2012\nDcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd. ..... Petitioner\n versus\nUnion Of India And Anr ..... Respondent\n\n+ W.P.(C) 6199/2012\nM/S Bayer Bioscience Pvt Ltd ..... Petitioner\n versus\nUnion Of India And Anr ..... Respondents\n\n+ W.P.(C) 7853/2012\nMonsanto Holdings Pvt Ltd And Anr ..... Petitioner\n versus\nUnion Of India And Anr ..... Respondents\n\nAdvocates who appeared in this case:\nFor the Petitioners :Mr R. Parthasarthy and Mr Anil Dutt and\n Mr Sudarshan S. Shekhawat for petitioner\n in all matters.\nFor the Respondents :Mr Saqib for R-1/Uoi in W.P.(C) 4330/2012.\n Mr Anil Soni, Cgsc with Ms Saakshi\n\n\n\nW.P.(C) 4330, 4365, 4366, 6199 & 7853 of 2012 Page 1 of 20\n Agarwal for R-1/Uoi in W.P.(C) 4365/2012\n & W.P.(C) 4366/2012.\n Mr Amit Mahajan Cgsc with Mr Nitya Sharma\n for R-1/Uoi in W.P.(C) 6199/2012.\n Mr Vivek Goyal, Cgsc for R-1/Uoi in\n W.P.(C) 7853/2012.\n Mr Ram Niwas Buri for R-2 in all matters.\n Mr Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr\n Abhishek Saket, Mr Amarjeet Kumar and\n Mr Manish Madhukar.\n\nCoram:-\nHon'Ble Mr Justice Vibhu Bakhru\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 36,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 168,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 265,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 358,
"end": 374,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 468,
"end": 482,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 575,
"end": 604,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 685,
"end": 699,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 796,
"end": 820,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 903,
"end": 917,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1010,
"end": 1035,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1120,
"end": 1134,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1267,
"end": 1282,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1290,
"end": 1299,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1329,
"end": 1351,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1430,
"end": 1435,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1495,
"end": 1504,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1519,
"end": 1526,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1793,
"end": 1805,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1819,
"end": 1831,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1943,
"end": 1954,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2072,
"end": 2086,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2151,
"end": 2165,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2225,
"end": 2239,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2244,
"end": 2258,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2303,
"end": 2318,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2348,
"end": 2360,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nMACA.No. 1242 of 2008()\n\n\n1. Mathew S/O. Devassia,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Shaji Mathew, W/O. Mathew,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Branch Manager,\n\n For Petitioner :Smt.P.P.Stella\n\n For Respondent :Smt.P.A.Reziya\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M.Joseph\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.L.Joseph Francis\n\n Dated :14/07/2009\n\n O R D E R\n K.M.Joseph & M.L.Joseph Francis, Jj.\n ------------------------------------------------------\n M.A.C.A.No.1242 of 2008-D &\n M.A.C.A.No.1905 of 2008-D\n ----------------------------------------------\n Dated, this the 14th day of July, 2009\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 77,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 177,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 258,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 308,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 357,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 383,
"end": 393,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 436,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 479,
"end": 489,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 490,
"end": 510,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nNorthern India Caterers Private Ltd., & Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Punjab And Another\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 48,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 91,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.MC.No. 935 of 2010()\n\n\n1. Ismayil.V, S/O.Muhammed Haji Valapra,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Sunny Mathew\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M.Joseph\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.L.Joseph Francis\n\n Dated :05/08/2010\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 81,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 197,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 293,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 381,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 424,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Reetesh Singh\n Additional District Judge-01 (North-East)\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n Rca No. 137/2012\n\n Date of Institution of Appeal : 15.12.2012\n Date on which Reserved for Judgment : 28.03.2014\n Date of Judgment : 28.03.2014\n Case I.D. Number : 02402C0355772012\nIn The Matter Of :-\n1. Gaon Sabha Village Mandoli\n Through B.D.O. North-East,\n Govt. Of Nct Delhi\n Room No. 12, C-Block,\n D.C. Office Complex,\n Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.\n\n2. Union Of India,\n Through Secretary (Revenue)\n 5, Sham Nath Marg,\n Delhi-110054.\n .....Appellants\n\n Versus\n\n1. Shri Sukant\n S/O Shri Subodh Kamilia\n Tea Shop, Khasra No. 533\n Fanney Khan Mor, Village Mandoli,\n Delhi-110093.\n\n2. Shri Samaydin\n S/O Shri Saeeduddin\n R/O Village Mandoli,\n Near Badi Maszid,\n Delhi-110093.\n\n\n\n\nRegular Civil Appeal No. 137/2012 Page No. 1/30\n 3. Gurbax Singh (Deceased)\n\n Through LRs\n (I) Smt. Dalbir Kaur\n W/O Late Gurbax Singh\n (Ii) Sh. Ravinder Singh Ahuja\n S/O Late Gurbax Singh\n Both R/O 2, Raj Block, Naveen Shahdara,\n Delhi-110032.\n ....Respondents\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 136,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 506,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 665,
"end": 679,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 887,
"end": 893,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1032,
"end": 1040,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1221,
"end": 1233,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAddagada Raghavamma And Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nAddagada Chenchamma And Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 79,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nNational Buildings Construction Corporation\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nS. Raghunathan & Ors., S. P. Singh & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 55,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 89,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 109,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honourable Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao \nC.M.A.No.1309 Of 2004 \n\ndated:06-06-2013 \n\nGadagottu Pandurangarao Thirupathaiah ....Appellant\n\n\nP.Bal Reddy and another .... Respondents \n\nCounsel for the Appellant :Sri K M Mahender Reddy \n\nCounsel for the respondent No.1 : --\n\nCounsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri E. Venugopal Reddy \n\nHead Note: \n\n?Cases referred:\n\n1. Air 1976 Sc 222 \n2. 1999 (6) Alt 6 (Sc)\n3. Ii (2012) Acc 693\n4. 2012 (7) Scale 86 \n5. (1997) 8 Scc 1\n6. (2010) 10 Scc 347 \n7. (2007) 2 Scc 349 \n8. (2009) 6 Scc 280 \n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 135,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 163,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 244,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 343,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 30.04.2008\n\nC O R A M\n\nThe Honourable Mr.JUSTICE P.Jyothimani\nW.P.No.10726 of 1999\n\nTmt.Rohini Lingam\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner \n-Vs-\n\n1. State represented by the\n Secretary to Government, (Dept. of Prisons),\n Fort St. George, Chennai \u0016 600 009.\n\n2. The Inspector General of Prisons,\n Chennai.\n\n3. The Superintendent, Sub Jail,\n Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.\t\t\t.. Respondents \n\n\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner, towards compensation for the prematured death of petitioner\u0012s husband Lingam @ Muthulingam on 09.04.1996 inside the Sub Jail Nagercoil.\n\n\t\tFor Petitioner \t : Mr.P.Vijendran\n\n\t\tFor Respondents : Mr.N.Senthil Kumar\n\t\t\t\t\t\t Government Advocate\t\n- - - - \n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 111,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 151,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 294,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 345,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 415,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 797,
"end": 808,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 841,
"end": 856,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax,Bombay And Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMahindra And Mahindra Limited & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 45,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 105,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nKamala Mills Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Bombay\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 64,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 641 of 2006()\n\n\n1. Subhash, S/O. Viswamithran,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.B.Raman Pillai\n\n For Respondent : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :19/02/2010\n\n O R D E R\n R.Basant & M.C.Hari Rani, Jj.\n ***********************\n Crl.Appeal No.641 of 2006\n *****************************\n Dated this the 19th day of February, 2010\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 78,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 186,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 284,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 367,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 406,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 463,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 464,
"end": 479,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rca No.126/2014: \"Smt.Rameshwari V/s Shri Balram\" & Dod: 07.11.2014\nRca No.127/2014: \"Shri Gopi Ram V/s Shri Balram\"\n\n\n In The Court Of Vinod Yadav: Addl. District Judge\u00adI:\n South\u00adWest District: Dwarka Courts: New Delhi\n\n\n Regular Civil Appeal No.126/2014\n\nIn the matter of:\n\nSmt.Rameshwari,\nW/o Shri Gopi Ram,\nR/o Rz\u00ad93\u00adG, Gali No.3,\nVijay Enclave, Palam Road,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110 077.\n .....Appellant\n (Through Shri R.S Godara, Advocate)\n\n\n\n Versus\n\nShri Balram,\nS/o Shri Jai Lal,\nR/o 318, Village Munirka,\nNew Delhi.\n .....Respondent\n (Through Ms.K. Kiran, Advocate)\n\nDate of Institution of Appeal : 27.05.2014\nDate of reserving judgment : 05.11.2014\nDate of pronouncement : 07.11.2014\n\n First Appeal U/s 96 Cpc Against The Impugned Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 48,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 145,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 161,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 208,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 296,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 403,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 688,
"end": 698,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 786,
"end": 792,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1050,
"end": 1058,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Vbc 1/41 wp313.10\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Appellate Side\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No.313 Of 2010\n With\n\n\n\n\n \n Civil Application No.2227 Of 2012\n With\n Writ Petition Nos.7925/12, 8431/09, 10637/09 With C.A.2472/10,\n W.P.Nos.3909/10, 5821/10, 2889/11 And 2890 of 2011\n With\n\n\n\n\n \n Original Side Writ Petition Nos.1618/11 & 1445 Of 2010\n\n W.P.313/2010 :\n\n M/s.Jindal Poly Films Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners.\n\n\n\n\n \n Vs.\n The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.\n\n W.P.7925/2012 :\n .... \n M/s.Schreiber Dynamix Dairies Ltd. & Ors. ...Petitioners.\n \n Vs.\n The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.\n ....\n W.P.8431/2009 :\n \n\n Eurotex Industries and Exports Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners.\n Vs.\n \n\n\n\n The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.\n ....\n W.P.10637/2009 :\n\n M/s.Pee Vee Textiles Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners.\n\n\n\n\n\n Vs.\n The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.\n ....\n W.P.3909/2010 :\n\n M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners.\n\n\n\n\n\n Vs.\n The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.\n ....\n W.P.5821/2010 :\n\n Sunflag Iron & Steel Co.Ltd. & Anr.\n ...Petitioners.\n Vs.\n The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.\n ....\n\n\n\n\n \n Vbc 2/41 wp313.10\n\n\n W.P.2889/2011 :\n\n\n\n\n \n M/s.Vamsi Labs Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners.\n Vs.\n The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n ....\n W.P.2890/2011 :\n\n Smruthi Organics Ltd. & Ors. ...Petitioners.\n Vs.\n\n\n\n\n \n The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.\n ....\n O.S. W.P.1618/2011 :\n\n Mirc Electronics Limited & Anr. ...Petitioners.\n\n\n\n\n \n Vs.\n The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.\n\n O.S. W.P.1445/2010 :\n .... \n Nrb Bearing Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners.\n \n Vs.\n The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.\n ....\n Mr.V.Sridharan, Senior Advocate with Mr.C.B.Thakkar, Mr.M.M.Vaidya for\n the Petitioners in W.Ps. 7925/12, 313/10. 3909/10, 2889/11 and 2990/11 and\n \n\n for the Applicants in Caw No. 2227/12.\n \n\n\n\n Mr.Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Advocate with Mr.Anil D'Souza, Mr.Suprash Jain,\n Ms.Meenu Daryanani i/b. Haresh Jagtiani & Associates for the Petitioners in\n W.P. 8431/09.\n\n Mr.M.S.Bhandari i/b Smt. Pranjali Bhandari for the Petitioners in\n\n\n\n\n\n W.P.10637/09 and for the Applicants in Caw 2472/10.\n\n Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Ms. Chandana Salgaonkar, Ms. Aarti\n Sathe and Mr. Kalpesh Turalkar for the Petitioners in W.P. 5821/10.\n\n Mr.D.J.Khambata, Advocate General with Mr.V.A.Sonpal and Mr.B.B.Sharma,\n\n\n\n\n\n Agp for the State.\n .....\n Coram : Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud And\n A.A.Sayed, Jj.\n\n June 10, 2013.\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 135,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 860,
"end": 877,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1012,
"end": 1032,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1141,
"end": 1171,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1270,
"end": 1290,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1405,
"end": 1440,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1522,
"end": 1542,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1648,
"end": 1669,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1750,
"end": 1770,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1874,
"end": 1889,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1977,
"end": 1997,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2098,
"end": 2122,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2198,
"end": 2218,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2558,
"end": 2573,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2657,
"end": 2677,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2842,
"end": 2863,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3007,
"end": 3027,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3134,
"end": 3158,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3290,
"end": 3310,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3421,
"end": 3437,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3557,
"end": 3577,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3664,
"end": 3675,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3701,
"end": 3712,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3717,
"end": 3727,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3888,
"end": 3903,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3929,
"end": 3941,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3946,
"end": 3958,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3967,
"end": 3982,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4066,
"end": 4078,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4216,
"end": 4227,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4254,
"end": 4273,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4279,
"end": 4294,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4303,
"end": 4319,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4365,
"end": 4377,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4404,
"end": 4414,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4422,
"end": 4432,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4525,
"end": 4540,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 4576,
"end": 4585,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nGarikapatti Veeraya\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nN. Subbiah Choudhury\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 73,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nA.K. Roy & Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Punjab & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 20,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 62,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n+ Fao(Os)356/2008 & Cm No.11752/2008\n# Pfizer Enterprises Sarl ....Appellant through\n! Mr. Saikrishan Rajgopal with\n Mr. Sidharth Chopra and\n Mr. Saurabh Srivastava,\n Advs.\n -versus-\n$ Cipla Ltd. ...Respondent through\n^ Mr. Ajay Sahni with\n Ms. Vrinda Bajaj, Advs.\n\n With\n\n Fao(Os)428/2008 & Cm No.14785/2008\n\n P.M. Diesels Ltd. ....Appellant through\n Mr. Valmiki Mehta, Sr. Adv.\n with Mr. R.K. Aggarwal,\n Mr. Natwar Rai & Mr. Amit\n Gaurav Singh, Advs.\n -versus-\n Patel Field Marshal INDUSTRIES...Respondent\n through\n Mr. Shailen Bhatia with\n Ms. Ekta Nayal Saini, Advs.\n\n% Date of Decision : October 24, 2008\n\n Coram:\n* Hon\u201fBle Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen\n Hon\u201fBle Mr. Justice S.L. Bhayana\n\n 1. Whether reporters of local papers may\n be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes\n 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n 3. Whether the Judgment should be\n reported in the Digest? Yes\n\n\n\n\nFao(Os)356/2008 Page 1 of 20\n Vikramajit Sen, J.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 117,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 192,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 246,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 308,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 385,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 469,
"end": 479,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 526,
"end": 538,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 631,
"end": 648,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 725,
"end": 738,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 795,
"end": 808,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 851,
"end": 861,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 868,
"end": 922,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 964,
"end": 994,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1089,
"end": 1103,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1142,
"end": 1158,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1266,
"end": 1280,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1306,
"end": 1318,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1654,
"end": 1668,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRaghunath Laxman Wani And Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Maharashtra And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 83,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated:- 10.07.2012\n\nCoram:-\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.Raja\n\nSecond Appeal No.279 of 2006\n\n\n\n\n\nT.Subramani\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\n\tvs.\n\n1.State of Tamil Nadu,\n Rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government,\n Fort St. George,\n Chennai \u0016 9.\n\n2.Daniel Gunanidhi I.A.S.,\n Deputy Secretary to Government,\n Public Works Department,\n Fort St. George,\n Chennai \u0016 600 009.\n\n3.M.Jayaraman,\n Inspector of Police,\n Katpadi,\n North Arcot District.\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\tSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 Cpc. as against the judgment and decree, dated 01.03.2005, passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai, in A.S.No.158 of 2003, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 11.10.2002, passed in O.S.No.7303 of 1996, by the Ii Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai.\n\n\n\n\n\t\tFor Appellant\t: Mr.V.Selvaraj\n\n\t\tFor Respondents\t: Mr.S.Pattabiraman, Ga (Cs) for R1 & R2\n\t\t\t\t No Appearance for R3\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 152,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 202,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 305,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 433,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 872,
"end": 882,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 908,
"end": 922,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 4492 of 1998\n\nPetitioner:\nMcdermott International Inc.\n\nRespondent:\nBurn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 80,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 116,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBega Begum And Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nAbdul Ahad Khan And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 66,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520\n\nPgk\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Application No.4376 of 2009\n\n\nMr.Vinoskumar Ramachandran Valluvar .. .. Applicant\n\n\n\n\n \n V/s.\nThe State of Maharashtra\n(Through Sr.P.I. Tardeo Police Station,\nMumbai vide C.R. No.7/08) .. .. Respondent\n\n\n\n\n \n ig With\n\n Criminal Writ Petition No.1520 of 2009\n \nEssar Logistics Ltd. .. .. .. Petitioner\n v/s.\n \n\n 1.Vinoshkumar Ramchandran Valluvar\n \n\n\n\n 2.State of Maharashtra .. .. Respondents\n\n\nMr.Pavan S. Patil with Mr.Vishwajeet Mohite and Mr.Sandip\n\n\n\n\n\nBabar i/by Mr.Abhay Ostwal for Applicant in Criminal\nApplication No.4376/2009 and for Respondent No.2 in Writ\nPetition No.1520/2009.\n\nMr.P.A. Pol, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.\n\n\n\n\n\nMr.Mahesh Jethmalani with Mr.Pranav Badheka and Mr.Prashant\nPawar i/by Mr.Rishi Bhuta and Mr.Manoj Khatri for\nPetitioner in Writ Petition No.1520/2009 and Respondent No.\n2 in Criminal Application No.4376/2009.\n\n\n\n\n \n 2 Cri-Appln-4376-with-Cri-WP-1520\n\n\n Coram : B.H. Marlapalle,\n R.C. Chavan &\n\n\n\n\n \n Smt.Roshan Dalvi, Jj.\nDate of reserving the judgment : 18th February 2011 Date of pronouncing the judgment : 18th March 2011 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 99,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 356,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 458,
"end": 478,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 752,
"end": 772,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 853,
"end": 887,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 904,
"end": 926,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 975,
"end": 989,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 998,
"end": 1015,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1023,
"end": 1040,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1049,
"end": 1061,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1172,
"end": 1180,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1230,
"end": 1247,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1256,
"end": 1270,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1278,
"end": 1292,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1301,
"end": 1312,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1320,
"end": 1332,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1608,
"end": 1623,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1801,
"end": 1813,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate\u00ad01 \n (Traffic), South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.\n\nIn the matter of :\nVehicle No. : Dl\u00ad1Pc\u00ad4452\nChallan No. : 755768\nCircle : Hkc\nU/S. : 66/192A & Dmvr 6/177 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 \n\nState\n\nVersus\n\nPradeep Kumar\nS/o Sh. Radhey Shyam\nR/o Shop No.105, Ring Road Market, \nSarojini Nagar, Near Petrol Pump,\nNew Delhi\n\nDate of Filing the Challan :03.01.2013\nArguments Heard on :06.12.2013\nDate of Judgment :13.01.2014\nPlea of the accused :Not Guilty \nFinal Order :Acquitted for offence U/s 66/192A and \n Convicted for offence under Dmvr \n 6/177 of M.V. Act.\n\nPresent: Ld. App for the State\n Accused in person alongwith Ld. Counsel Sh. V.K. Pandey. \n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 292,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 315,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 987,
"end": 998,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n Apeal Nos.991/11, 992/11\n 331/11 & 854/11\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No.991 Of 2011\n With\n Criminal Appeal No.992 Of 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. Balasaheb Rangnath Khade ... Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n \n V/s\n \n The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents.\n\n ----\n \n Mr. R.V. Bansode for the appellant.\n\n Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P. & F.R. Shaikh, App for the State.\n \n\n\n Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Counsel appointed as amicus\n curiae.\n \n\n\n\n Mr. Sanjog Parab, advocate appointed as amicus curiae.\n ----\n\n\n\n\n\n With\n Criminal Appeal No.331 Of 2011\n\n Nilesh Nana Harkulkar .... Appellant\n\n\n\n\n\n V/s\n\n Appaswamy Sabarimuutu\n Harijan & Ors .... Respondents.\n\n ----\n Mr. A.P. Mundargi, Senior Counsel i/b Ms. Swapna Kode for\n the appellant.\n\n\n\n\n \n 2\n Apeal Nos.991/11, 992/11\n 331/11 & 854/11\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P. & F.R. Shaikh, App for the State.\n\n Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Counsel appointed as amicus\n\n\n\n\n \n curiae.\n\n Mr. Sanjog Parab, advocate appointed as amicus curiae.\n ----\n\n\n\n\n \n With\n Criminal Appeal No.854 Of 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n Manohar Jaya Shetty ig .... Appellant.\n\n v/s\n \n State of Maharashtra\n (Through Mra Marg Police Station)\n and Anr. ..... Respondents.\n ----\n \n\n\n Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Counsel i/b Ms. Racheeta Dhuru for\n the appellant.\n \n\n\n\n Mr. S.V. Marwadi with Ms Sunita Sharma Tiwari & Vinay Kutti\n for respondent No.2.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. P.A. Pol, P.P. & F.R. Shaikh, App for the State.\n\n Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Counsel appointed as amicus\n curiae.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. Sanjog Parab, advocate appointed as amicus curiae.\n ---\n\n Coram: V. M. Kanade &\n A.M. Thipsay, Jj.\n Date : 21st September, 2011 Apeal Nos.991/11, 992/11 331/11 & 854/11 Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 224,
"end": 258,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 556,
"end": 580,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 701,
"end": 721,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 799,
"end": 811,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 840,
"end": 848,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 850,
"end": 868,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 907,
"end": 920,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 985,
"end": 997,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1144,
"end": 1165,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1229,
"end": 1262,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1333,
"end": 1346,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1371,
"end": 1382,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1711,
"end": 1719,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1721,
"end": 1739,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1769,
"end": 1782,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1890,
"end": 1902,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2126,
"end": 2145,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2225,
"end": 2245,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2374,
"end": 2387,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2412,
"end": 2426,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2466,
"end": 2478,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2487,
"end": 2507,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2510,
"end": 2521,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2560,
"end": 2568,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2570,
"end": 2588,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2618,
"end": 2631,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2693,
"end": 2705,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2780,
"end": 2792,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2822,
"end": 2834,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Kerala\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nK.T. Shaduli Yusuff Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 66,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Original Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n I.A. Nos. 1868, 2091, 2225-2227, 2380, 2568 and 2937\n\n\n\n In\n\n\n\n Writ Petition (C) No. 202 Of 1995\n\n\n\n\nLafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. ... Applicant\n\n\nT.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad ... Petitioner(s)\n\n\n\n versus\n\n\n\nUnion of India & Ors. ... Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 303,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 366,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 428,
"end": 442,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Smt. Rajni Masand vs. Smt. Maya Devi\nRca/19/06/2000 (1)\n\n\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Inder Jeet Singh,\n Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi\n\n\n Smt. Rajni Masand\n W/o Late Sh. Rochal Dass,\n R/o Ja 1B, Lig Flats,\n Hari Nagar, New Delhi.\n ....Appellant.\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n\n1. Smt. Maya Devi,\n W/o Sh. S.K. Gupta\n\n2. Sh. S.K. Gupta,\n S/o Sh. Kalu Ram,\n\n Both residents of\n C-603, New Friends Colony,\n New Delhi.\n\n3. M/s. Vishal Electricals,\n (Through its Sole Proprietor Sunil Kumar)\n\n4. Sh. C.D. Malhotra,\n S/o Sh. H.C. Malhotra,\n Shop No.- 2.\n\n5. Sh. Sanjay Gupta,\n S/o Sh. S.K. Gupta,\n Shop No.- 3.\n\n\n\n\n Contd....\n Smt. Rajni Masand vs. Smt. Maya Devi\nRca/19/06/2000 (2)\n\n\n\n6. Sh. Amit Kumar,\n S/o Not known,\n\n All R/o A-19, Acharya Niketan,\n Mayur Vihar Chowk,\n New Delhi- 92. ....Respondents.\n\n\n\n\nAppeal No. : Rca/19/06/00\nDate of Institution : 21.03.2000\nDate of Decision : 05.05.2007\n\n\n\n \t \n \r \n \nFor the Appellant :Shri O.P. Khadaria, Advocate\n\nFor the Respondents :Shri Bhagwat Pd. Gupta and Shri\n Rajesh Gupta, Advocates for\n respondent no. 1.\n\n Shri G.D. Chopra, Advocate for\n respondent no. 2 and 3.\n\n Shri Sanjeev Kumar Gupta,\n Advocate for respondent no. 5.\n\n (Respondents no. 4 and 6 are ex-\n parte).\n\n\n\n\n Contd....\n Smt. Rajni Masand vs. Smt. Maya Devi\nRca/19/06/2000 (3)\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 5,
"end": 17,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 36,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 112,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 151,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 173,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 350,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 382,
"end": 392,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 482,
"end": 505,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 560,
"end": 573,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 625,
"end": 637,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 746,
"end": 758,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 768,
"end": 777,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 818,
"end": 828,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1196,
"end": 1209,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1247,
"end": 1264,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1294,
"end": 1306,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1396,
"end": 1407,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1512,
"end": 1531,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1775,
"end": 1787,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1797,
"end": 1806,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Sanjay Sharma : Special Judge (Ndps) /\n Addl. Sessions Judge, (North-East): Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\nCriminal Appeal No. 11/14\nCase Id No. 02402R0171102014\n\nMs. Nishat Parveen\nW/o Sh. Abdul Mannan\nR/o. H. No. S-1A, 3rd Floor,\nNafees Road, Jogabai Extn.,\nJamia Nagar, Okhla,\nNew Delhi-25 ................Appellant\n Versus\n\n(1) Abdul Mannan (Husband)\nS/o Sh. Tariq\nR/o. H. No. 566, Gali No. 25,\nJafrabad, Delhi-53\nAlso At:\nR/o. H. No. 795, Gali No. 26,\nJafrabad, Delhi-53\n(2) Tariq (Father-in-law)\n(3) Ms. Nazma Begum (Mother-in-law)\n(4) Furkan (Brother-in-law/Jeth)\n(5) Lukman (Brother-in-law/Jeth)\n(6) Faizan @ Fau (Brother-in-law/Devar)\nAll 2 to 6 Residing At:\nH. No. 566, Gali No. 25,\nJafrabad, Delhi-53 ................Respondents\n\nDate of institution : 05.06.2014\nDate of reserving order : 19.09.2014\nDate of order : 17.11.2014\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 197,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 420,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 568,
"end": 573,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 617,
"end": 628,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 658,
"end": 664,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 709,
"end": 715,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 760,
"end": 772,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate \n (Traffic), South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.\n\nIn the matter of :\nVehicle No. : Dl\u00ad1Re\u00ad5743\nChallan No. : 104314\nCircle : Mrc\nU/S. : Dmvr 11.8/177, 11.9/177 & 66/192A of Motor Vehicle Act, \n 1988. \nState\n\nVersus\n\nKallu\nS/o Sh. Sukhram\nR/o Rz\u00ad3184, Tugalkabad Extension, \nDelhi\n\nDate of Filing the Challan :01.07.2013\nArguments Heard on :28.02.2014\nDate of Judgment :31.05.2014\nPlea of the accused :Not Guilty \nFinal Order :Convicted\n\nPresent: Ld. App for the State\n Accused in person alongwith Ld. Counsel Sh. Vinod Dubey. \n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 124,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 322,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 337,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 790,
"end": 801,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 36 Of 2003\n\nKarnail Singh .... Appellant(s)\n\n Versus\n\nState of Haryana .... Respondent(s)\n\n With\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 606 Of 2004\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 209,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 305,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "cria160.12\n 1\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay \n\n Bench At Aurangabad\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No.160 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n Dnyaneshwar s/o Shivdas Lomte,\n Age-30 years, Occu:Agril.,\n R/o-Uswad, Tq-Mantha,\n\n\n\n\n \n Dist-Jalna,\n At present in Jail at Harsul,\n Aurangabad. \n ...Appellant \n\n Versus \n \n The State of Maharashtra, \n Through Police Station Officer,\n Police Station, Mantha,\n \n\n Tq-Mantha, Dist-Jalna. \n ...Respondents\n \n\n\n\n ...\n Shri.Mahesh P. Kale Advocate for Appellant.\n Shri,B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for Respondent-State. \n\n\n\n\n\n ... \n\n\n Coram: K.U.Chandiwal And\n A.I.S. Cheema, Jj.\n Date Of Reserving Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 176,
"end": 254,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 404,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 699,
"end": 719,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 931,
"end": 945,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 984,
"end": 993,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1096,
"end": 1109,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1141,
"end": 1154,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "$~\n* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Reserved on : 17th December, 2013\n% Date of Decision : 6th February, 2014\n\n+ W.P.(C) 7459/2013 & & Cm Appl. 15956/2013\n\n Manohar Lal Sharma ... Petitioner\n Through : Petitioner in person with Ms. Suman\n and Mr. Sadashir Gupta, Advocates.\n\n versus\n\n Union Of India ... Respondent\n Through : Mr. Rajeeve Mehra, Asg with\n Mr. Sachin Datta, Cgsc,\n Mr. Vineet Tayal and\n Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Advocates.\n\nCoram:\nHon'Ble The Chief Justice\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice Manmohan\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 297,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 396,
"end": 435,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 440,
"end": 454,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 521,
"end": 535,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 631,
"end": 644,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 699,
"end": 711,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 763,
"end": 775,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 824,
"end": 839,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 906,
"end": 914,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nH. N. Rishbud And Inder Singh\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of DELHI(And connected Appeals)\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 85,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nF. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nGeoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 95,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportabl\n\n E\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal NOs. Of 2010\n (Arising out of Slp (C) Nos.25043-25045 of 2008)\n\n\n\nKalabharati Advertising ...Appellant\n\n Versus\nHemant Vimalnath Narichania\nand Ors. ...Respondents\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 113,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 310,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 422,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Smt. Justice Anis \n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appal NOs. 970 Of 2004 and batch \n\n17-04-2014 \n\nNagula Tulasamma and another.Appellants \n\nGolangi Bhoopathi and two others. Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri A.Rama Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Sri V.Sambasiva Rao Head Note: \n? Cases referred:\n1. 2004(5) Ald 231 \n2. 2004(5) Ald 391 The Honble Smt. Justice Anis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal NOs.970 & 974 Of 2004 Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 28,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 128,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 178,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 251,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 304,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 411,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRameshwar\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Rajasthan.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 63,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan \n\nWrit Petition No.7276 Of 2014 \n\n02-06-2014 \n\nChalla Swaroopa .Petitioner \n\nThe District Collector (District Election Authority), Khammam Town and District\nand others..Respondents \n\nCounsel for the petitioner: Sri P. Veera Reddy, Learned Senior\n Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Karri Murali Krishna,\n Learned Counsel\n\nCounsel for respondents: Gp for Panchayat Raj & Rural\n Development\n Gp for General Administration\n Sri P. Raghavender Reddy,\n Learned Standing Counsel for Zpps/Mpps\n : Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy\n\nHead Note: \n\n?Citations:\n\n1) 2006 (5) Ald 12 \n2) 2011(3)Ald 509 \n3) (2010) 1 Scc 466 \n4) 2013(2) MadLJ 353: (2012) Law Suit (Madras) 1898 \n5) (2014) 2 Ald 692 \n6) 2005(3) Ald 102 (Sc) \n7) Air 1964 Sc 477 \n8) Air 1970 All. 1 (Fb)\n9) Air 1958 Mp 168 \n10) 2010 (3) Ctc 604 \n11) 2010 (1) Ctc 199 \n12) 2010 (3) Ctc 30 \n13) Air 1955 Sc 233 \n14) Air 1958 Sc 398 \n15) Air 1960 Sc 1168 \n16) Air 1982 Sc 983 \n17) Air 1997 P H 164 (Db) = (1997) 115 Plr 687 \n18) Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cwp No.13116 of \n2008 dated 12.09.2008\n19) 2004 (3) Ald 280 (Db) \n20) (1975) 77 Pun Lr 661 \n21) 1981 Pun Lj 202 \n22) 1994 Pun Lj 40 \n23) 1994 Air Scw 2801 \n24) (1989)1 Scc 101 \n25) (1996) 6 Scc 44 \n26) (2006) 1 Scc 275 \n27) (2005) 6 Scc 404 \n28) Air 1968 Sc 647 \n29) (1901) Ac 495 \n\n\n\nThe Hon'Ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan \nWrit Petition No.7276 Of 2014 \n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 120,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 214,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 288,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 361,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 593,
"end": 613,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 714,
"end": 735,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1703,
"end": 1721,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n R\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka,\n Gulbarga Bench\n\n Dated This The 17Th Day Of June, 2014\n\n Before\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice Anand Byrareddy\n\n Miscellaneous First Appeal No.30643/2008 (Mv)\n\nBetween:\n\nUnited India Insurance Company Ltd.,\nBijapur Division Office,\nRep. by its Divisional Manager,\nDr.B.S.Patil, Sangam Building,\nS.S.Front Road, Bijapur.\n ... Appellant\n(Sri. B.S.Soragaon, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Smt. Sharada\n W/o Rudrayya Hiremath,\n Aged about 44 years,\n Resident of Kerutagi village,\n Taluka: Sindagi, District: Bijapur.\n\n2. Sri. Shivarudrayya\n S/o Revanasiddayya Hiremath,\n Aged about 48 years,\n Occupation: Private photo studio,\n Resident of Basavana-Bagewadi\n District: Bijapur. ... Respondents\n 2\n\n\n\n\n(Sri Harshavardhan R. Malipatil, Advocate for C/R1)\n\n This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section\n173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgement and\nAward dated 26.09.2008 passed in Mvc No. 85/2006 on the\nfile of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and Member, Motor Accident\nClaims Tribunal No.VIII, Muddebihal, awarding a\ncompensation of Rs. 04,18,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from\nthe date of petition till payment.\n\n This appeal coming on for Final Hearing this day, the\nCourt delivered the following:\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 130,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 255,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 350,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 529,
"end": 541,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 568,
"end": 575,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 707,
"end": 720,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 947,
"end": 973,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Xi Addl.City Civil Judge,\n Bangalore City\n\n Dated this the 14th day of September 2015.\n\n Present: S.V.Kulkarni, B.Com., LLB(Spl)\n Xi Addl.City Civil Judge, B'lore city.\n\n O.S.No.2443/2000 c/w O.S.2354/2001\n\n C.C.H.8\n\nPlaintiff in C.Venkateshan,\nboth S/o C.Channappa Naidu,\nO.S.2443/00 & Aged about 49 years,\nO.S.2354/01: R/at No.10/3,\n New cross road,\n Chikkamavalli,\n Bangalore - 560 004.\n\n (By Sri.MN, Advocate)\n\n : Vs :\n\n\n Defendantin Krishna Murthy,\nboth S/o Venkatachalam,\nO.S.2443/00 & Aged about 45 years,\n: O.S.2354/01: R/at Old No.4,\n New No.89,\n New cross road,\n Chikkamavalli,\n Bangalore - 560 004.\n\n (Sri.VBS, Advocate)\n\n\n\n\nDate of the institution of suit in 04.04.2000\nO.S.No.2443/2000:\n 2 O.S No.2443/2000 c/w\n O.S.No. 2354/2001\n\n\nDate of the institution of suit in 02.04.2001\nO.S.No.2354/2001:\n\nNature of the suit in both Permanent injunction\nO.S.2443/2000 &\nO.S.2354/2001:\nDate of the commencement of 12.02.2011\nrecording of the evidence in\nO.S.No.2443/2000 :\n\nDate of the commencement of 26.07.2010\nrecording of the evidence in\nO.S.No.2354/2001 :\nDate on which the judgment 14.09.2015\nwas pronounced :\nTotal duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s\nIn O.S.No.2443/2000: 15 05 10\n\nIn O.S.No.2354/2001: 14 05 12\n\n\n Xi Addl.City Civil Judge,\n B'lore city.\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 78,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 162,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 344,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 584,
"end": 586,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 642,
"end": 656,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 918,
"end": 921,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nShah Bhojraj Kuverji Oil Mills And Ginning Factory\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSubbash Chandra Yograj Sinha\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 62,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 110,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nUnion Of India\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nHarnam Singh\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 58,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nP.Kasilingam & Ors\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nP.S.G. College Of Technology & Ors\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 78,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 1403 of 1986\n\nPetitioner:\nSecretary Irrigation Department Government Of Orissa Secretary & Ors.\n\nRespondent:\nG.C. Roy\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 120,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 143,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reported in 2009 (3) Mpht 204 : 2009 Cri. L. J. 3691\n \"Ganesh Singh v. State of M.P.\"\n\n\n Special Leave Petitions Preferred Against The Judgment And Registered As\nSlp(Cri.) NOs.2178/10 & 3540/10 Have Been Dismissed By The Apex Court On 08.07.2010.\n\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1448/1994\n\n Ganesh Singh, son of Kewalram Singh,\n aged about 20 years, Resident of\n Dhonga Colony, P.S. Kotwali Tikamgarh,\n Distt. Tikamgarh .......... Appellant\n vs.\n\n The State of Madhya Pradesh, through Sho\n Kotwali Tikamgarh Distt. Tikamgarh .......... Respondent\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri Surendra Singh, Sr. Counsel with Shri Manish Mishra, Adv.\n for the appellant.\n Smt. S. Paliwal, Govt. Adv. for the respondent-State.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n &\n Criminal Appeal No.1451/1994\n\n Sanjay Khare, son of late Sanat Kumar Khare\n aged about 20 years, Resident of\n Donga Colony, P.S. Tikamgarh\n Distt. Tikamgarh .......... Appellant\n vs.\n\n The State of Madhya Pradesh, through Sho\n Kotwali Tikamgarh Distt. Tikamgarh .......... Respondent\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant.\n Smt. S. Paliwal, Govt. Adv. for the respondent-State.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n &\n Criminal Appeal No.25/1996\n Harish Pastaur, son of Ramesh Kumar\n aged about 22 years, Resident of\n Nutan Bihar Colony, Tonga, P.S. Tikamgarh\n Distt. Tikamgarh .......... Appellant\n vs.\n\n The State of Madhya Pradesh, through Sho\n Kotwali Tikamgarh Distt. Tikamgarh .......... Respondent\n :: 2 ::\n\n Cri. Appeal Nos.1448/1994, 1451/1994 and 25/1996\n\n\n\n\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant.\n Smt. S. Paliwal, Govt. Adv. for the respondent-State.\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Date of Hearing : 13.03.2009\n Date of Judgment : 17.04.2009\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 80,
"end": 92,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 109,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 326,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 420,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 664,
"end": 687,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 883,
"end": 897,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 921,
"end": 934,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 979,
"end": 989,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1240,
"end": 1252,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1483,
"end": 1506,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1690,
"end": 1702,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1744,
"end": 1754,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2006,
"end": 2020,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2251,
"end": 2274,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2640,
"end": 2652,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2704,
"end": 2714,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Dinesh Kumar Sharma\n Special Judge (Pc Act), Cbi \u00ad 01, \n Saket Courts, New Delhi\n\n\nCc No.01/12\nUnique Case Id No.02403R0176472009 \n\nC.B.I. Vs. Rajender Kumar Gupta \n S/o. Sh. Rp Gupta \n R/o. 10/2, Jai Dev Park, \n East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi \n\n\n\nRc No. : Dai\u00ad2009\u00adA\u00ad005\nu/Ss : u/S.7 & u/S.13(2) r/w S.13(1)(d) of Pc, Act 1988 \n\n\n\n Date of Institution : 30.06.2009\n Received by transfer on : 06.03.2012\n Arguments Concluded on : 12.05.2014\n Date of Decision : 27.05.2014\n\nAppearances:\nSh. S. Krishna Kumar, Ld. Pp for Cbi.\nSh. Jugal Wadhwa, Ld. Counsel for the accused. \n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 131,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 189,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 241,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 872,
"end": 888,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 910,
"end": 922,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 6535 of 2004(C)\n\n\n1. S.K. Abdul Rasheed, Srambiyakkal House,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The State Of Kerala, Represented By\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Kerala State Industrial\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.K.Ramakumar (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Sri.M.Pathrose Matthai (Sr.)\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\n\n Dated :07/10/2008\n\n O R D E R\n C.R.\n K.Balakrishnan Nair, J.\n -------------------------\n W.P.(C.) No.6535 of 2004\n ---------------------------------\n Dated, this the 7th day of October, 2008\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 91,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 204,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 296,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 346,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 409,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 441,
"end": 460,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 596,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court Of The Ix Addl. Small Causes And Addl.\n Mact., Bangalore, (Scch-7)\n\n Dated this, the 4th day of July, 2015.\n\nPresent : Smt.Indira Mailswamy Chettiyar,\n B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),LL.M.,\n Ix Addl. Small Causes Judge & Xxxiv Acmm,\n Court of Small Causes,\n Member, Mact-7, Bangalore.\n\n M.V.C.No.6410/2013\n C/w. M.V.C.No.6411/2013\n\n\nSri. B. M. Shivakumar, ..... Petitioner In\nAged about 33 years, M.V.C.No.6410/2013\nS/o Manjunath,\nR/o Kamanakatte Circle,\nGuluru, Kasaba Hobli,\nTumkur Taluk and District.\n\n(By Sri. Harisha. S. K., Adv.,)\n\n V/s\n\n1.Ramachandra Swamy, ..... Respondents INMajor, M.V.C.No.6410/2013\nS/o Nataraj,\nNo.339, Bhel Mini Colony,\nPipeline, Mallasandra,\nBangalore - 560 057.\n\n(R.C. Owner of Mahindra Jeep/Car\nbearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998)\n\n2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,\nOpp: Rama Mandira,\nGeneral Kariyappa Road (Barline Road),\nK.R. Extension,\nTumkur - 572 102.\n\n(Insurer of Mahindra Jeep/Car bearing\nRegistration No.KA-04-N-3998)\n \n\n\n\n\n(PolicyNo.67230131130200002662\nValid from 04.06.2013 to 03.06.2014)\n\n(R-1 By Sri. Lingaraju, Adv.,)\n(R-2 By Sri. S.N.Ramaswamy, Adv.,)\n\nSri. Arun Kumar. S., Petitioner In\nAged about 21 years, M.V.C.No.6411/2013\nS/o Shashikumar,\nR/o Soolekerepalya,\nKasaba Hobli,\nTuruvekere Taluk,\nTumkur District.\n\n V/s\n\n1.Ramachandra Swamy, .....Respondents In\nMajor, M.V.C.No.6411/2013\nS/o Nataraj,\nNo.339, Bhel Mini Colony,\nPipeline, Mallasandra,\nBangalore - 560 057.\n\n(R.C. Owner of Mahindra Jeep/Car\nbearing Registration No.KA-04-N-3998)\n\n2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,\nOpp: Rama Mandira,\nGeneral Kariyappa Road (Barline Road),\nK.R. Extension,\nTumkur - 572 102.\n\n(Insurer of Mahindra Jeep/Car bearing\nRegistration No.KA-04-N-3998)\n\n(PolicyNo.67230131130200002662\nValid from 04.06.2013 to 03.06.2014)\n\n(R-1 By Sri. Lingaraju, Adv.,)\n(R-2 By Sri. S. N. Ramaswamy, Adv.,)\n \n\n\n\n Common Judgment\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 188,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 492,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 690,
"end": 704,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 753,
"end": 772,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1037,
"end": 1065,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1316,
"end": 1325,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1347,
"end": 1360,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1375,
"end": 1385,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1611,
"end": 1630,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1895,
"end": 1923,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2169,
"end": 2178,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2200,
"end": 2215,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Ix Addl. Small Causes And\n Addl. Mact., Bangalore, (Scch-7)\n\n Dated this, the 10th day of June, 2015.\n\nPresent : Smt.Indira Mailswamy Chettiyar,\n B.Com., Ll.B. (Spl.), L.L.M.,\n Ix Addl. Small Causes Judge & Xxxiv Acmm,\n Court of Small Causes,\n Member, Mact-7, Bangalore.\n\n M.V.C.No.4366/2013\n\n1. Premavathi, ..... Petitioners\nW/o Late S. Ramesh,\nAged about 23 years.\n\n2. Minor Child (Male),\nAged about 6 months Baby,\nS/o Late S. Ramesh.\n\nRepresented by natural guardian of the\n1st Petitioner.\n\n3. Shankar,\nS/o Nallappa,\nAged about 59 years.\n\n4. Sarojamma,\nW/o Shankar,\nAged about 49 years.\n\nAll are residing at\nNo.1/2, Avenue Road,\nBalepet,\nBangalore - 02.\n\nPetitioner No.1 present address:\n\n3-3, Chekunatham,\nKuppam (Mandal),\nChittoor.\n\n(By Smt. Shobha H.M., Adv.,)\n M.V.C.No.4366/2013\n 2 (Scch-7)\n\n\n V/s\n\n1. The Tata Aig General Insurance\nCo. Ltd., ....Respondents\n2nd Floor, Jp and Devi Jambukeswar\nArade, No.69, Millers Road,\nBangalore-560 052.\n\n(Policy No.015214083100\nValid from 12.10.2012 to 11.10.2013)\n\n2. Venkatesh.C.,\nS/o Chandramohan.C.,\nNo.9, 3rd Floor, 4th Cross,\nS.R. Nagar, Bangalore-560 027.\n\n(Owner of the Motor Cycle bearing\nRegistration No.KA-02-HT-818)\n\n(R-1 - By Sri. K.Prakash, Adv.,)\n(R-2 - Exparte)\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 87,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 180,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 416,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 507,
"end": 518,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 633,
"end": 640,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 681,
"end": 690,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 883,
"end": 894,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1065,
"end": 1100,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1299,
"end": 1311,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1474,
"end": 1483,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Crl.M.C. 1859/2008\n\n Rajeev Preenja ..... Petitioner\n Through Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n Sarika & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through Mr. Manish Kapur, Advocate\n for R-1 & 2.\n Mr. Sanjay Lao, App for State.\n\n and\n Crl.M.C. 3089/2008 & Crl M A 11390/2008 (stay)\n\n Rajeev Preenja ..... Petitioner\n Through Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n Sarika & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through Mr. Manish Kapur, Advocate\n for R-1 & 2.\n Mr. Sanjay Lao, App for State.\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar\n\n 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n allowed to see the judgment? Yes\n 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n 3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes\n in Digest?\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 114,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 233,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 289,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 420,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 528,
"end": 538,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 660,
"end": 674,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 782,
"end": 793,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 843,
"end": 849,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 964,
"end": 976,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1084,
"end": 1094,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1153,
"end": 1166,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "cria383.11\n 1\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n Bench At Aurangabad\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No.383 Of 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n Gagandeep Singh s/o Lakhbindar Singh Randhwa,\n Age-21 years, Occu: Pvt. Service,\n R/o-Deelipsingh Colony, Vazirabad,\n Nanded, Tq. & Dist-Nanded.\n\n\n\n\n \n ...Appellant\n Versus \n 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through\n Bhagya Nagar Police Station, Nanded,\n \n 2) Purbhaji Narsingrao Kelkar,\n Age-65 years,\n \n\n 3) Saw. Shantabai Purbhaji Kelkar,\n Age-60 years,\n \n\n\n\n 4) Milind Purbhaji Kelkar,\n Age-30 years,\n\n All R/o-Labour Colony, Nanded,\n\n\n\n\n\n At present Badlapur, Mumbai,\n\n 5) Jayshri Purbhaji Kelkar,\n Age-40 years,\n R/o-Dhanegaon, Dist-Nanded,\n\n\n\n\n\n 6) Sunita Purbhaji Kelkar,\n Age-38 years,\n R/o-Mantri Nagar, Nanded.\n\n 7) Anita Purbhaji Kelkar,\n Age-35 years,\n\n\n\n\n \n cria383.11\n 2\n\n\n\n\n \n 8) Kalpana Purbhaji Kelkar,\n Age-32 years,\n\n\n\n\n \n 9) Vidya Purbhaji Kelkar,\n Age-28 yeras,\n\n All R/o- Labour Colony, Nanded.\n\n\n\n\n \n ...Respondents\n\n ...\n Shri. S.C. Bhosale Advocate h/f. Shri. H.S. Bedi\n Advocate for Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n \n Shri. K.G. Patil, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 and\n Respondent Nos. 2 to 9 ( L.Rs. of deceased Vivekanand\n \n Kelkar - through A.P.P. Shri. K.G. Patil.\n ...\n \n Coram: K.U.Chandiwal And\n A.I.S. Cheema, Jj.\n Date Of Reserving Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 228,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 406,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 691,
"end": 711,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 797,
"end": 823,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 868,
"end": 893,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 932,
"end": 954,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1063,
"end": 1086,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1159,
"end": 1181,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1248,
"end": 1269,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1560,
"end": 1583,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1670,
"end": 1691,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1926,
"end": 1938,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1959,
"end": 1968,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2064,
"end": 2074,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2330,
"end": 2343,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2373,
"end": 2386,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors.Etc\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMcdowell & Co.And Ors.Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe Chairman, Railway Board & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMrs. Chandrima Das & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 39,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 85,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 26.08.2009\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice K.Venkataraman\n\nW.P.No.30199 of 2008\nand M.P.No.1 of 2008\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n1.Mrs.Jayalakshmi\n2.M.Palanivel\n3.S.A.Ramar\n4.G.Mythili\n5.Manoharan\n6.Jayaraman\n7.Vairajothi\n8.K.Saroja\t\t\t\t\t\t\t ... Petitioners \n\nVs. \n\n1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,\n represented by its Secretary\n to Industries Department,\n Secretariat, Chennai-9.\n\n2.The District Collector,\n Cuddalore District,\n Cuddalore.\n\n3.The Neyveli Lignite Corporation,\n represented by Chairman,\n Neyveli.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents \n\n\t\tWrit Petition has been filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation as contemplated under the Provisions of Tamilnadu Acquisition of Land for Industrial purpose Act, 1997 to the lands comprised in Survey No.350 in Kammapuram Village, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District to the petitioners.\n\n\t\tFor Petitioners \t : Mr.K.Sakthivel\n\n\t\tFor Respondents : Mrs.D.Geetha, Agp,\n\t\t\t\t\t\tfor R.1 and R.2 \n\t\t\t\t\t Mr.N.A.K.Sharma, for R.3\n\n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 111,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 181,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 195,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 207,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 219,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 231,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 243,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 256,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 267,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 332,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 484,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 493,
"end": 520,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1006,
"end": 1017,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1046,
"end": 1054,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1096,
"end": 1108,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay City Ii\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nShri Sitaldas Tirathdas\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 50,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 101,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1)\n First Appeal No.358/1995\n\n\n\n\n High Court Of M. P. Judicature At Jabalpur\n Single Bench :\n Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava\n First Appeal No.358 / 1995\n Appellants : 1. Smt. Dulari Bai (dead)\n 2. Rajesh S/o. Prem Narain\n Rabooda,\n 3. Sunil S/o. Prem Narain\n Rabooda,\n 4. Sanjay S/o. Prem Narain\n Rabooda,\n All residents of Kothi Bazar\n Hoshangabad Tehsil\n Hoshangabad, District\n Hoshangabad (M.P.)\n\n Vs.\n\n Respondents : 1. Rameshwar Dayal Shrivastava,\n S/o. Shri Shambhu Dayal R/o.\n Kothi Bazar, Hoshangabad\n District Hoshangabad (M.P.)\n 2. Smt. Sangeeta W/o. Arjun\n Singh Verma, C/o. Shri Hazari\n Singh, R/o. Bhairogarh, Dewas,\n District Dewas (M.P.)\n_________________________________________________________\n Shri Mrigendra Singh, Advocate and Shri Amit Khatri, Advocate for\n appellants.\n Shri Manikant Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1/plaintiff.\n Shri A.K. Choubey, Advocate for respondent no.2.\n_________________________________________________________\n (2)\n First Appeal No.358/1995\n\n\n\n\nDate of hearing : 14/02/2013\nDate of Judgment : /02/2013\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 94,
"end": 136,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 231,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 334,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 387,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 492,
"end": 497,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 602,
"end": 608,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 997,
"end": 1024,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1269,
"end": 1277,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1557,
"end": 1572,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1592,
"end": 1603,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1645,
"end": 1660,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1712,
"end": 1724,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The Court Of Shri M.K.Nagpal\n Asj/Special Judge-Ndps/South District\n Saket Court Complex, New Delhi\n\n\nState Versus Allauddin\n S/o Sh Abdul Hamid\n R/O Jhuggi Near Madeena Masjid\n Back of Dps, Nizamuddin\n Delhi\n\nSc No.34A/11\nFir No. 270/11\nU/S: 20 Ndps Act\nPS:Sun Light Colony\n\nDate of institution : 11.11.2011\nDate of reserving judgment : 26.07.2014\nDate of pronouncement : 26.07.2014\nDecision : Acquitted\nComputer Id : 02406R0287802011\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 54,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 159,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 167,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 208,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nHitendra Vishnu Thakur\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Maharashtra\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 34,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 74,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 1650 of 2004\n\nPetitioner:\nM/s S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd.\n\nRespondent:\nState of Bihar and Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 92,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 120,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nDirector Of Education (Secondary) & Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nPushpendra Kumar & Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 88,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Nagpur Bench\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No. 5377 Of 2004\n\n\n\n\n \n Ajaykumar Yadaorao Nikhar,\n aged about 38 years,\n\n\n\n\n \n occupation - Social Service,\n r/o Ram Mandir Ward,\n Bhandara, Tah. & Dist. Bhandara. ... Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n \n 1. State of Maharashtra,\n through its Secretary,\n Tribal Development Department,\n \n Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.\n\n 2. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate\n Scrutiny Committee, Adiwasi Vikas\n \n\n\n Bhawan, Giripeth, Nagpur.\n \n\n\n\n 3. The Collector, Bhandara.\n\n 4. Smt. Leena Kowe,\n\n\n\n\n\n aged about Adult, occupation -\n Not known, r/o Jai Gondwana \n Mahila Bahuuddeshiya Vikas\n Mandal, Baliramji Maikam's\n House, Baba Mastanshah Ward,\n\n\n\n\n\n Bhandara.\n\n 5. Smt. Anita Tekam,\n aged about - Adult, occupation -\n Not known, r/o Ward No. 4-A,\n Municipal Council, Bhandara.\n\n\n\n\n \n 2\n\n 6. Bharat Tulosiram Kumbhare,\n\n\n\n\n \n aged about 39 years, r/o\n Ram Mandir Ward, Bhandara,\n\n\n\n\n \n Taluka & District - Bhandara. ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n \n Shri S.R. Narnaware, Advocate for the petitioner.\n Shri D.M. Kale, Agp for respondents No. 1 & 3.\n Shri P.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 2.\n Shri C.S. Kaptan, Advocate for respondent No. 6.\n\n\n\n\n \n .....\n\n\n \n \n \n Coram : B.P. Dharmadhikari\n & A. P. Bhangale, Jj.\n Date Of Reserving Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 92,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 294,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 583,
"end": 603,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 739,
"end": 772,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 877,
"end": 896,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 912,
"end": 922,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1149,
"end": 1160,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1380,
"end": 1405,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1744,
"end": 1758,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1799,
"end": 1808,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1851,
"end": 1861,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1904,
"end": 1915,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2119,
"end": 2137,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2175,
"end": 2189,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Sukhvinder Kaur, Presiding Officer,\n Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohini Courts, Delhi\n (Mact Case no. 262/13/09 and 406/13/10)\n\n\n1. Om Parkash;\n2. Smt. Prem Devi;\n (parents of deceased Rajesh @ Sonu)\n R/o Village & Post Office Bhaproda,\n District-Jhajjar, Haryana\n (LRs/petitioners in case bearing Mact no. 262/13/09)\n\n1. Mr. Shri Chand\n S/o Sh. Naresh Singh\n R/o Village & Po Gaddi Kheri,\n District Rohtak, Haryana-124001.\n (petitioner in case bearing Mact no. 406/13/10)\n ----Petitioners\n Versus\n1) Sh. Roshan Singh (Driver)\n S/o Sh. Bhawani Singh,\n R/o Village Bhojpur, Ps Avtar Nagar,\n District Chhapra, Bihar.\n\n2) Sh. Pradeep Singh (Owner)\n S/o Sh. Ram Kishan,\n R/o Vpo Kheri Mannjot,\n Sonipat-131001, Haryana.\n\n3) Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer)\n 104-105, First Floor, H-10, Netaji Subhash Place,\n Pitampura, West Delhi-110034.\n (all the respondents in both the claim petitions) ........Respondents Date of institution-----09.10.2009 Date of decision------22.09.2014 1 of15 (Petition under Section 166 and 140 of M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation) Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 177,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 196,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 379,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 646,
"end": 658,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 770,
"end": 783,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 873,
"end": 912,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 6332 of 2005\n\nPetitioner:\nU.O.I. Thr. Govt. of Pondicherry & Anr.\t\t\n\nRespondent:\nV. Ramakrishnan & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 123,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n\n Dated This The 28111 Day Of May, 2012\n\n Present\n\n The Honble Mr. Justice N.Kum.Ar\n\n And\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice H.S.Kempanna\n\n\n Etition No.8788 2012 Sca\n\n C/W.\n\n Writ Petition No.9655/20 12 (Scat)\n\n\nIn Writ Petition No.8788/20 12\nBetween:\n\nThe State of Karnataka\nRepresented by its\nChief Secretary\nGovernment of Karnataka\nBangalore . . . Petitioner\n\n (By Sri. S. Vijay Shankar. Advocate General along with\n Sri Ravindranath P.V., Aga)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Sri. A.R. Infant I.P.S.\n -\n\n\n\n\n Karnataka Cadre\n Aged about 59 years\n S/o. Mr.A.R. Kunju\n Presently Dgp\n Commandant General Home Guards,\n 2\n\n\n Director of Civil Defence &\n Director General Fire & Ernerency\n Services. Bangalore.\n O/o. Dgp. Nol\n Arinaswarnv Mudaliar Road\n Bangalore - 560 042\n\n2. Secreiarv Dopt\n Union of India\n North Block\n New Delhi 110001.\n\n3. Mr. Shankar Mahadev BidarL Ips\n Dg & Igp\n (Head of Police Force),\n Karnataka, Bangalore.\n\n4. Upsc\n Represented by its Secretary\n New Building, Dholpur House\n Shah Jahan Road\n New Delhi 110 069.\n -- . . .Respondents\n\n (By Sri. Udava Holla, Sr. Counsel for Smt. Dhanalakshmi.\n Nandi Law Chambers. for C/R. 1\n Sri. M.V. Rao. Adv.. for R.2:\n Sri S.M. Chandrashekar. Adv.. for R3:\n Sri.P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Adv., for R.4)\n\n This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of\nConstitution of India praying to quash the impugned order\ndated 16.3.2012 passed by the Central Administrative\nTribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in Original Application\nNo.545/il vide Annexure A and etc.\n --\n In WRI'f Petition No.9655/2012:\nBetween:\n\nDr. Shankar Mahadev Bidari. Ips\nS/o. Mahadeva Bidri\nAged about 59 years\nPresently working as\nI)irector General and\nInspector General of Police (Hopf)\nKarnataka State Police\nHead Quarters, Nrupathunga Road\nBangalore 560 001.\n -- ... Petitioner\n\n (By Sri. S. M. Ch andrashekar, Adv.,)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. State of Karnataka\n Represented by its\n Chief Secretary\n Government of Karn ataka\n Vidhana Soudha\n Bangalore 560 001.\n\n2. Secretary\n Department of Personnel and Training\n Ministry of Personnel\n Public Grievances and Pensions\n Union of India, North Block\n New Delhi 110001.\n --\n\n\n\n\n3. Union Public Service Commission\n By its Secretary\n New Building,\n Dholpur House\n Shahj ahan Road\n New Delhi 110 069.\n -\n\n\n\n\n4. Sri. A.R. Infant I.P.S.\n S/o. Mr.A.R. Kunjum\n Presently working as\n 4\n\n\n Director General of Police\n Commandant General Home Guards.\n Director of Civil Defence &\n Director General Fire & Emcnencv\n Services, Bangalore\n O/o. Dgp, No.1,\n Annaswamy Mudaliar Road\n Bangalore 560 042 .Respondents\n . .\n\n\n\n\n (By Sri, S. Vijay Shankar, Advocate General along with\n Sri Ravindranath P.V, Aga, for R. 1 & 2;\n Sri. P.S. Dinesh Kumar, Adv., for R.3\n Sri.Udaya Holla, Sr. Counsel, for Smt.Dhanalakshrni,\n Nandi Law Chambers for R4)\n\n This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of\nConstitution of India praying to quash the impugned order\ndated 16.3.20 12 passed by the Central Administrative\nTribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in Original Application\nNo.545/il vide Annexure A by issue of a writ in the nature of\ncertiorari and grant such other reliefs and etc.\n\n These petitions coming on for Admission this day,\nN Kumar J., made the following:\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 184,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 267,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 440,
"end": 458,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 601,
"end": 617,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 672,
"end": 689,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 716,
"end": 727,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 954,
"end": 1049,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1142,
"end": 1156,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1235,
"end": 1261,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1346,
"end": 1350,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1551,
"end": 1562,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1674,
"end": 1682,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1718,
"end": 1736,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1772,
"end": 1789,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2156,
"end": 2178,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2474,
"end": 2494,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2517,
"end": 2535,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2673,
"end": 2852,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2886,
"end": 2917,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3069,
"end": 3080,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3185,
"end": 3344,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3514,
"end": 3530,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3576,
"end": 3592,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3632,
"end": 3649,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3674,
"end": 3685,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3708,
"end": 3721,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4181,
"end": 4188,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar And The Honble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud \n\nCriminal Appeal No.277 Of 2011 \n\n22-12-2017 \n\nMatta Rajesh .. Appellant\n\nState of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor..Respondent\n\nCounsel for the Appellants: Sri T.S.N.Murthy \n\nCounsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor\n\nHead Note: \n\n\n? Cases Referred: \n\n1. (2012) 9 Scc 408 \n2. (2011) 6 Scc 288 \n3. (1995) 5 Scc 518 \n4. (2002) 6 Scc 470 \n5. Air 1968 Sc 1050 \n6. (2011) 5 Scc 786 \n7. (2010) 9 Scc 85 \n8. (1995) Suppl. 2 Scc 187 \n9. (2013) 5 Scc 722 \n\ntHE Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar \nAnd \nThe Honble Sri Justice T.Amarnath Goud \n\nCriminal Appeal No.277 Of 2011 \n\nJ U D G M E N T \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 78,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 163,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 191,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 279,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 646,
"end": 658,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 697,
"end": 712,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nM/S. Dalmia Dadri Cement Co. Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Commissioner Of INCOME-TAX(and connected petition)\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 47,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 101,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nP. J. Irani\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Madras\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 23,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 62,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nS. C. Prashar, Income-Tax Officer,Market Ward, Bombay And An\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nVasantsen Dwarkadas And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 111,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nA. V. Venkateswaran, Collector Of Customs, Bombay\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nRamchand Sobhraj Wadhwani And Another\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 108,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n High Court Of M. P. Judicature At Jabalpur\n\n Second Appeal No.387 of 2010.\n\n Smt Kanta Salaria and others\n Versus.\n Prakash Chandra and others\n\n\nFor appellants :Shri Ravish Agarwal, Senior Advocate assisted by\n Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate.\n\nFor respondents No.1 to 3 Caveator:Shri R.K.Nanhoriya with Shri\n Kunal Dubey, Advocates.\n\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 55,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 149,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 243,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 292,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 355,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 421,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 448,
"end": 459,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 668 of 2006()\n\n\n1. Johny, S/O.Lazar,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :07/01/2010\n\n O R D E R\n \"Cr\"\n\n\n R.Basant & M.C.Hari Rani, Jj.\n * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n Crl.A.No.668 of 2006\n ----------------------------------------\n Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 76,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 176,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 274,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 360,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 399,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 514,
"end": 522,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 525,
"end": 538,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Additional Sessions \n Judge\u00ad02, South District, Saket Court, Delhi.\n\nSession Case No. 72/2011 \n\n\nIn the matter of :\n\nState \n\nVersus\n\n1) Shahid Khan,\n S/o. Chote Khan,\n R/o. Village Chandanhola, \n P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi.\n2) Farid Khan,\n S/o. Fazruddin Khan,\n R/o. Village Chandanhola, \n P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi.\n3) Sher Mohammad @ Sheru,\n S/o. Subhan Khan,\n R/o. Village Chandanhola, \n P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi.\n4. Ayub Khan\n S/o. Late Lala Khan\n R/o. Village Chandanhola, \n P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi\n5) Mauz Khan,\n S/o. Daud Khan,\n R/o. Village Chandanhola, \n P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi.\n6) Ishab Khan,\n S/o. Lala Khan,\n\nState v. Shahid Khan, Fir No. 281/2009 Page 1 of 18\n R/o. Village Chandanhola, \n P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi.\n7) Jamil Khan,\n S/o. Shahid Khan,\n R/o. Village Chandanhola, \n P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi.\n8) Deenu,\n S/o. Chaun Khan,\n R/o. Village Chandanhola, \n P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi.\n9) Khurshid,\n S/o. Chhote Lal,\n R/o. Village Chandanhola, \n P.S. Mehrauli, New Delhi.\n\n\nFir No. : 281/2009\nPolice Station : Mehrauli\nUnder section. : 308/325/506/342/34, Ipc\n\nDate of assignment : 28.11.2011.\nReserved for order on : 01.07.2014.\nDate of decision : 30.07.2014.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 117,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 173,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 204,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 322,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 434,
"end": 455,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 564,
"end": 573,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 682,
"end": 691,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 798,
"end": 808,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 836,
"end": 841,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 845,
"end": 856,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 980,
"end": 990,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1091,
"end": 1096,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1196,
"end": 1204,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 24/10/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. B. Subhashan Reddy, Chief Justice\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V. Kanagaraj\n\nW.A. No.2501 of 2001\nand W.A.Nos. 2502 of 2001 and batch *\n\nL. Justine ... Appellant in W.A.\n No.2501 of 2001\n\nV. Haridass ... Appellant in W.A.\n No.2502 of 2001\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies,\n Chennai - 600 010.\n\n2. The Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies,\n Cuddalore.\n\n3. Vriddachalam Primary Co-operative\n Agricultural & Rural Development Bank\n Ltd., Vridhachalam, rep. by its\n Special Officer,\n 156, Cuddalore Road,\n Vriddachalam ... Respondents in\n both appeals.\n\n Appeals against Orders of the learned single Judge dated 19.9.2001 and\n14.9.2001 respectively in W.P.Nos.17122 of 2001 and 16838 of 2001\nrespectively.\n\n\n!For Appellants in W.A. No.2415 of : Mr. K. Chandru, S.C.\n2001 etc. for M/s.Balan Haridass\n\nFor Appellants in W.A. Nos.2501 & : Mr. Ar. L. Sundaresan\n2502 of 2001 & petitioners in W.P.\nNos.19361 & 19362 of 2001 etc.\n\nFor Appellants in W.A. No.2035 of : Mr. Jaichandran\n2001 etc.\n\nFor Appellants in W.A. Nos.3014 to : Ms. K. Suguna\n3016 of 2001\n\nFor Appellants in W.A. Nos.658 to : Mr. C. Prakasam\n662 of 2002 etc.\n\nFor Petitioner in W.P. No.25393 of : Mr. G. Subramanian, S.C.\n2001\n\nFor Petitioner in W.P. No.3440 of : Mr. D. Rajagopal\n2002 etc.\n\nFor Petitioners in W.P. No.24147 of : Mr. A.L. Somayaji, S.C.\n2001 batch for M/s.Aiyar & Dolia\n\n\nFor Petitioners in W.P. No.9149 of : Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, S.C\n2002 etc. batch for M/s.N. Mohammed\nRafi\n\nFor Petitioners in W.P. No.21092 of : Mr. G. Venkataraman\n2002\n\nFor Petitioners in W.P. No.10628 of : Mr. K.V. Ananthakrishnan\n2002 etc. batch\n\nFor Petitioners in W.P. No.4264 of : Mr. P. Chandrasekaran\n2001 etc. batch\n\nFor Petitioners in W.P. No.767 of : Mr. S.N. Ravichandran\n2002 etc. batch\nFor Petitioners in W.P. No.24577 : Mr. V. Dhanabalan\nof 2002 etc. batch\n\n^For Respondents in all the Writ : Mr. N.R. Chandran,\nPetitions and Writ Appeals. Advocate General, assisted\n by Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, A.G.P.\n in all W.Ps. and Mr.\n S. Srinivasan,\n G.A. in all W.As.\n\nFor Respondents (other than : Mr. A.S. Thambusamy\nGovernment)in W.A. Nos.2501 & 2502\nof 2001 and 2972 of 2001.\n\nFor Respondents (other than Govt. in : Mr. N. Sanjay Mohan\nin W.A. No.2883 of 2001\n\n (*)Other Writ Appeals & Writ Petitions Nos. and the names of the\ncounsel are as per the annexed list)\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 165,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 237,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 352,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 473,
"end": 534,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 549,
"end": 608,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 619,
"end": 725,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1162,
"end": 1173,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1305,
"end": 1324,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1445,
"end": 1456,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1521,
"end": 1531,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1599,
"end": 1611,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1683,
"end": 1698,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1764,
"end": 1777,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1842,
"end": 1856,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1997,
"end": 2015,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2159,
"end": 2175,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2235,
"end": 2256,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2328,
"end": 2346,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2418,
"end": 2436,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2507,
"end": 2521,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2604,
"end": 2618,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2750,
"end": 2765,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2893,
"end": 2907,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3030,
"end": 3046,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3163,
"end": 3179,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAnandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta Jeevandasswami Suvarna Jaya\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nV.R. Rudani & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 72,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 103,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 5300 of 2006\n\nPetitioner:\nState of Kerala & Ors.\n\nRespondent:\nUnni & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 67,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 92,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n+ W.P.(C) 6415/2006\n\nJaipur Golden Gas Victims\nAssociation ..... Petitioner\n Through: Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\nUoi & Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. D.R. Thadani, Advocate for\n R-5.\n Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate for\n R-2 & 4.\n Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Advocate for\n R-3.\n\n\n Reserved on : 17th September, 2009\n\n% Date of Decision : 23rd October, 2009\n\nCoram:\nHon'Ble The Chief Justice\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice Manmohan\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 46,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 99,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 220,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 267,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 386,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 498,
"end": 509,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 625,
"end": 637,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 903,
"end": 911,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 5027 of 1999\n\nPetitioner:\nNathi Devi\n\nRespondent:\nRadha Devi Gupta\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 92,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 2137 of 2005()\n\n\n1. Ali Jishan @ Jishan Chawhan,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Manoj Kumar,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Bhavadasan\n\n Dated :26/11/2009\n\n O R D E R\n K. Balakrishnan Nair & P. Bhavadasan, Jj.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Crl. Appeal Nos. 2137 & 2223 of 2005\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 99,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 188,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 249,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 303,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 400,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 425,
"end": 437,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 482,
"end": 502,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 505,
"end": 518,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nM.K. Kunhimohammed\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nP.A. Ahmedkutty & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 65,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRao Shiv Bahadur Singh And Another\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Vindhya Pradesh.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 34,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 94,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nUnion Of India And Ors\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nHindustan Development Corpn. And Ors\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nShamsher Singh & Anr\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Punjab\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hema Sharma Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Sanjiv Jain : Presiding Officer : Mact\n South District : Saket Courts : New Delhi\n\nIn Petition No. : 237/13\n\n 1. Hema Sharma\n W/o Late Sanjay Sharma ..... Wife\n 2. Master Yashish Sharma\n S/o Late Sanjay Sharma ..... Son\n 3. Smt. Rani Sharma ..... Mother\n Both R/o 292, Shiv Puri, Gurgaon\n Also at : H. No. 47/9, 1st Floor,\n Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 70.\n (The petitioner no.2 being the minor is \n represented through their mother and natural\n guardian Smt. Hema Sharma/Petitioner no.1).\n ..... Petitioners\n Versus \n\n 1. Ajay Kumar\n S/o Sh. Ganpat Kharwar\n R/o 897, Sector\u00ad5, \n R K puram, New Delhi ..... Driver cum Owner\n\n\n 2. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Zenith House, Keshavrao Khayde Marg,\n Opp. Race Course, Mahalaxmi, \n Mumbai ..... Insurer\n ..... Respondents\n\n\n Date of Institution : 26.03.2011\n\n Date of reserving of judgment/order : 06.01.2014\n\n Date of pronouncement : 22.01.2014\n\nPetition No. 237/13 Page No. 1 of 20\n Hema Sharma Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 11,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 16,
"end": 26,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 75,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 167,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 214,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 304,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 388,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 868,
"end": 878,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1020,
"end": 1060,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1683,
"end": 1694,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1699,
"end": 1709,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSouth Bihar Sugar Mills Ltd., Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 40,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 80,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMithilesh Garg Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 70,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\nDated: 29.06.2010\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice C.T.Selvam\nCrl.O.P.No.5945 of 2010\nand\nM.P.No.1 of 2010\n\nK.P.S.Jeyachandran\t\t\t\t\t\t\u0005. Petitioner\n\nVersus\n\nState represented by\nDeputy Superintendent of Police,\nErode Town Sub Division,\nErode District.\n(Crime No.167 of 2003)\t\t\t\t\t\t\u0005 Respondent\n\n\tCriminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to call for records in C.C.No.568 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Erode, Erode District and to quash the same.\n\n\t\tFor Petitioner\t:\tMr.R.Shanmugasundaram\n\t\t\t\t\t\tSenior counsel for M/s.K.Annadurai\n\nFor Respondent \t:\tMr.A.Saravanan\n\t\t\t\tGovt.Advocate (Crl.Side)\n*******\n\n\n\n\n\n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 104,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 169,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 203,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 574,
"end": 592,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 622,
"end": 633,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 656,
"end": 667,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "$~44\n* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Date of Decision: 22nd February, 2016\n\n+ Mac.App. 165/2011\n\n Oriental Insurance Co Ltd ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. L.K. Tyagi and Mr. A.K. Soni,\n Advocates\n versus\n\n Sangeeta Devi & Ors ..... Respondents\n\n Through: Mr. N.K. Jha,Advocate for R-1 to R-5\n\nCoram:\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice R.K.Gauba\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 49,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 183,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 281,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 299,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 392,
"end": 405,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 506,
"end": 514,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 567,
"end": 576,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nA. R. Antulay\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nRamdas Sriniwas Nayak And Another\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 66,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Pranjal Aneja\n Civil Judge-06, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi\n\n Suit no. 962/11\nUnique Id No. 02401C0616532010\nSh. Budh Ram\nS/o Sh. Faghu Ram,\nR/o 7/95, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,\nSector-VI, New Delhi-110063\n .....Plaintiff\n Versus\nSh. Assis Kutty\nS/o Sh. M.O. Rawather,\nR/o Jc/3-E, Lig Flats,\nMayapuri (Hari Nagar),\nNew Delhi-110064\n .....Defendants\n Suit for possession.\nDate Of Institution Of The Case : 17.10.2000\nDate On Which Reserved For Order : 24.09.2014\nDate Of Order/Judgment : 25.09.2014\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 92,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 218,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 428,
"end": 439,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Andhra Pradesh\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nS. Sree Rama Rao\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 71,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Vbc 1 app797.10\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n O. O. C. J.\n\n\n\n\n \n Appeal No.797 Of 2010\n In\n\n\n\n\n \n Notice Of Motion No.37 Of 2009\n In\n Petition No.158 Of 2009\n Ramchandra Ganpatrao Hande alias Handege. ...Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n \n Vs.\n Vithalrao Hande & Ors. ...Respondents.\n ....\n Mr.Aniruddha A. Joshi with Mr. Shishir Joshi i/b Priti S. Joshi for \n\n\n\n\n \n the Appellant.\n Mr. A. Wadia i/b Mr. Kunal Cheema for Respondents 2 and 3.\n \n Mr. F. Bharucha i/b Mr. M.R. Phal for Respondents 4 and 5.\n .....\n Coram : Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud And \n \n Anoop V. Mohta, Jj.\n March 29, 2011.\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 139,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 647,
"end": 687,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 825,
"end": 840,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 951,
"end": 960,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 961,
"end": 969,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 979,
"end": 992,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 997,
"end": 1011,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1099,
"end": 1107,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1116,
"end": 1128,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1196,
"end": 1207,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1216,
"end": 1225,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1340,
"end": 1355,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1445,
"end": 1459,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nS.N. Mukherjee\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 60,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n R\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka\n Dharwad Bench\n Dated This The 07Th Day Of February, 2014\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice K.N. Phaneendra\n\n Criminal Appeal No.2656/2009\n\n C/W\n\n Criminal Appeal Nos.2518/2010, 2519/2010 and\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 2799/2009\n\nIn Criminal Appeal No.2656/2009\n\nBetween\n\n1. Chandrappa, S/O. Hanumantappa Kolar\n Occ Agriculture R/O Malaghan\n Tq Basawanbagewadi\n Dt: Bijapur\n\n2. Dongrisab S/O Moulasab Hadimani\n Age:22, Occ Goundi R/O Chikkapadasalgi\n Tq: Basavanabagevadi, Dt: Bijapur\n\n3. Gulab S/O Dongrisab Honyal @ Tatti\n Age: 37 Years, Occ: Goundiwork R/O Kolar\n Tq: Basavanabagevadi, Dt:Bijapur\n\n4. Hasabsab S/O Davalsab Mulla\n Age: 49 Years, Occ: Tailoring R/O Hiresangi\n 2\n\n\n\n\n Tq: Basavanabagevadi\n Now At Jainapur, Tq/Dt:Bijapur\n ... Appellants\n\n (By Sri. Ramesh I. Zirali Adv. For\n M/S Rajendra C. Desai Assts)\n\nAnd\n\nThe State Of Karnataka\nBy State Public Prosecutor\nThe State By Bevoor P.S.\n ... Respondent\n\n (By Sri. V.M. Banakar, Addl. Spp )\n\n\n This Crl.A Filed U/S.374 (2) Of Cr.P.C By The\nAdvocate For The Appellant Praying This Hon'Ble\nCourt May Be Pleased To Call For The Records\nAnd Set Aside The Impugned Judgement And\nOrder Of Conviction Dated 04/04/2009 Passed By\nThe Hon'Ble Fast Track Court I Koppal, In Sessions\nCase No. 21/2007 By Convicting The Appellants For\nThe Offences Punishable Under Secstions 395, 342\nAnd 506 Of Ipc.\n\nIn Criminal Appeal No.2518/2010\nBetween\n\nHasan Dongri S/O Hussainsab Khakandki\nOcc Coolie, R/O Malagana\nTq Basavanabagewadi\nDist Bijapur\n ... Appellant\n (By Sri Ramesh I. Zirali Adv. For\n M/S Rajendra C. Desai Assts.)\n 3\n\n\n\n\nAnd\n\nThe State Of Karnataka\nRep By S P P\nBy Bevur P.S. ... Respondent\n\n (By Sri.V.M. Banakar, Addl. Spp )\n\n This Crl.A Filed U/S. 374(2)Cr.P.C By The\nAdvocate For The Appellant Praying That This\nHon'Ble Court May Be Pleased To Call For The\nRecords And Set Aside The Impugned Judgement\nAnd Order Of Conviction Dated 4.4.2009 Passed By\nThe Hon'Ble Fast Track Court I Koppal In\nS.C.No.10/2007 By Convicting The Appellant For\nThe Offences Punishable Under Sections 395, 342,\nAnd 506 Of Ipc.\n\nIn Criminal Appeal No. 2519/2010\n\nBetween\n\n1. Rajak S/O Shekhsab Kalgurki\n Age\" 32 Years, Occ Coolie\n R/O Malagana\n Tq Basavanbagewadi\n Dist Bijapur\n\n2. Abdulsab S/O Nabisab Tigani Bidari\n Age: 45 Years, Occ Coolie\n R/O Kanaboor, Tq & Dist Bijapur\n ... Appellants\n\n (By Sri Ramesh I. Zirali Adv. For\n M/S Rajendra C. Desai Assts.)\n 4\n\n\n\n\nAnd\n\nThe State Of Karnataka\nRep By S P P\nBy Bevur P.S. ... Respondent\n\n (By Sri. V.M. Banakar, Addl. Spp)\n\n This Crl.A Filed U/S. 374(2)Cr.P.C By The\nAdvocate For The Appellants Praying That This\nHon'Ble Court May Be Pleased To Call For The\nRecords And Set Aside The Impugned Judgement\nAnd Order Of Conviction Dated 4.4.2009 Passed By\nThe Hon'Ble Fast Track Court I Koppal In\nS.C.No.21/2007 By Convicting The Appellant For\nThe Offences Punishable Under Sections 395, 342,\nAnd 506 Of Ipc.\n\nIn Criminal Appeal No. 2799/2009\n\nBetween\n\nGulamsab\nS/O Nabisab, Tigani Bidari\nAge 30 Years, Occ:Driver,\nR/O Kanbur Tq & Dist Bijapur\n ... Appellant\n\n (By Sri Ramesh I. Zirali Adv. For\n M/S Rajendra C. Desai Assts.)\n\nAnd\n\nThe State Of Karnataka\nRepresented By S.P.P ... Respondent\n\n (By Sri.V.M. Banakar, Addl. Spp)\n 5\n\n\n\n\n This Crl.A Is Filed U/S.374(2) Cr.P.C By The\nAdvocate For The Appellant Praying That This\nHon'Ble Court May Be Pleased To Call For The\nRecords And Set Aside The Impugned Judgement\nAnd Order Of Conviction Dated 4.4.2009 Passed By\nThe Hon'Ble Fast Track Court I Koppal, In\nS.C.No.21/2007 By Convicting The Appellant For\nThe Offences Punishable Under Sections 395 342\nAnd 506 Of Ipc.\n\n These Appeals Coming On For Orders This\nDay, The Court Delivered The Following:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 79,
"end": 135,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 262,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 490,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 605,
"end": 614,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 732,
"end": 737,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 863,
"end": 871,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1119,
"end": 1135,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1197,
"end": 1215,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1344,
"end": 1356,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1811,
"end": 1823,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1980,
"end": 1996,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2091,
"end": 2109,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2198,
"end": 2210,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2659,
"end": 2664,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2789,
"end": 2797,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2968,
"end": 2984,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3078,
"end": 3096,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3183,
"end": 3195,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3638,
"end": 3646,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3802,
"end": 3822,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3879,
"end": 3897,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3970,
"end": 3982,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Kerala & Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nN. M. Thomas & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 66,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nHemlata Kantilal Shah\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Maharashtra & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 73,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWA.No. 91 of 2011()\n\n\n1. Meethian Kunju M.M., S/O.K.M.Mohammed,\n ... Petitioner\n2. M.I.Meethian Kunju, S/O.M.M.Ismayil,\n3. M.I.Pareed, S/O.M.M.Ismayil,\n4. M.A.Aboobacker, S/O.M.P.Ahammed,\n5. M.M.Aboobacker, S/O.M.P.Mohammed,\n6. K.P.Mohammed, S/O.K.K.Pareed,\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The State Of Kerala, Represented By The\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Thrikkakara Grama Panchayat (Now\n\n3. M/S Puravankara Projects Limited,\n\n4. The Commandant General, Fire & Rescue\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.T.Ramprasad Unni\n\n For Respondent :Sri.P.R.Venketesh\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.J.Chelameswar\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Antony Dominic\n\n Dated :29/03/2011\n\n O R D E R\n J.Chelameswar, C.J. & Antony Dominic, J.\n ------------------------------------------------------------\n W.A. No. 91 of 2011- E\n ------------------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 86,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 165,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 197,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 233,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 269,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 292,
"end": 304,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 375,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 448,
"end": 475,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 489,
"end": 517,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 527,
"end": 560,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 599,
"end": 615,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 654,
"end": 667,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 702,
"end": 715,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 740,
"end": 754,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 801,
"end": 814,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 823,
"end": 837,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe State Of West Bengal .\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSubodh Gopal Bose And Others.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 36,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 75,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "gst 1 wp10241.09.sxw\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature Of Bombay\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction.\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No. 10241 Of 2009.\n\n\n\n\n \n Sumita Pradipkumar Dixit... .... .... ..... Petitioner.\n V/s\n Smt.Pushpadevi G. Makharia & Ors. ... .... .... Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.Pravin Samdani, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar & Saps Rachure,\n i/by T.N.Tripathi & Co., Adv. For the petitioner.\n\n Mr.Swanand R. Ganoo with Mr.L.A.Rubens & Sujit S. Suryawanshi i/by\n M/s.Vigil Juris, Adv. For the respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.P.S.Dani, Adv. (appointed) amicus curiae.\n \n \n Coram: B.R. Gavai, J.\n 29th March, 2011 Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 116,
"end": 150,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 422,
"end": 446,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 534,
"end": 556,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 689,
"end": 703,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 724,
"end": 742,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 745,
"end": 757,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 768,
"end": 780,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 829,
"end": 837,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 846,
"end": 856,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 859,
"end": 879,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 893,
"end": 904,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 991,
"end": 999,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1157,
"end": 1167,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nM.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nRadhey Shyam Sahu And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 72,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 FA.717.99.doc\n\n\n ndm\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n \n First Appeal No. 717 Of 1999\n\n Dr. Dattatraya Laxman Shinde. ... Appellant\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n\n 1. Nana Raghunath Hire,\n 2. Pramod Jagatsingh Pardeshi,\n\n\n\n\n \n 3. New India Assurance Company Limited. ... Respondents \n \n Mr. S.G.Deshmukh with Mr.Shreepad Deshmukh for the Appellant\n \n Mr. S.S.Vidyarthi for the Respondent No.3 \n \n\n\n Coram : A.S.Oka, J.\n \n\n\n\n th\n Date On Which Submissions Are Heard : 14 July, 2011.\n\n\n\n\n\n th\n Date On Which Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 388,
"end": 412,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 550,
"end": 569,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 585,
"end": 611,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 675,
"end": 702,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 790,
"end": 802,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 811,
"end": 828,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 892,
"end": 905,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1005,
"end": 1012,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 2021 Of 2008\n [arising out of Slp (Criminal) No. 1712 of 2004]\n\n\nM/S. Harman Electronics (P) Ltd.\n& Anr. ... Appellants\n\n Versus\n\nM/S. National Panasonic India Ltd. ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 61,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 271,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 387,
"end": 416,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat At Jabalpur\n Writ Petition No.14525 Of 2012 (Pil)\n\n\n Division Bench :- Hon. Acting Chief Justice Shri Krishn Kumar Lahoti &\n Hon. Justice Shri U.C. Maheshwari\n\n\n Dr. (Ku.) Kalyani Pandey\n Versus.\n Union of India and others.\n\n\n For Petitioner : Shri Ahadulla Usmanmi, Advocate.\n For respondent No.1 : Shri Mohd. Amjad, Advocate.\n For Respondents/ : Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate\n State No.2 to 7 General\n\n For respondents : Shri Surendra Singh, Sr. Adv with\n 8, 9 and 10. Sanjeev Kumar Patel.\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 200,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 253,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 311,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 392,
"end": 406,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 483,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 541,
"end": 552,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 610,
"end": 621,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 739,
"end": 753,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 809,
"end": 828,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nM/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. (P.) Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 58,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 100,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Vbc 1 lpa261.05\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Appellate Side\n\n\n\n\n \n Letters Patent Appeal No.261 Of 2005\n\n\n\n\n \n In\n Writ Petition No.1743 Of 2005\n With \n Lpa Nos.26/2011 & 304 To 308 Of 2010\n\n\n\n\n \n M/s.Advani Oerlikon Ltd. ...Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n Machindra Govind Makasare & Ors. ig ...Respondents.\n .......\n Mr.Kiran Bapat for the Appellant.\n Mr.V.P.Vaidya for the Respondents.\n \n Mr.A.V.Anturkar against the Reference.\n ......\n Coram : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, \n Anoop V. Mohta And\n \n\n\n Smt. Roshan Dalvi, Jjj.\n \n\n\n\n March 17, 2011.\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 110,
"end": 144,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 676,
"end": 700,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 817,
"end": 842,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 917,
"end": 928,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 955,
"end": 965,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1030,
"end": 1042,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1133,
"end": 1149,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1186,
"end": 1200,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1260,
"end": 1272,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 08 .09.2008\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Hon\u0012ble Mr.A.K.GANGULY, Chief Justice\nand\nThe Hon\u0012ble Mr.Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla\n\nWrit Appeals No.893 & 894 of 2008\nand\nM.P.Nos.1 + 1 of 2008\n----------\nTvl.SRC Projects Private Limited,\nRepresented by its Chief Executive Officer,\nThiru M.Paramasivam,\n4-B, Lakshmipuram, Gandhi Road,\nSalem \u0016 636 007.\t\t\t\t\t\t\u0005 Appellant in both the\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Appeals\n\nVs.\n\n1. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,\n 2nd Floor, Ezhilagam, Chepuak,\n Chennai \u0016 600 005.\n\n2. The Commercial Tax Officer,\n Salem Town North Circle,\n Salem.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\u0005 Respondents in both\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t the appeals.\n\n\tAppeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order passed in W.P.Nos. 13184 & 13185 of 2008 dated 4.7.2008.\n\n\t\t\tFor Appellant\t:::: Mr.D.Ibrahim Ali.\n\t\n\t\t\tFor Respondents\t:::: Mr.Haja Naziruddin,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t Special Govt.Pleader (Taxes)\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 98,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 162,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 267,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 446,
"end": 536,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 546,
"end": 608,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 827,
"end": 840,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 872,
"end": 887,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSpecial Deputy Collector & Anr. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nKurra Sambasiva Rao & Ors. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 36,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 87,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-1-\n\n\n In T He Hig H C Ou R T Of Ka R Na Ta Ka\n Cir C Uit B E Nc H A T D Ha R W A D\n\n Date D This Th E 11 T H Da Y Of Mar Ch 20 13\n\n Pres Ent\n T He Ho N 'B L E M R . Jus Tice B .V .P I Nt O\n And\n T He Ho N 'B L E M R . Jus Tice H.S .K E M P A N Na\n\n Crimi Nal Appe Al No. 2585/ 20 11\n\n\nBetween:\n\nSomappa Bheemappa Talwar\nAge: 36 years, Occ: Postman,\nR/o.Masuti, Tq: Basavanabagewadi,\nNow at: Aralichandi village,\nTq: & Dist: Bagalkot.\n ... Appellant.\n\n(By Shri B.V.Somapur, Advocate.)\n\nAnd:\n\nThe State of Karnataka,\nBy Bilagi Police,\nRep. by State Public Prosecutor,\nCircuit Bench, Dharwad.\n ... Respondent.\n\n(By Shri V.M.Banakar, Addl. Spp.)\n\n This criminal appeal is filed under section 374 of\nCr.P.C., seeking to set aside the impugned judgment\nand order passed by the Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, in\n -2-\n\n\nS.C.No.6/2010, dated 1.2.2011, for the offences\npunishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 of Ipc\nand Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, etc.,.\n\n This criminal appeal coming on for further hearing\nthis day, H.S.Kempanna, J., delivered the following\njudgment.\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 265,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 319,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 401,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 586,
"end": 597,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 621,
"end": 639,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 785,
"end": 796,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1229,
"end": 1241,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nPeriyar And Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Kerala\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 47,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 82,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 1804 of 2005()\n\n\n1. Rijo Joseph, Convict No.4254,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala.\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.B.Raman Pillai\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Bhavadasan\n\n Dated :14/10/2009\n\n O R D E R\n C.R.\n\n\n K. Balakrishnan Nair & P. Bhavadasan, Jj.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Crl. Appeal No. 1804 of 2005\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 83,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 189,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 287,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 384,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 409,
"end": 421,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 513,
"end": 533,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 536,
"end": 549,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMiss Mohini Jain\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Karnataka And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 28,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 66,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBoard Of High\t School & Intermediate\t Education, U.\t P.,\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nGhanshyam Das Gupta And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 71,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 111,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7259 of 2015\n===========================================================\nMora Tollways Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at 302, Shree Amba Shanti Chambers, Opposite Hotel Leela, Andheri Kurla Road, Andhri (East), Mumbai- 400059, a Special Purpose Vehicle created by Atlanta Limited, 101, Shree Amba Shanti Chambers, Opposite Hotel Leela, Andheri Kurla Road, Andhri (East), Mumbai-400059 through its authorized representative and Project In Charge, Mr. Pillai Ponipass Packiriswami, Son of Late C.K. Packiriswami, permanent resident of flat No.38, Triveni Chaul, Police Station Santa Cruz and presently residing at flat no. 306, Jalalpur City, Gola Road, Police Station- Rupaspur, District-Patna. \n\n .... .... Petitioner Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n2. The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n3. Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited through its Managing Director, office at Rcd Central Mechanical Workshop Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna. \n\n4. The Managing Director, Bihar State Development Corporation Limited, office at Rcd Central Mechanical Workshop Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna. \n\n5. The Chairman, Bihar State Development Corporation Limited, office at Rcd Central Mechanical Workshop Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna. \n\n6. The Directors, Bihar State Development Corporation Limited, office at Rcd Central Mechanical Workshop Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna. \n\n7. The Chief General Manager, Bihar State Development Corporation Limited, office at Rcd Central Mechanical Workshop Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna. \n\n8. The General Manager, Bihar State Development Corporation Limited, office at Rcd Central Mechanical Workshop Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna. \n\n9. The Deputy General Manager, Bihar State Development Corporation Limited, office at Rcd Central Mechanical Workshop Campus, Sheikhpura, Patna. \n\n .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Petitioner : Mr. Y. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dayanand Singh, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocates For the Respondents: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Pr. Aag Mr. Harish Kumar- Gp32 =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Vikash Jain Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 188,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 908,
"end": 922,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1019,
"end": 1096,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1103,
"end": 1151,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1261,
"end": 1392,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1403,
"end": 1456,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1536,
"end": 1659,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1670,
"end": 1805,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1816,
"end": 1876,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1956,
"end": 2092,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2217,
"end": 2227,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2246,
"end": 2260,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2266,
"end": 2279,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2316,
"end": 2329,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2343,
"end": 2356,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2452,
"end": 2463,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Nagpur Bench : Nagpur\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Writ Petition No.293 of 2002\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. Smt. Amrutabai widow of Kalya\n alias Shama Ukey,\n aged 35 years,\n\n\n\n\n \n occupation - Labourer,\n resident of Sanjay Nagar,\n Zopad Patti,\n Govindpur,\n Gondia.\n\n\n\n\n \n 2. Ku. Sunita daughter of Shama\n Ukey, aged 16 years,\n \n occupation - Student Vii Std.\n\n 3. Ku. Anita daughter of Shama\n \n Ukey, aged 14 years,\n occupation - Student\n VIIth Std.\n\n 4. Ravi son of Shama Ukey,\n aged 12 years,\n \n\n occupation - Student,\n VIth Std.\n \n\n\n\n 5. Ku. Sarita daughter of Shama\n Ukey, aged 9 years,\n occupation - Student\n IVth Std.\n\n\n\n\n\n 6. Ku. Sharda daughter of Shama\n Ukey, aged 7\u00bd years,\n occupation Student IInd Std.\n\n All residents of Sanjay Nagar\n\n\n\n\n\n [Zopad Patti],\n Govindpur, Gondia City.\n Nos.2 to 6 minors,\n through guardian no.1 of Nos.2 to 6,\n Distt. Gondia,\n Maharashtra. .... Petitioners.\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n\n\n \n 2\n\n 1. State of Maharashtra\n\n\n\n\n \n [P.S. Gondia City.].\n\n 2. Manik Sitaram Jibhkate,\n\n\n\n\n \n aged 50 years,\n Police Sub-Inspector,\n C/o Gondia City P.S.\n\n 3. Ravindra s/o Maharaji Aglave,\n\n\n\n\n \n aged 43 years,\n Police Constable, Buckle\n No. 915, C/o Gondia\n City P.S.\n\n 4. Manohar s/o Rajaram Bawankar,\n\n\n\n\n \n aged 45 years,\n Police Constable, Buckle\n No. 409, \n C/o Gondia City P.S.\n\n 5. Hansraj Maroti Vaidya,\n \n aged 42 years,\n Police Constable, Buckle\n No. 1301, C/o Gondia City\n P.S.\n \n\n 6. Vishnu son of Vithalji\n Malewar, aged 32 years,\n Police Constale, Buckle\n \n\n\n\n No. 735,\n C/o Gondia City, P.S.\n Gondia.\n\n 7. Vivshnath s/o Motiram\n\n\n\n\n\n Gosewade,\n aged 47 years,\n Head Constable,\n Buckle No.997, C/o\n Gondia City Police Station\n Gondia.\n\n\n\n\n\n 8. Dilip son of Haribhau Dongre,\n Police Constable,\n Buckle No. 91,\n C/o Gondia City Police,\n Gondia.\n\n Nos. 2 to 8 are employees of\n No.1 and their present address\n\n\n\n\n \n 3\n cannot be given as they might\n be dismissed. However, they are\n\n\n\n\n \n appellants in Criminal Appeal\n against conviction in Sessions Trial\n No. 21/96 [State Vs.Manikrao\n\n\n\n\n \n and others] judgment dt: 7-2-1997\n by Additional Sessions Judge,\n Gondia. .... Respondents.\n\n *****\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. Nikhil Joshi, Adv. [appointed] as Amicus Curiae.\n\n Mr. R.S. Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for\n respondent no.1.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. S.N. Mardikar, Adv., for respondent no.2.\n \n Mr. R.N. Badhe, Adv., for respondent nos. 4,6,7 and 8.\n\n Mr. Junai Ahmed, Adv., for respondent Nos. 3 and 5\n [absent].\n \n *****\n\n Coram : A.H. Joshi And\n U.V. Bakre,Jj.\n Reserved on : 13th June, 2011.\n\n Pronounced on : 5th August, 2011.\n \n\n\n\n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 101,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 297,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 592,
"end": 598,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 723,
"end": 728,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 860,
"end": 864,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 990,
"end": 996,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1115,
"end": 1121,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1622,
"end": 1642,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1757,
"end": 1779,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1928,
"end": 1936,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2126,
"end": 2133,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2315,
"end": 2336,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2486,
"end": 2492,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2664,
"end": 2673,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2861,
"end": 2866,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3427,
"end": 3432,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3436,
"end": 3444,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3752,
"end": 3764,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3951,
"end": 3964,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4022,
"end": 4032,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4083,
"end": 4094,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4246,
"end": 4256,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 4309,
"end": 4319,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur\n\nDivision Bench:Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena\n Hon'Ble Smt Justice Vimla Jain\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1647/2004\n\n1.Suraj Chandrawanshi\n Aged 26 years\n S/o Kedarnath\n\n2.Kedarnath\n Aged 52 years\n S/o Kushalram\n\n\nBoth residents of Karondi\nPolice Station Rajendragram\nDistrict Anuppur (Mp)\n\n Appellants\n\n Versus\n\nState of Madhya Pradesh\nThrough Police Station Amarkantak\nDistrict Anuppur (Mp)\n\n Respondent\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri Madan Singh,Advocate for the appellants. Shri Umesh Pandey, Government Advocate for the State. Date of hearing : 12.2.2013 Date of judgment: 26.2.2013 (J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 99,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 145,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 218,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 263,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 532,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 773,
"end": 784,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 819,
"end": 831,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "APP274.13.doc\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Appeal No.274 Of 2015\n In\n Notice Of Motion No.945 Of 2013\n\n\n\n\n \n In\n Suit No.449 Of 2013\n\n La-Fin Financial Services Pvt.Ltd. ... Appellant\n\n\n\n\n \n v/s\n Il & Fs Financial Services Pvt.ltd.\n ig ... Respondent Mr Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Counsel with Mr Tushad Cooper, Mr Arvind Lakhawal, Mr Naresh Chedda and Ms Pooja Shah i/b M/s Dhruve Liladhar and Co. for Appellant. \n\n Mr Venkatesh Dhond, Sr. Counsel with Mr Ashish Kamat, Mr Shyam Kapadia, Mr Gaurav Shah and Ms Henna Dauylat i/b M/s Negandhi Shah and Himayatullah for Respondent. \n\n Coram: V.M. Kanade & B.P. Colabawalla Jj. \n\n Reserved On :14th August, 2015 Pronounced On : 11th September, 2015 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 154,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 581,
"end": 615,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 725,
"end": 799,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 841,
"end": 856,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 878,
"end": 891,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 896,
"end": 911,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 916,
"end": 929,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 937,
"end": 947,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1001,
"end": 1016,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1038,
"end": 1050,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1055,
"end": 1068,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1073,
"end": 1084,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1092,
"end": 1105,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1171,
"end": 1182,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1185,
"end": 1201,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sc No.122/2013: Fir No.146/2013: Ps Ashok Vihar: State V/s Sundar Dod: 23.04.2015\n\n\n In The Court Of Vinod Yadav: Addl. Sessions Judge\u00ad01: \n (North\u00adWest): Rohini District Courts: New Delhi\n\n(Sessions Case No.122/2013)\nUnique Identification No.: 02404R0195112013\n\nState V/s Sunder\nFir No. : 146/2013\nU/s : 354 Ipc r/w Section 8 & 12 of Pocso Act, 2012\nP.S. : Ashok Vihar \n\nState V/s Sundar,\n S/o Shri Raghu Raj,\n R/o Village Kanapar, Ps Bas Gav, District Gorakhpur,\n Uttar Pradesh.\n Present Address: Wp\u00ad437, Wazirpur, Delhi.\n\nDate of institution of case : 07.08.2013\nDate of arguments : 04.04.2015\nDate of pronouncement of judgment : 23.04.2015 \n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 54,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 65,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 143,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 228,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 308,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 341,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 507,
"end": 512,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 539,
"end": 545,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Xlvi Additional City\nCivil And Sessions Judge And Special\nJudge For Cbi Cases (Cch-47) At Bengaluru\n Dated this the 27th day of August, 2015.\n Present:\n Shri K.H.Mallappa, B.A.,Ll.B.,\n Xlvi Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge\n and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases,\n Bengaluru.\n Special Criminal Case No.91/2004\n\nComplainant : Central Bureau of Investigation,\n A.C.B.,Bengaluru\n\n (By Public Prosecutor)\n\n -Versus-\n\n Accused-1 : C.K.Sardeshpande,\n S/o.Late Krishna Rao,\n Formerly Manager,\n Bank of India,\n Hanumanthnagar Branch,\n Bengaluru.\n r/o.No.2389, 7th Main,\n 21st Cross, Banashankari,\n Bengaluru-70.\n\n Accused-2 : K.N.Panduranga Shetty,\n S/o.Late Narayana Shetty,\n Director,\n M/s.Nandh Product Promoters\n Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru.\n r/o.299/5, 6th Cross, I Block,\n Jayanagar,\n Bengaluru-11.\n 2 : Spl.C.C.No.91/2004 :\n\n\nAccused-3 : K.P.Srikanth,\n S/o.K.N.Panduranga Shetty,\n Director,\n M/s.Nandh Product Promoters\n Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru.\n r/o.299/5, 6th Cross, I Block,\n Jayanagar,\n Bengaluru.\n\nAccused-4 : K.P.Yogendra Kumar,\n S/o.K.N.Panduranga Shetty,\n Director,\n M/s.Nandh Product Promoters\n Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru.\n r/o.299/5, 6th Cross, I Block,\n Jayanagar,\n Bengaluru.\n\nAccused-5 : K.P.Srinandh,\n S/o.K.N.Panduranga Shetty,\n Director,\n M/s.Nandh Product Promoters\n Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru.\n r/o.299/5, 6th Cross, I Block,\n Jayanagar,\n Bengaluru.\n\nAccused-6 : R.Venkata Reddy,\n S/o.Rama Reddy,\n Aged 43 years,\n No.45, 1st Main, 10th Cross,\n Upper Palace Urchards,\n Sadasivanagar,\n Bengaluru - 560 080.\n 3 : Spl.C.C.No.91/2004 :\n\n\n1. Date of Commission of : During the period\n Offence from 31.3.2000 to\n 24.4.2001.\n\n2. Date of Report of Offence : 28.11.2002\n\n\n3. Name of the complainant : B.S.Seshadri\n\n\n4. Date of recording of : 19.8.2010\n Evidence\n\n5. Date of closing Evidence : 27.10.2014\n\n6. Offences complained of : 120-B r/w.409, 420,\n Ipc and Sec.13(2)\n r/w.13 (1) (c) & (d)\n of Prevention of\n Corruption\n Act,1988.\n7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused Nos.1 to 6\n are acquitted\n u/S.235(1) Cr.P.C.\n for the offence\n punishable u/Ss.120-\n B r/w.409, 420,467\n & 471 Ipc and\n u/S.13(1)(c) &(d)\n r/w.13(2) of\n Prevention of\n Corruption Act, 1988.\n\n8. State represented by : Public Prosecutor\n\n9. Accused defended by A-1 to A-5 by Sri\n R.S., Adv.\n A-6 by Sri S.N.,Adv.\n 4 : Spl.C.C.No.91/2004 :\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 221,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 489,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 593,
"end": 609,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 962,
"end": 983,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1354,
"end": 1366,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1636,
"end": 1654,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1924,
"end": 1936,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2206,
"end": 2221,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 4027,
"end": 4035,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Satish Kumari Vs. R.P. Jain & Anr.\n\n In The Court Of Ms Surya Malik Grover\n Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Rent Controller (South)\n Saket Courts, New Delhi\n\nCs No. 245/13\n\nUnique Id No. 02406C0437382010\n\n\nIn The Matter Of:\n\nSmt. Satish Kumari\nW/o Late Sh. Nutan Deva\nR/o 13, (Ground Floor)\nDda Flats, Usha Niketan\nSafdarjung Development Area,\nBlock C, New Delhi-110016 ....Plaintiff\n\n Versus\n\n\n 1. Sh. R.P. Jain\n R/o 14, First Floor\n Dda Flats, Usha Niketan\n Safdarjung Development Area\n Block C, New Delhi-110016\n\n\n 2. The Commissioner\n Municipal Corp. of Delhi\n Town Hall, Chandani Chowk\n New Delhi. ....Defendants\n\nDate Of Institution : 10.09.2003\nDate Of Reserving The Judgment : 19.03.2015\nDate Of Decision : 24.03.2015\n\n\n\nCs No. 245/13 Page 1 of 17\n Satish Kumari Vs. R.P. Jain & Anr.\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 13,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 27,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 82,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 174,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 261,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 482,
"end": 491,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 631,
"end": 725,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 974,
"end": 987,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 992,
"end": 1001,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 35683 of 2010(I)\n\n\n1. N.Sabu, @ Gilbert, Chekkummoottil House,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Rep. By The\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Advisory Board, Kerala Anti Social\n\n3. The District Magistrate, Civil Station,\n\n4. The District Superintendent Of Police,\n\n5. The Circle Inspector Of Police,\n\n6. The Sub Inspector Of Police,\n\n7. The Sub Inspector Of Police,\n\n For Petitioner :Dr.K.P.Satheesan\n\n For Respondent :Government Pleader\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Bhavadasan\n\n Dated :20/01/2011\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 91,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 202,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 302,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 345,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 388,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 398,
"end": 424,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 434,
"end": 457,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 490,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 529,
"end": 542,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 621,
"end": 633,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Xix Addl. City Civil &\n Sessions Judge At Bangalore City: (Cch.18)\n\n Dated this 27th day of July, 2015.\n\n Present\n Smt.K.B.Geetha, M.A., Ll.B.,\n Xix Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bangalore City.\n\n A.S.No.11/2007\n\nApplicant/ B.C.Satish Kumar,\nPetitioner/ Major,\nPlaintiff : Erstwhile Proprietor of\n M/s.Shabharish Cable Links\n No.4, Lakshmi Temple Road,\n Ramamurthy Nagar,\n Bangalore-560 016.\n\n (By Sri.P.B.Raju,Advocate)\n\n -Vs-\nRespondents 1. M/s.Atria Convergence &\n/Defendants : Technologies(P) Ltd.,\n No.99A/113A, Manoroyanapalya,\n R.T.Nagar, Bangalore-560 032.\n (A Private company incorporated\n under the Indian Companies Act\n and represented by its M.D.)\n\n 2. M/s.Atria Broad and Band\n Services(P) Ltd.,\n No.99A/113A, Manoroyanapalya,\n R.T.Nagar, Bangalore-560 032.\n (A Private company incorporated\n under the Indian Companies Act\n and represented by its M.D.)\n 2 A.S.No.11/2007\n\n\n\n\n 3. Sri.G.Raghavendra Rao,\n Sole Arbitrator, No.18, 2nd Cross,\n Retired District Judge,\n Sanjayanagar,\n Bangalore-560 094.\n\n ( R.1 & R.2 - Sri.K.S.M.Advocate)\n (R.3 - Exparte)\n\n[\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 188,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 345,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 579,
"end": 587,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 641,
"end": 658,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 958,
"end": 1014,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1365,
"end": 1382,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1621,
"end": 1635,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 03.08.2006 \n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon\u0012Ble Mr.Ajit Prakash Shah, Chief Justice\nThe Hon\u0012Ble Mr. Justice D.Murugesan\nAnd \nThe Hon\u0012Ble Mr. Justice S.Rajeswaran \n\nC.M.A.No.231 of 1994 \n\nCholan Roadways Corporation Ltd.,\nRep. by its Managing Director,\nKumbakonam \u0016 612 001. \t\t ..Appellant. \n\n\tVs. \n\n1. Ahmed thambi \n2. Mohaideen Fathima\n3. Minor Sirajunissa\n4. Minor Sadiq Ali \n5. Minor Maruliya\n6. Minor Mohammed Sahib\n7. Mohammed Rowther\t\n (Minors 3 to 6 are represented \n by their Mother and \n natural Guardian \n Mrs.Mohaideen Fathima\n 2nd respondent herein)\t\t\t ..Respondents. \n\n\tPrayer: Appeal against the award and decree of the Motor Accidents \nClaims Tribunal, Thanjavur dated 14.06.1993 made in M.C.O.P.No.264 of 1992. \n\n------------ \t\n\n\tFor Appellant\t\t:: Mr.R.Viduthalai, Advocate General\n\tFor Respondents\t\t:: Mr.G.Rajan \n\n------------\n \n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 103,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 154,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 196,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 254,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 366,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 388,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 392,
"end": 409,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 428,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 447,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 471,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 475,
"end": 491,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 583,
"end": 600,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 837,
"end": 849,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 892,
"end": 899,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\nIn The High Court Of Karnataka, Bengaluru\n \u00ae\n Dated This The 18Th Day Of December, 2014\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice K.N. Phaneendra\n\n Crl.P. No.693/2014\nBetween:\n\nMeharunnisa D/O Syed Habeeb @\nSyed Habeebulla, Aged About 28\nYears, R/O Door No. 83, Lig-1,\nKhb Colony, Sira Gate, Tumkur-572 103.\n - Petitioner\n(By Sri. Bopanna. B, Advocate\nBpds Associates)\n\nAnd\n\nSyed Habeeb @ Syed Habeebulla\nS/O Late Syed Ghouse Peer,\nAged About 54 Years,R/Of 9Th\nBattallion, Ksrp, Koramangala,\nBangalore, Now R/At 1St Batallion,\nKsrp, Koramangala, Bangalore, Now\nR/At 1St Batallion, D-Ksrp, Richmond\nRoad Circle, Near Hosmat Hospital,\nBangalore-560 025.\n - Respondent\n(By Smt. Bhushani Kumar, Advocate)\n 2\n\n\n\n This Criminal Petition Is Filed U/S 482\nOf Cr.P.C. By The Petitioner To Set Aside The\nOrder Dated 25.10.2013 Passed By The F.T.C.,\nTumkur In Crl. R.P. No. 149/2012 And Confirm\nThe Order Dated 17.04.2012 Passed By The Ii\nAddl. C.J. And J.M.F.C., Tumkur In C. Misc.\nNo.455/2007 At Annexure-A And B & Etc.\n\n This Criminal Petition Having Been\nReserved For Pronouncement Of Order,\nComing On For 'Pronouncement Of Order'\nBefore Dharwad Bench, This Day, The Court\nPassed The Following:\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 46,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 206,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 261,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 434,
"end": 444,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 507,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 808,
"end": 822,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n Afr\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Principal Seat At Jabalpur\n\n Division Bench\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1956/2002\n\n Vijay Kumar Paliwal, son of Shri\n M.L.Paliwal, aged 45 years, Additional\n R.T.O., Resident of Professor Colony,\n District Bhopal (M.P.).\n\n Versus\n\n The State of M.P., through Police\n Lokyukt, Jablpur (M.P.)\n\n ******\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1957/2002\n\n Khemchand Koshti, son of Shri\n Chandrashekhar Koshte, aged 35\n years, suspended Asstt. Grade-III,\n Resident of Katni, district Katni (M.P.).\n\n Versus\n\n The State of M.P., through Police\n Lokyukt, Jablpur (M.P.)\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Appellants: Shri S.C. Datt, Sr. Advocate\n with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate.\n\nFor the Respondent: Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPresent:\nHonourable Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena\nHonourable Shri Justice S.C. Sinho\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nDate of hearing: 22/04/2010\nDate of Judgment: 30/05/2010\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 213,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 378,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 641,
"end": 658,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 871,
"end": 887,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1161,
"end": 1174,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1388,
"end": 1397,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1457,
"end": 1471,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1524,
"end": 1539,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1690,
"end": 1704,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1729,
"end": 1739,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Jasjeet Kaur\n Civil Judge\u00adI/ Metropolitan Magistrate\n New Delhi\n\n\nCs. No. 71/13\nM/s. Pal News Media Pvt. Ltd.,\nhaving regd. office at 710,\nInderprakash Building,\nBarakhamba Road, \nNew Delhi\u00ad110001.\nThrough its Authorized Representative/Special Power Attorney\nSh.Mohd. Waris ... Complainant\n\n Versus\n1. M/s. Ansh Advertising,\nE\u00ad41A, Kirti Nagar,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110015.\nRepresented through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory\nSh.Sanjeev Dang.\n\n2. Sh.Sanjeev Dang, \nProprietor/Authorized Signatory of M/s. Ansh Advertising,\nE\u00ad41A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi\u00ad110015 ... Accused\n\n Date of Institution: 15.03.2010\n Date of Reserving Judgement: 31.07.2014\n Date of Judgment: 31.07.2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 137,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 184,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 348,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 494,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 593,
"end": 605,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 614,
"end": 626,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 10.08.2015\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.Manikumar\n\nContempt Petition Sr.No.4178 of 2015\n\nR.Murugesan\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner \n\nvs.\n\nThiru.P.Chelladurai,\nHon'ble Judicial Magistrate,\nIn the Court of District Munsif\ncum Judicial Magistrate,\nMettupalayam 641 301.\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\tPetition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71 has been filed to punish the respondents for having committed contempt of Court for disobeying the order, dated 21.03.2013 made in Crl.R.C.No.1262 of 2012.\n\n\t\tFor Petitioner \t\t: Mr.R.Murugesan (Party-in-Person) \n\n\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 158,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 205,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 590,
"end": 601,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "25\n*In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n + MAC.APP.No.602/2009\n\n Date of Decision: 5th February, 2010\n%\n\n Prakash & Ors ..... Appellants\n Through : Mr. F.K. Jha,\n Mr. Rupesh Rayan and\n Mr. R.N. Singh, Advs.\n\n versus\n\n Arun Kumar Saini & Anr ..... Respondents\n Through : Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv.\n for R-2.\n Ms. Rajdipa Behura, amicus\n curiae.\n\nCoram :-\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha\n\n1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes\n be allowed to see the Judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be Yes\n reported in the Digest?\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 177,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 280,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 335,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 391,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 436,
"end": 452,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 520,
"end": 531,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 609,
"end": 623,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 703,
"end": 713,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 18Th Day Of February 2014\n\n Present\n\n The Hon'Ble Dr. Justice K. Bhakthavatsala\n And\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana\n\n Criminal Appeal No.593 Of 2011 (C)\n\nBetween:\n\nRiyaz - Ul Huck\nS/O. A.Basheer\nMedical Representative And\nShaymiyana Work\nR/O. Azadnagar, 1St Main\n7Th Cross, 708/3, Davangere.\n(Now In Judicial Custody)\n ...Appellant\n(By Sri. R.B.Deshpande, Adv.,)\n\nAnd:\n\nThe State Of Karnataka By\nAzad Nagar Police Station\nDavanagere.\n ... Respondent\n\n(By Sri.K.R.Keshavamurthy, Addl.Spp)\n\n This Crl.A. Is Filed Under Section 374 (2) Of\nCr.P.C., Praying To Set Aside The Order Dated\n11.2.11 Passed By The Ii Addl. S.J., Davanagere In\nS.C.No.79/09, Convicting The Appellant/Accused\nFor The Offences P/U/S. 498-A And 302 Of Ipc And\n 2\n\nThe Appellant/Accused Is Sentenced To\nUndergo R.I. For One Year And To Pay Fine Of\nRs.2,000/-, In Default To Undergo S.I. For 3\nMonths For The Offence P/U/S.498-A Of Ipc And\nThe Appellant/Accused Is Sentenced To\nUndergo Imprisonment For Life And To Pay Fine\nOf Rs.5,000/-, In Default To Undergo S.I. For 6\nMonths For The Offence P/U/S/ 302 Of Ipc. Both\nThe Substantive Sentence Shall Run\nConcurrently.\n\n This Crl.A. Coming On For Further\nArguments This Day, K.N.Keshavanarayana,J\nDelivered The Following:-\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 170,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 242,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 312,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 508,
"end": 521,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 541,
"end": 559,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 658,
"end": 675,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Page 1 of 25 \n\n\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Sunena Sharma \n Addl. Distt Judge - 04 (Se)\n Saket Courts Complex: New Delhi \n\nCs No.194/2014\nUnique Case Id No.02406C0003322011\n\n Date of Institution : 10.01.2011\n Received on transfer : 02.04.2014\n Arguments concluded : 27.02.2015\n Date of decision : 27.02.2015\n\nHi\u00adTech Polyflex Pvt Limited\nthrough its Ar Mr T R Chauhan\nregistered office at 10, New Colony, \nModel Basti, New Delhi - 110005. ............... Plaintiff\n\n V E R S U S \n\nM/s New Life Pharmaceuticals \nthrough Mr Deepak Bahl\nA\u00ad246, Okhla Industrial Area\nPhase - I, New Delhi - 110020 ............. Defendant/counter claimant. \n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 153,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 290,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 901,
"end": 929,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1187,
"end": 1211,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 27/02/2006\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. A.P.Shah, The Chief Justice\nand\nThe Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Prabha Sridevan\n\nWrit Petition No.3951 of 2006\nand Writ Petition Nos., 4796 and 4826 of 2006\n\n\nMinor Nishanth Ramesh\nrep. by Mother/Natural Guardian .. Petitioner in\nMrs. Sandhya Ramesh W.P.No.3951 of 2006\n\nMinor Nikita Gandhi\nrep. by Father/Natural Guardian .. Petitioner in\nMr.Jayaprakash Gandhi W.P.No.4796 of 2006\n\nJoshua Dhivyan, G.(Minor)\nrep. by his Father .. Petitioner in\nRev.E.C.Gnana Sekhar W.P.No.4826 of 2006\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe State of Tamil Nadu\nrep. by its Secretary to Govt.\nEducation Department, .. Respondent in\nFort St. George, Chennai-9. W.P.No.3951 of 2006\n W.P.No.4796 of 2006\n and first respondent\n in W.P.No.4826 of 2006\n\nThe Selection Committee\nrep. by its Chairman,\nDirectorate of Medical Education,\nKilpauk, Chennai-600 010.\n\n\nThe Director,\nDirectorate of Medical Education,\nKilpauk, .. Rr 2 and 3 in\nChennai-600 025. W.P.No.4826 of 2006.\n\nPattali Makkal Katchi (Pmk)\nStudents Wing,\nRep. by its State Secretary,\nK.Saravanan. .. R2 in W.P.No.3951/06\n(impleaded vide order dt.27.2.06\nby Hon\u0012ble Cj & Psdj in\nW.P.M.P.No.5314/06)\n\n\n!For petitioners :: Mr.K.M.Vijayan, S.C. For\n Mr.R.Suresh Kumar\n Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Sc for\n Ms.Gladys Daniel\n\n^For respondents :: Mr.Mukul Rohatgi, S.C.\n Mr.N.R.Chandran, A.G. and\n Mr.A.L.Somayaji, Addl.A.G.\n\n\n Assisted by Mr.V.Karthikeyan, Agp\n Mr.R.Thiagarajan, Sc for Mr.K.Balu\n for impleaded respondent\n\n:Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 93,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 157,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 258,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 339,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 404,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 468,
"end": 486,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 532,
"end": 546,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 630,
"end": 646,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 703,
"end": 722,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1133,
"end": 1233,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1241,
"end": 1292,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1427,
"end": 1448,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1499,
"end": 1510,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1682,
"end": 1693,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1735,
"end": 1749,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1783,
"end": 1801,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1842,
"end": 1855,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1888,
"end": 1901,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1940,
"end": 1952,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1995,
"end": 2007,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2065,
"end": 2078,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2116,
"end": 2129,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2141,
"end": 2147,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S.B. Civil First Appeal No.81/2005\n Jai sINGH Vs. Leela Saraf\n Date Of Judgment: 14th September, 2012\n\n 1/33\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan\n\n At Jodhpur\n\n Judgment\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 90,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 106,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 311,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "spb/-\n 1 Jcra193-217-11.sxw\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Side Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Civil Revision Application No. 193 Of 2011\n\n\n Hussainali Sharif Punjwani ... Applicant. \n\n\n\n\n \n V/s.\n\n The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ... Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n \n ---\n ig With\n Civil Revision Application No. 217 Of 2011\n \n Ashok Laxmidas Gesota ... Applicant.\n\n V/s.\n\n The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ... Respondent.\n \n\n\n ---\n \n\n\n\n With\n Civil Revision Application No. 694 Of 2011\n\n\n\n\n\n Smt. Khatizabai Wd/o. Habib Gafoor Ramzan ... Applicant. \n\n V/s.\n\n The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ... \n Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\n ---\n With\n Civil Revision Application No. 996 Of 2010\n\n\n Shri Amarnath G. Sharma (deleted)\n 1(a) Smt. Premkumari wd/o. Late Shri \n Amarnath G. Sharma and 1(b) to 1(g) Others. ...\n Applicants.\n\n\n\n\n \n spb/-\n 2 Jcra193-217-11.sxw\n\n\n\n\n \n V/s.\n\n\n\n\n \n The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ... Respondent.\n ---\n\n With\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No. 9124 Of 2010\n\n\n Saukat Ali Basir Ahmed Khan and Others. ... Applicants. \n\n\n\n\n \n V/s. \n The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay ... \n Respondent.\n \n ---\n\n Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Counsel i/by Mr. B.H.Prasad Sharma for the \n Applicant/ Petitioner in Cra No. 193/2011.\n \n\n\n Mr. Anirudha Joshi, Counsel i/by Ms.Rekha Shukla for the Applicant/ \n \n\n\n\n Petitioner in Cra No.217/2011.\n\n Mr. B.K. Raje for the Applicant/Petitioner in Cra No.694/2011.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. R.A. Thorat, Counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner in Cra No. \n 996/2010. \n\n Mr. P.M. Pradhan, Counsel i/by Mr. Mohan Naik for the \n Applicant/Petitioner in W.P. No. 9124/2010.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. Shyam Mehta, Sr. Advocate with Mr.A. Fernandes and Ms.N.D. \n Motiwalla i/by N.D.Motiwalla & Co. for the Respondent No.1 In Cra \n Nos. 217/2011 & 996/2010 and W.P. No.9124/2010. \n\n Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Counsel a/with Ms.N.D.Motiwala i/by M/s. Motiwalla \n and Co. for the Respondent in Cra No. 193/2011. \n ----\n\n\n\n\n \n spb/-\n 3 Jcra193-217-11.sxw\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram : G. S. Godbole, J.\n\n Date : Judgment \n\n\n\n\n \n reserved on : 18Th October, 2011\n Judgment\n pronounced on : 18th January, 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 197,
"end": 231,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 405,
"end": 431,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 571,
"end": 612,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 866,
"end": 887,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 976,
"end": 1016,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1217,
"end": 1227,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1324,
"end": 1365,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1575,
"end": 1593,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1619,
"end": 1629,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2088,
"end": 2128,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2392,
"end": 2419,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2569,
"end": 2610,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2750,
"end": 2767,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2795,
"end": 2814,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2894,
"end": 2908,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2928,
"end": 2940,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3013,
"end": 3022,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3088,
"end": 3101,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3198,
"end": 3212,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3239,
"end": 3251,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3328,
"end": 3341,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3372,
"end": 3386,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3398,
"end": 3417,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3539,
"end": 3552,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3572,
"end": 3584,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4028,
"end": 4041,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 24Th Day Of June, 2013\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B.V.Pinto\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1048 Of 2006\n\nBetween:\n\nParameshi\nS/O Shikari Boraiah\nAge: 31 Years\nNayakaru By Caste\nDish Work\nBheemanayaka Road\nC.K.Pura, Kelagote\nChitradurga\n ....Appellant\n(By Sri. Kaleemullah Shariff, Adv.)\n\n\nAnd:\n\nThe State Of Karnataka\nBy Its State Public Prosecutor\nHigh Court Of Karnataka\nBangalore - 560 001\n .. Respondent\n(By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Hcgp)\n\n This Criminal Appeal Is Filed Under Section\n374(2) Cr.P.C. Against The Judgment Dated\n28.04.2006 Passed By The Additional S.J., Ftc,\nChitradurga In S.C.No.6/2006 Convicting The\nAppellant-Accused No.1 For The Offence P/U/S. 498-\nA, 306 Of Ipc And Sentencing Him To Under Go R.I.\n 2\n\n\nFor Two Years For The Offences P/U/S 498-A Ipc\nAnd Id A Fine Ofrs.2,000/- I.D., To Undego R.I. For\nTwo Months And Further Sentencing Him To\nUndergo R.I. For Three Years For The Offence\nP/U/S 306 Of Ipc Toundergo R.I. For Three Months.\nThe Substatntive Sentence Shall Run\nConcurrently.\n\n This Criminal Appeal Coming On For Further\nHearing This Day, The Court Made The Following:\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 161,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 224,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 418,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 456,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 593,
"end": 611,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honourable Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy And The Honourable Sri Justice G. Shyam Prasad \n\nWrit Petition Nos.42090 of 2015\n\n13-07-2016 \n\nGirish Kumar Makhija Petitioner \n\nThe State of Telangana Rep. by its Secretary Home Department Secretariat\nHyderabad and another Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Vedula Venkata Ramana Senior Counsel, For M/s. Bharadwaj Associates Counsel for the respondents : G.P. for Home (Ts) Head Note :\n\n?Citations : 1. (2008) 9 Scc 89\n 2. (2011) 5 Scc 244\n 3. (1964) 4 Scr 921 : Air 1964 Sc 334\n 4. (1970) 1 Scc 98\n 5. (1982) 2 Scc 403\n 6. (1975) 3 Scc 198\n 7. (2012) 2 Scc 389\n 8. Air 1966 Sc 740 : 1966 Scr (1) 709\n 9. (1972) 1 Scc 498\n 10. (1970) 1 Scc 149\n 11. (1990) 2 Scc 456\n 12. Air 1951 Sc 157\n 13. (2003) 8 Scc 342\n 14. (2010) 9 Scc 618\n 15. (2012) 4 Scc 699\n 16. (1972) 2 Scc 550\n 17. (1973) 4 Scc 76\n 18. (1973) 1 Scc 301\n 19. (1974) 4 Scc 135\n 20. (2015) 12 Scc 127\n 21. (1986) 5 Scc 404\n 22. (2005) 10 Scc 97\n\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy \nAnd \nThe Honble Sri Justice G. Shyam Prasad \n \nWrit Petition NOs.42090 And 42092 Of 2015 \n\n\nDated:13-07-2016 \n\nCommon Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 47,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 94,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 188,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 225,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 369,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1721,
"end": 1741,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1782,
"end": 1797,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWa No. 2147 of 2005()\n\n\n1. Varkey Abraham, S/O.Varkey,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Secretary To Government\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Commissioner, Land Revenue,\n\n3. The District Collector, Kottayam.\n\n4. The Tahsildar, Meenachil.\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Mathew John (K)\n\n For Respondent :Government Pleader\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.H.L.Dattu\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T.Sankaran\n\n Dated :25/07/2007\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n H.L.Dattu, C.J. & K.T.Sankaran,J.\n\n ----------------------------------------------------\n\n W.A. No. 2147 Of 2005 E\n\n ----------------------------------------------------\n\n Dated this the 25th July, 2007\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 83,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 196,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 275,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 314,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 344,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 383,
"end": 394,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 486,
"end": 495,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 520,
"end": 532,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 587,
"end": 596,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 605,
"end": 617,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1)\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat At\n Jabalpur.\n\n Full Bench\n\n Hon'Ble Shri Justice S.K. Seth\n Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul\n Hon'Ble Shri Justice J.P. Gupta\n\n A.A. No.14/2017.\n Viva Highways Ltd.\n Vs.\n Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd.\n\n (Shri Jai Savla, Advocate with Shri Akshay Sapre,\n Adv. for appellant.\n Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with\n Shri Amit Seth, Government Advocate.)\n\n A.C. No.27/2013\n M/s Essel Infra Projects Ltd.\n Vs.\n State of M.P.\n\n (Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate with\n Shri Jubin Prasad, Advocate for the applicant\n Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with\n Shri Amit Seth, Government Advocate.)\n\n A.C. No.79/2016\n M/s Tapi Prestressed Products Ltd.\n Vs.\n Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd.\n\n (Shri Shekhar Sharma for the applicant.\n Shri P.K. Kaurav, Additional Advocate General with\n Shri Amit Seth, Government Advocate.)\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 177,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 226,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 276,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 365,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 409,
"end": 457,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 479,
"end": 488,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 521,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 592,
"end": 603,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 663,
"end": 672,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 770,
"end": 795,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 865,
"end": 878,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 906,
"end": 919,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 967,
"end": 979,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1030,
"end": 1041,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1104,
"end": 1113,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1205,
"end": 1235,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1281,
"end": 1329,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1360,
"end": 1374,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1416,
"end": 1427,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1490,
"end": 1499,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "903-Ts-33-98-D'Souza V D'Souza.Doc\n\n Shephali\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Testamentary And Intestate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Testamentary Suit No. 33 Of 1998\n In\n Testamentary Petition No. 774 Of 1997\n\n\n\n\n \n Walter D'Souza\n of Mumbai, Indian Christian Inhabitant, residing\n\n\n\n\n \n at Amar Villa, Marol Village, Andheri (East),\n Mumbai 400 059 ig ...Plaintiff\n\n Versus\n \n 1 Miss Anita D'Souza\n daughter of late Victor D'Souza of Mumbai\n Indian Christian, residing at Amar Villa, No\n \n\n Ii (D'Souza House), near Vanala Tank,\n Pascoal Wadi, Erangal, Madh,via Versova,\n \n\n\n\n Mumbai 400 061.\n 2 Mrs. Alba D'Souza\n widow of late Victor D'Souza of Mumbai\n\n\n\n\n\n Indian Christian, residing at Amar Villa, No\n Ii (D'Souza House), near Vanala Tank,\n Pascoal Wadi, Erangal, Madh,via Versova,\n Mumbai 400 061.\n 3 Vitrus D'Souza\n\n\n\n\n\n 4 Valerian D'Souza\n both sons of late Victor D'Souza of Mumbai\n Indian Christian, residing at Amar Villa, No\n Ii (D'Souza House), near Vanala Tank,\n Pascoal Wadi, Erangal, Madh, via Versova,\n Mumbai 400 061. ...Defendants\n\n 1 of 17\n\n\n\n\n \n 903-Ts-33-98-D'Souza V D'Souza.Doc\n\n\n\n\n \n Appearances\n\n For The Plaintiff Mr. Denzil D'Mello\n\n\n\n\n \n For The Defendants Nos. Mr. Rajiv Narula, i/b M/s. Jhangiani\n 1 And 2. Narula & Associates.\n\n Coram : G.S.Patel, J.\n\n\n\n\n \n Judgement Reserved : 12th November 2014\n Judgement Pronounced : 14th November 2014\n\n\n\n\n \n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 101,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 501,
"end": 515,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 819,
"end": 832,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1125,
"end": 1137,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1412,
"end": 1426,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1447,
"end": 1463,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2124,
"end": 2138,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2232,
"end": 2244,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2368,
"end": 2377,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\n\nDated : 26/11/2007\n\n\nCoram:\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice G.Rajasuria\n\n\nC.M.S.A.No.28 of 2002\nand\nM.P(MD)No.1 and 2 of 2007\n\n\nR.Anand\t\t \t... \tAppellant/husband\n\n\nVs\n\n\nP.Indu\t\t\t\t... \tRespondent/wife\n\n\nPrayer\n\n\nAppeal filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with\nSection 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the order passed in\nC.M.A.No.111 of 2001 on the file of the District Judge, Trichy, dated\n03.05.2002, in setting aside the order passed in H.M.O.P.No.49 of 1998 on the\nfile of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy, dated 16.08.2001.\n\n\n!For Appellant\t \t...\tMr.N.G.R.Prasad for\n\t\t\t \tMr.A.Padmanabhan\n\n\n^For Respondent \t...\tMr.K.Chandrasekaran\n\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 113,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 177,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 221,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 634,
"end": 646,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 663,
"end": 676,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 704,
"end": 720,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Pawan Kumar Matto\n Additional District Judge\u00ad01 (East)\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.\n\nSuit No.116/2013\n\nIn the matter of :\u00ad\n\nSh. Rajeev Kumar Raheja,\nS/o Late Sh. K.D. Raheja,\nR/o 166, New Gandhi Nagar,\nGhaziabad, U.P. .....Plaintiff\n\n Versus\n\n 1. Nitishree Infrastructure Ltd.\n (Through its Directors)\n Having its Registered Office at:\u00ad\n 78\u00adB, Sector D\u00ad2, Group Ii,\n Dda Flats, Kondli, Ghondli,\n Mayur Vihar Phase\u00adIII, Delhi\u00ad96 \n 2. Shourya Towers Pvt. Ltd.\n (Through its Directors)\n Having its Registered Office at:\u00ad\n B\u00ad111, Sector\u00ad5, Noida, U.P. .....Defendants\nDate of institution : 12.08.2013\nDate of reserving order : 30.08.2014\nDate of Order : 04.09.2014\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 33,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 130,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 195,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 395,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 579,
"end": 603,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh: Jabalpur (Afr)\n\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 2015/2006\n\n 1. Purushottam Patel, son of Ramlal Patel\n aged about 43 years.\n 2. Noni, son of Khuman Patel,\n aged about 60 years.\n 3. Ghassi @ Ghasoti, son of Ramsai,\n aged about 45 years.\n 4. Gulab Patel, son of Ramlal Patel,\n aged about 28 years.\n 5. Gajraj Patel, son of Purushottam Patel,\n aged about 27 years.\n 6. Rajju Master alias Rajaram Raikwar,\n son of Nandlal Raikwar, aged about 43 years.\n All cultivators and residents of village\n Bori-Kala, Police Station Hatta,\n District Damoh, M.P.\n\n .......Appellants\n\n -Versus-\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n ........Respondent\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n For the appellant: Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri\n Siddharth Datt, Advocate.\n For the respondent: Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Criminal Revision No. 2232/2006\n\n\n Tajammul Hussain, son of Sheikh Rustam,\n aged about 47 years, Resident of village\n Borikala, P.S.Hatta,\n District Damoh (M.P.) .......Applicant\n\n -Versus-\n\n 1. Purushottam Patel, son of Ramlal Patel\n aged about 43 years.\n 2. Noni, son of Khuman Patel,\n aged about 60 years.\n 3. Ghassi @ Ghasoti, son of Ramsai,\n aged about 45 years.\n 4. Gulab Patel, son of Ramlal Patel,\n aged about 28 years.\n 5. Gajraj Patel, son of Purushottam Patel,\n aged about 27 years.\n 6. Rajju Master alias Rajaram Raikwar,\n son of Nandlal Raikwar, aged about 43 years.\n (2) Cr.A.2015/2006\n Cr.R.2232/2006\n\n\n\n\n All cultivators and residents of village\n Bori-Kala, Police Station Hatta,\n District Damoh, M.P.\n 7. State of Madhya Pradesh\n through P.S. Hatta,\n District Damoh (M.P.)\n ........Non-applicants\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n For the applicant Shri Mohd.Amzad, Advocate.\n For the respondents: Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri\n Siddharth Datt, Advocate.\n Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Present: Hon'ble Justice Shri Rakesh Saksena\n Hon'ble Justice Shri S.C.Sinho\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Date of hearing : 18.03.2010\n Date of judgment: 31.03.2010\n\n **********\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 178,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 244,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 323,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 380,
"end": 391,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 454,
"end": 466,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 534,
"end": 568,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 886,
"end": 909,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1146,
"end": 1154,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1217,
"end": 1231,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1283,
"end": 1296,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1481,
"end": 1497,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1722,
"end": 1739,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1801,
"end": 1805,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1868,
"end": 1884,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1941,
"end": 1952,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2015,
"end": 2027,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2095,
"end": 2129,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2517,
"end": 2540,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2824,
"end": 2834,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2881,
"end": 2889,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2960,
"end": 2974,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3034,
"end": 3047,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3221,
"end": 3235,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3288,
"end": 3297,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\nIn The Court Of Sh. Shailender Malik, Ld. Scj/Rc/Nw/Rohini \nCourts/Delhi\n\n\nEx.Appeal No.1/13\nShri Vinod Kumar \nS/o Sh. R.P.Aggarwal\nR/o 85, Raj Nagar, \nPitampura\nDelhi \n ....Appellant/Objector\n Versus\n\n\n 1. Shri Som Dutt Tiwari\n S/o Late Raghu Nath Prasad Tiwari\n R/o H\u00ad2/12, Phase\u00adI, Budh Vihar\n Delhi \n ....Respondent/Decree Holder\n 2. Shri Pawan Kumar\n S/o Shri Ram Kumar\n R/o Vill. Mungeshpur\n Delhi\u00ad110039\n ....Respondents/Judgment Debtor\n\n\n Date of institution: 30.07.2013\n Date of reserving judgment: 28.04.2014\n Date of announcing judgment: 30.04.2014\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 51,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 128,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 347,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 549,
"end": 560,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey \n Additional District Judge\u00ad02 (Ne)\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\n Cs No. 168/14\n\n In The Matter Of :\u00ad\n Punjab National Bank, \n Body Corporate Constituted Under \n The Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertaking) Act, \n 1970, having its Head Officer At ; \n 7, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi and one of its Branches at \n 372, F.I.E., Patparganj Industrial Area, \n Delhi\u00ad110 092. \n Through Its Senior Manager, Sh. O.P. Uniyal. \n ....... Plaintiff\n \n Versus\n Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Amar Singh, \n R/o 5/155, Gali No.5, Tukmeer Pur Extension, \n Delhi\u00ad110 094\n ..... Defendant \n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 137,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 250,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 776,
"end": 787,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 29.04.2008\n \nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.J.Mukhopadhaya\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.Venugopal\n\nWrit Petition No.33647 of 2007\nand \n Suo Motu Writ Petition No.32836 of 2007\n\n\nR.Amirthaveni\t\t\t\t .. Petitioner in W.P.No.33647 of 2007\n\n\nThe Registrar General,\nHigh Court, Chennai-104. .. Petitioner in Suo Motu W.P.No.32836 of 2007\n\t\t\t\t\t\tvs.\n1. The District Employment Exchange Officer,\n District Employment Exchange Office,\n Railway Station Road, Dharmapuri District.\n\n2. The Hon'ble District Judge,\n District Court,\n Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District. .. Respondents in W.P.No.33647 of 2007\n\n\n1. The State of Tamilnadu,\n Rep. by the Secretary to Government,\n Home Department (Courts),\n Fort St.George, Chennai-9.\n\n2. The Special Commissioner and\n Commissioner of Employment & Training,\n Guindy, Chennai-32.\n\n3. The District Employment Officer,\n District Employment Office, Thiruvallur.\n\n\n4. The District Employment Officer,\n District Employment Office, Madurai. \n\t\t \t\t .. Respondents in Suo Motu W.P.No.32836 of 2007\n\n\tWrit Petition No.33647 of 2007 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to sponsor the petitioner being the senior most registrant for the next appointment after implementing the G.O.(Ms.)No.65, Labour and Employment (N2) Department, dated 30.3.2007.\n\n\tSuo Motu Writ Petition No.32836 of 2007 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, for the reasons stated in the Office Reports (Letters) of the Principal District Judges of Thiruvallur and Madurai, dated 3.9.2007 and 20.9.2007 respectively, and to direct the first and second respondents to instruct all the District Employment Officers, more particularly the third and fourth respondents to furnish the list of candidates as required by the Unit Heads of the Judiciary in the State of Tamil Nadu.\n\n\t\tFor petitioners : Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for\n\t\t\t\t Mr.O.A.Dinesh Kumar\n\n\t\tFor respondents : Mr.Raja Kalifullah, Govt. Pleader, assisted by\n\t\t\t\t\tMr.D.Srinivasan, Addl.G.P.\n\n\t\nCommon Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 114,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 157,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 251,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 346,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 424,
"end": 548,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 566,
"end": 637,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 694,
"end": 712,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 827,
"end": 921,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 931,
"end": 1003,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1014,
"end": 1084,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2069,
"end": 2086,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2119,
"end": 2129,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2161,
"end": 2176,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2213,
"end": 2225,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Reserved on: 16th April, 2012\n Pronounced on: 19th April, 2012\n+ Mac.App. 689/2011\n\n United India Insurance Co Ltd. .... Appellant\n Through: Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n Pushpa & Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Kundan Kumar Lal,\n Advocate\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice G.P.Mittal\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 266,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 338,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 388,
"end": 394,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 501,
"end": 517,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 616,
"end": 626,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Arun Kumar: Civil Judge: South \n West District: Dwarka Court: New Delhi\n\n\nC.S No: 11/11\nUnique case Id No: 02405C0000112011\n\n\nIn The Matter Of\n\nSmt. Kamla Devi\nW/o Sh. Lekh Ram\nR/o Rz\u00ad640, Gali no. 10\nIndira Park, Palam Colony,\nNew Delhi \u00ad 110045 ... Plaintiff\n Versus\n\nSh. Leela Ram\nS/o Sh. Chander Bhan\nR/o Rz\u00ad3B/12\nGali no. Ii, Indra Park\nPalam Colony, New Delhi 110045 ... Defendant\n\nDate of Institution : 04.01.2011\nDate on which judgment was reserved : 15.05.2014\nDate of pronouncing judgment : 06.06.2014\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 96,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 186,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 380,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, Adj\u00ad03, Saket Court, \n New Delhi\n\nCs No. 79/2012\n\nWorld Health Partners\nHaving its Administrative office at:\nBuilding Bb# 11, Greater Kailash Enclave Ii,\nNew Delhi 110048\nThrough authorised representative \nSh. Nagesh Kumar Chaudhary.\n ........Plaintiff\n\n Versus\n\n 1. M/s Pounduarika Consortium\n 403, Ranka Park, 4th Floor,\n 4/5/6 Lalbagh Road, \n Bangalore\u00ad 560 027\n Through its partner Mr. Arun Shankar\n\n 2. Mr. Arun Shankar,\n Partner: M/s Pounduarika Consortium\n 403, Ranka Park, 4th Floor,\n 4/5/6 Lalbagh Road, \n Bangalore\u00ad 560 027.\n\n 3. Mr. Padmini Shankar,\n Partner: M/s Pounduarika Consortium\n 403, Ranka Park, 4th Floor,\n 4/5/6 Lalbagh Road, \n Bangalore\u00ad 560 027. ...Defendants\n\nDate Of Institution : 24.09.2011\nDate Of Reserving For Judgment/Order : 17.04.2014\nDate Of Pronouncement : 29.04.2014\n\n\n Suit Under Order Xxxvii Of Cpc For Recovery Of Rs. 8,08,814.21P \n Along With Pendente Lite & Future Interest\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 100,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 139,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 459,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 603,
"end": 615,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 759,
"end": 774,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 22.7.2014\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice R.Sudhakar\nAnd\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice G.M.Akbar Ali\n\nT.C.(A).No.789 of 2013\n\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax\nChennai.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..\tAppellant\n\nVs.\n\nFaizan Shoes Pvt. Limited\n55, Vepery High Road\nChennai \u0016 600 003.\t\t\t\t\t..\tRespondent\n\n\tAppeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'D' Bench, dated 23.4.2013 made in Ita No.2095/Mds/2012 for the assessment year 2009-2010.\n\n\t\t\tFor Appellant \t:\tMr.T.Ravikumar\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSenior Standing Counsel \n\n\t\t\tFor Respondent \t:\tMr.M.P.Senthil Kumar\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 101,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 142,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 206,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 258,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 563,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 621,
"end": 638,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Sandeep Yadav, Additional Sessions \n Judge\u00ad5, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi \n\nCrl. A. No. 2/14\nId No. 02406R0303942013\n\n\n 1. M/s. K.K. Sharma & Company\n 61\u00adC, Kalu Sarai, Sarvpirya Vihar \n New Delhi\n\n\n 2. Kiran Kumar Sharma\n s/o. Sh. Ghanshyam Sharan Sharma \n Prop. M/s. K.K. Sharma & Company \n R/o. Village Shaalipur Jaman\n Post Raipur Sadat, District Bijnor\n U.P.\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n 1. Devender Gupta\n S/o. Sh. P.R. Gupta\n R/o. 522, Sector 15A\n Faridabad, Haryana \n\n\n 2. N.C.T. of Delhi\n\n Date of Institution of appeal : 30.10.13\n\n Arguments heard on : 08.07.14\n\n Order pronounced on : 26.07.14\n\n\n\n\nM/s. K.K. Sharma & Company Vs. Devender Gupta 1/18\n02406R0303942013\n O R D E R \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 107,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 175,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 269,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 461,
"end": 475,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 563,
"end": 578,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 774,
"end": 795,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 800,
"end": 814,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n \u00ae\nIn The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 22Nd Day Of March 2013\n\n Before:\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy\n\n Criminal Petition No.8943 Of 2010\n\nBetween:\n\nM/s. Mesh Trans Gears Private Limited,\nNo.884, Kamakshipalya Extension,\nMagadi Road, Bangalore - 560 079,\nRepresented by its Managing Director,\nRajiv S.Hundekar, No.52, 1st Floor,\nVinayaka Layout,\nMagadi Road,\nBangalore. ...Petitioner\n\n(By Shri. S.M. Chandrashekar, Senior Advocate for Shri R.J.\nBhusare, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\nDr. R. Parvathreddy,\nSon of R. Hampanna,\nMajor,\nOccupation: Medical Practitioner,\nresident of C/o. Kasturi Memorial Clinic,\nJamunal Medical Teen Khandil,\nAshok Road,\nRaichur. ...Respondent\n 2\n\n\n\n(By Shri. Prashant S. Kumman, Advocate for Shri. Veeresh B.\nPatil, Advocate )\n\n *****\n This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Code of\nCriminal Procedure, 1973 , by the advocate for the petitioner\npraying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to, quash the\nproceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 138 of\nNegotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal\nCode in C.C.No.420/2007 on the file of the Ii Judicial Magistrate\nFirst Class, Raichur.\n\n This petition, having been heard and reserved on\n26.02.2013 Circuit Bench at Gulbarga and coming on for\nPronouncement of Orders this day, the Court delivered the\nfollowing:-\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 105,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 233,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 328,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 570,
"end": 588,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 615,
"end": 627,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 650,
"end": 665,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 918,
"end": 936,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 957,
"end": 973,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n Dated This The 17th Day Of October, 2014\n Before\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Budihal R.B.\n\n Criminal Petition No.4562/2014\n\nBetween:\n\nShehzad Afzal Khan\nIndian, Aged 40 Years,\nR/O-905/906, United Tower,\nVaishalinagar,\nJogeshwari (West),\nMumbai,\nAnd Having Office At Tgls,\nOshiwara Link Road,\nBhagat Singh Nagar-2,\nNear Vibgyor School,\nGoregaon (West)\nMumbai-400 104. ...Petitioner\n\n(By Sri S.S Naganand, Sr. Adv.\nFor Sri. Sriranga S)\n\n\nAnd\n\nState Of Karnataka\nAt The Instance Of Lokayuktha Police,\nMysore Zilla Police Station,\nMysore.\nKarnataka-570 001. ... Respondent\n\n(By Sri. Venkatesh P Dalwai )\n\n\n This Crl.P Is Filed U/S.438 Cr.P.C By The\nAdvocate For The Petitioner Praying That This\nHon'Ble Court May Be Pleased To Enlarge The\nPetr. On Bail In The Event Of His Arrest In Crime\n 2\n\n\nNo.7/14 Of Mysore Lokayuktha P.S., Mysore, For\nThe Offencs P/U/S 13(1)(C)(D)(ii) And (iii) Of The\nPrevention Of Corruption Act, R/W Sec. 420 Of Ipc.\n\n\n This Criminal Petition Coming On For Orders\nThis Day, The Court Made The Following:\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 168,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 240,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 497,
"end": 509,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 529,
"end": 539,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 548,
"end": 566,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 701,
"end": 719,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 04.11.2006\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.Sathasivam \nand \nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S. Manikumar\n\n\n\nW.A. Nos.1213 to 1228, 1604 to 1607, 2044 of 1999, 100 to 102, 313 of 2001 \nand \nW.P. Nos.10365 of 1999, 6265, 7334, 11899, 11900, 13060, 14648, 16547, 17066 of 2000, 592, 722, 828, 878, 905, 1847, 1848, 2673, 2778, 2787, 8349, 8448, 8635, 11781, 11785 of 2001,7003 of 2002,9126 of 2003,35004 of 2004 & 25556 of 2004 \nand \nWpmp. Nos.9361, 10870, 23986 of 2000 and 3812 of 2001.\n\n\n\nW.A.No.1213 of 1999:\n\nMaria Grace Rural Middle School\nVenkatarayapuram, Nanguneri Taluk\nTirunelveli Kattabomman District\nrep. by its Correspondent\nRev.Fr. A. Antony Raj. \t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\n\tvs.\n\n1. The Government of Tamil Nadu\nrep. by its Secretary, Education\nScience and Technology Department\nFort St. George, Chennai 600 009.\n\n2. The Director of Elementary Education\nCollege Road, Chennai 600 006.\n\n3. The District Elementary Educational\nOfficer, Tirunelveli 2, \nTirunelveli Kattabomman District.\n\n\n4. The Assistant Educational Officer\nNanguneri Range, Nanguneri Post\nTirunelveli Kattabomman District.\t\t.. Respondents\n\n\n\n\nWrit Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letter patent against the order passed in W.P.No.4237 of 1996 dated 22.03.1999 made by His Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Shanmugham.\n\nWrit Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus as stated therein.\n ..\nMr. K. Ravichandra Babu, for appellant in WA.Nos.1213 to 1220 of 1999 and for the petitioner in WP.Nos.6265 and 7334 of 2000. \n\nMr. M. Joseph Thatheus Jerome for appellant in WA.Nos.1223 to 1228, 2044 of 1999 and for petitioner in W.P.Nos.14648 of 2000, 11899, 11900, 13060 of 2000 and 25556 of 2006. \n\nMr. V. Ramajagadeesan, for appellant in W.A.Nos.1604 to 1607 of 1999. \n\nMr. D. Rajendran, for appellant in WA.Nos.100 to 102, 313 of 2001. \n\nMr. T. Ravikumar for petitioner in WP.No.8349 of 2001. \n\nMr. Isaac Mohanlal for petitioner in WP.Nos.16547, 17066 of 2000, 592, 722, 828, 878, 905, 2778, 1847, 1848, 2673, 2787 of 2001, 7003 of 2002 and 10365 of 1999. \n\nMr. A. Immanuel for petitioner in WP.No.9126 of 2003. \n\nMr. S.N. Ravichandran for petitioner in WP.No.35004 of 2004. \n\nMr. I. Arokiasamy for petitioner in WP.Nos.8448, 8635, 11781 and 11785 of 2001. \n\nMr. R. Viduthalai, Advocate General assisted by Mr. M. Sekar, Special Government Pleader for respondents in W.A.Nos.1213 to 1228, 1604 to 1607, 2044 of 1999, 100 to 102, 313 of 2001 and all writ petitions. \u0005\u0005\u0005 Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 110,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 155,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 564,
"end": 662,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 743,
"end": 767,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 877,
"end": 939,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 949,
"end": 1038,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1049,
"end": 1143,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1505,
"end": 1524,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1633,
"end": 1658,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1808,
"end": 1825,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1880,
"end": 1892,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1949,
"end": 1961,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2006,
"end": 2020,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2169,
"end": 2180,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2225,
"end": 2242,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2288,
"end": 2301,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2370,
"end": 2383,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2418,
"end": 2426,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\"C.R\"\n In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable The Ag.Chief Justice Mr.Ashok Bhushan\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice A.M.Shaffique\n\n The Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai\n\n The Honourable Mr. Justice A.Hariprasad\n &\n The Honourable Mr. Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar\n\n Wednesday, The 21St Day Of January 2015/1St Magha, 1936\n\n Maca. No.585 of 2003 ( )\n -------------------------\n Against The Award In Op(Mv) No. 924/1996 On The Files Of The Motor\n Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda Dated 23-09-2002.\n\n\nAppellant(S)/2Nd Respondent:\n---------------------------------------------------\n\n The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,\n Chalakkudy,\n Now Represented By Its Assistant Manager,\n Regional Office, Metro Palace, Kochi-18.\n\n\n By Adv. Sri.Mathews Jacob (Sr.)\n\nRespondent(S):\n----------------------------\n\n 1. Poulose, S/O. Ouseph,\n Gopuram House, Residing At Nalukettu Desom,\n Koratty,Kizhakkummuri, Nalukettu P.O.\n\n 2. M.O. Kochagusthy,S/O. Ouseph,\n Maliekka House, Cheruvaloor P.O.,\n (Via) Koratty.\n\n R1 By Advs. Sri.P.V.Baby\n Sri.A.N.Santhosh\n R2 By Advs. Sri.K.I.Abdul Rasheed\n Sri.K.A.Shamsudeen\n Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar\n Smt.Bhama G. Nair\n\n This Motor Accident Claims Appeal Having Been Finally Heard\nOn 10-12-2014, The Court On 21-01-2015 Delivered The Following:\n\nKrj\n\f\n\n\n \"C.R\"\n Ashok Bhushan, Ag. Cj &\n A. M. Shaffique,\n A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai,\n A. Hariprasad,\n A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Jj\n = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n M.A.C.A No.585 of 2003\n = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n Dated this the 21st day of January, 2015\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 199,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 265,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 333,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 387,
"end": 399,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 502,
"end": 526,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 981,
"end": 1015,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1167,
"end": 1180,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1253,
"end": 1260,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1418,
"end": 1434,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1574,
"end": 1582,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1627,
"end": 1639,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1676,
"end": 1693,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1738,
"end": 1752,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1797,
"end": 1815,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1860,
"end": 1873,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2104,
"end": 2117,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2151,
"end": 2166,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2186,
"end": 2208,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2234,
"end": 2247,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2262,
"end": 2288,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu And The Honble Mrs Justice Anis \n\nWrit Petition No.8304 of 2014 \n\n05-08-2014 \n\nM/S.Deccan Chronicles Holdings Ltd, Secunderabad....Petitioner \n\nThe Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad and another . Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner:\nCounsel for Respondents: \nHead Note: \n? Cases referred:\n1. (2004) 4 Scc 311 \n2. (1998) 8 Scc 1\n3. (2003) 2 Scc 107 \n4. 2006 (6) Alt 695\n5. Air 2005 Sc 3165 \n6. Air 2003 Sc 649 \n7. Air 2014 Sc 544 \n8. (2007) 8 Scc 449 The Honble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu And The Honble Mrs Justice Anis Writ Petition No.8304 Of 2014 Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 66,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 163,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 232,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 539,
"end": 549,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 581,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice Pius C.Kuriakose\n &\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Babu Mathew P.Joseph\n\n Thursday, The 20Th Day Of December 2012/29Th Agrahayana 1934\n\n WP(Crl.).No. 520 of 2012 (S)\n ----------------------------\n\nPetitioner(S):\n-------------\n\n Abidha Beevi,\n Tc 39/1883, Karimadam Colony, Manacaud\n Thiruvananthapuram.\n\n By Advs.Sri.Blaze K.Jose\n Smt.N.Deepa\n Smt.Dayana David\n\nRespondent(S):\n--------------\n\n 1. State Of Kerala\n Represented By Its Secretary To Home Department\n Secretriat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001\n\n 2. The District Magistrate/District Collector (N/C)\n Thiruvananthapuram-695001\n\n 3. The Deputy Commissioner Of Police (L & O)\n Thiruvananthapuram-695001\n\n\n By Addl. State Prosecutor Sri.K.I. Abdul Rasheed\n\n This Writ Petition (Criminal) Having Been Finally Heard\nOn 17-12-2012, The Court On 20-12-2012 Delivered The Following:\n\f\nWP(Crl.).No. 520 of 2012 (S)\n\n\n Appendix\n\n\nPetitioner(S) Exhibits:\n\nP1: True Copy Of The Order Of Declaration Issued By The 2Nd\nRespondent No.S.13-55987/2012 Dated 23.06.2012 Served On\n29.06.2012\n\nP2: True Copy Of The Report Of The 3Rd Respondent\nNo.94/Camp/Dcp(L&O)Tvpm/2012 Dated 30.05.2012\n\nP3: True Copy Of The Judgment In C.C.No.351/2008 Of The Jfcm V,\nTvpm In Crime No.198/2008 Of Fort Police Station Dated 4/6/2012\n\nP4: True Copy Of The Order In C.Cno.395/2007 Of Jfcm-Ii, Tvpm In\nCrime No. 418/2009 Of Fort Police Station Dated 7-8-2012\n\nP5: True Copy Of The Order NO.G.O.(Rt) No.2633/2012/Home Dated\n05/9/2012.\n\n\n\nRespondents' Exhibits : Nil\n\n\n //True Copy//\n\n\n P.A. To Judge.\n\n\ndlk\n\f\n\n\n C.R.\n\n\n Pius C. Kuriakose\n &\n Babu Mathew P. Joseph, Jj.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------------\n W.P.(Crl.) No. 520 of 2012\n -------------------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 20th day of December, 2012\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 141,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 239,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 463,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 567,
"end": 579,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 602,
"end": 609,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 632,
"end": 644,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 687,
"end": 702,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 824,
"end": 904,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 920,
"end": 993,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1038,
"end": 1056,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2105,
"end": 2122,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2187,
"end": 2208,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. M.K. Nagpal, Special Judge\n (P.C.Act), Cbi\u00ad08, Central District, Tis Hazari\n Courts, Delhi\n\n\nCc No. : 146/15 (Old Cc No. 42/12)\nRc No. : 16(A)/2010\nPs : Cbi/Acb/Nd\nU/s : 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Pc Act, 1988\n\nUnique Id No. 02401R0341442011\n\nCentral Bureau of Investigation (Cbi)\n\nVersus\n\nGopal Krishan \nS/o Sh. Goverdhan Das \nR/o 16\u00adA/43, Dhruva Apartments\nSector\u00ad13, Rohini, Delhi\u00ad110085\n\n Date of Fir : 13.05.2010\n Date of Institution : 28.07.2011\n Arguments concluded on : 17.11.2015\n Date of Judgment : 02.12.2015\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 31,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 135,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 432,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 448,
"end": 461,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair\n\n Monday, The 9Th Day Of April 2012/20Th Chaithra 1934\n\n WP(C).No. 24960 of 2011 (T)\n -------------------------------------\n\nPetitioner:\n------------------\n\n Dr.Tresa Radhakrishnan,\n Registrar,\n Kerala University Of Fisheries And Ocean Studies,\n Panangad, Kochi-682 506.\n\n By Advs.Sri.P.Ravindran (Sr.)\n Smt.S.Sheeja Kumary(Ayoor)\n\nRespondent(S):\n------------------------\n\n 1. Government Of Kerala,\n Rep. By Secretary,\n Department Of Fisheries And Ports,\n Government Of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.\n\n 2. Kerala University For Fisheries And\n Ocean Studies, Panangad, Kochi-682 506.\n\n 3. Dr.Devika Pillai,\n Associate Professor,\n Kerala University Of Fisheries And Ocean Studies,\n Panangad, Kochi-682 506.\n\n R2 By Adv. Sri.Millu Dandapani\n R3 By Adv. Sri.S.P.Aravindakshan Pillay\n By Adv. Sri.S.A.Anand\n R1 By Adv. Sri. C.S.Manilal, Spl.Government Pleader\n\n This Writ Petition (Civil) Having Been Finally Heard On 09-04-2012,\nThe Court On The Same Day Delivered The Following:\n\n\n\nAs\n\f\nWpc.No. 24960/2011\n\n\n Appendix\n\n\n\nPetitioner(S) Exhibits:\n\n\nExt.P1: Copy Of The Appointment Order Dated 28.02.2011.\n\n\nExt.P2: Copy Of The Order Disaffiliating The Institutions\n From Parent University Dated 10.5.11.\n\n\nExt.P3: Copy Of The Order Relieving The Petitioner On\n Deputation From Kerala University Dated 11.4.11.\n\n\nExt.P4: Copy Of The Order Dated 16.09.11\n\n\n\nRespondents' Exhibits:\n\n\n\nExt.R3(A): Copy Of The Notification In G.O.(P) No. 85/2011/F&Pd Dated\n 16/9/2011 (Sro No. 581/2011).\n\n\nExt.R3(B): Copy Of The Report Of Transfer Of Charge Dated 17/09/2011.\n\n\n\n\n /True Copy/\n\n\n P.A. To Judge\n\n\n\n\nAs\n\f\n\n\n T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n W.P.(C) No. 24960 of 2011\n - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 9th day of April, 2012\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 165,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 434,
"end": 453,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 630,
"end": 641,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 677,
"end": 699,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 763,
"end": 783,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 974,
"end": 1044,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1096,
"end": 1109,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1299,
"end": 1314,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1343,
"end": 1367,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1393,
"end": 1402,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1432,
"end": 1443,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2442,
"end": 2464,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ajn\n 1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No.7852 Of 2008\n\n\n Karan Dileep Nevatia, Proprietor )\n\n\n\n\n \n of M/s. Kunal Vintners and M/s. )\n Sundeep Vintners, having his )\n office at Udyog Bhavan, 250-D, )\n Worli, Mumbia - 400 030. ) ... Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus \n 1. The Union of India, through )\n \n the Commerce Secretary, )\n Ministry of Commerce & )\n Industry, Udyog Bhavan, New )\n Delhi - 110 011. )\n \n\n\n 2. The State of Maharashtra, )\n through Secretary, Home )\n \n\n\n\n Department, Mantralaya, )\n Mumbai - 400 032. )\n 3. The Commissioner of State )\n\n\n\n\n\n Excise, Maharashtra State, )\n Old Custom House, Mumbai - )\n 400 023. )\n 4. The Collector of Mumbai )\n (City), Old Custom House, )\n\n\n\n\n\n Mumbai - 400 023. ) ... Respondents\n\n\n Mr. Erach Kotwal i/b Mr. Rajiv Deokar for the petitioner.\n\n Mr. D.J. Khambata, Addl. Solicitor General with Ms. S.V.\n Bharucha and Mr. D.A. Dube for respondent 1.\n\n\n\n\n \n Ajn\n 2\n\n\n\n\n \n Ms. S. S. Bhende, A.G.P. for respondents 2 to 4.\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram : Smt. Ranjana Desai &\n A.A. Sayed, Jj.\n Date On Which The Order Is Reserved : 16Th December, 2009. \n\n Date On Which The Order Is Pronounced : 5Th January, 2010. \n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 340,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 677,
"end": 691,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 921,
"end": 941,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1098,
"end": 1119,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1271,
"end": 1290,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1408,
"end": 1420,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1429,
"end": 1441,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1471,
"end": 1484,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1519,
"end": 1536,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1545,
"end": 1554,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1758,
"end": 1770,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1892,
"end": 1905,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1939,
"end": 1949,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n R\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 15Th Day Of July 2013\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri\n\n Writ Petition Nos.25964-25967 Of 2013 (Edn-Res)\n C/W Writ Petition No.25612/2013\n And Writ Petition Nos.26170-26171/2013\n\nWp Nos.25964-25967/2013:\n\nBetween :\n\n1. Sri A.M.Bhaskar,\n S/o Sri A.L.Mahadevegowda,\n Aged about 41 years,\n No.2099, Near 101,\n Ganapathy Temple,\n K.R.Mohalla,\n Mysore - 570 004.\n\n2. Sri Hirendra Shah,\n S/o Late Dhanji Shah,\n Aged about 49 years,\n No.472, Nirmala Nilaya,\n 2nd Main Road,\n C, 3rd Stage, 11th Block,\n Nagarabhavi,\n Bangalore - 560 072.\n\n3. Sri Dasaiah,\n S/o Late Mondaiah,\n Aged about 50 years,\n No.281, 6th Cross,\n Banni Mantapa,\n C Layout, Mysore - 570 015.\n 2\n\n\n4. Sri Jagadeesh,\n S/o Late B.Linganna,\n Aged about 40 years,\n No.1143/21,\n 7th Main, 4th Cross,\n Vidyaranyapuram,\n Mysore - 570 008. ... Petitioners\n\n (By Sri K.M.Nataraj, Senior Advocate for\n M/s. Haranahalli and Patil Associates)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. The State of Karnataka,\n Department of Education (Universities),\n M.S.Building, Bangalore - 560 001.\n Represented by the Chief Secretary.\n\n2. The Deputy Secretary to Government,\n Education Department,\n State of Karnataka,\n M.S.Building, Bangalore - 560 001.\n\n3. University of Mysore,\n Crawford Hall,\n Mysore - 575 015.\n Represented by the Registrar. ... Respondents\n\n (By Prof.Ravivarma Kumar, Ag with\n Sri R.Omkumar, Aga for R-1 and R-2:\n Sri T.P.Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Advocate for R-3)\n\n\n These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227\nof the constitution of India praying to quash impugned order\ndated 15.6.2013 passed by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-\nA in so far as petitioners are concerned and etc.\n 3\n\n\nWp Nos.25612/2013 And 26170-26171/2013:\n\nBetween:\n\n1. C.K.Jagadish,\n S/o C.Kempalaiah,\n Aged about 48 years,\n No.220, 6th Cross,\n Ananda Rao Circle,\n Gandhinagar,\n Bangalore - 560 009.\n\n2. T.H.Srinivasaiah,\n S/o T.Hucchaiah,\n Aged about 46 years,\n R/at No.35/9, 2nd Cross,\n Mico Layout, Attiguppe,\n Vijayanagar,\n Bangalore - 560 040.\n\n3. Dr.K.V.Acharya,\n S/o Late K.Srinivasacharya,\n Aged about 72 years,\n Professor and Former Chairman of\n Electronics Department, Uvc,\n No.300/16, 19th Main, 18th Cross,\n Mico Layout, Vijayanagar,\n Bangalore - 560 040. ... Petitioners\n\n (By Sri Ravishankar.D.R., Advocate)\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. State of Karnataka,\n Represented by the Secretary to the\n Education Department,\n M.S.Building, Ambedkar Beedhi,\n Bangalore - 560 001.\n 4\n\n\n2. Bangalore University,\n Represented by its Registrar,\n Gnanabharathi Campus,\n Bangalore - 560 072. ... Respondents\n\n (By Prof.Ravivarma Kumar, Ag with\n Sri R.Omkumar, Aga for R1\n Sri Rajendra Kumar Sungay, Advocate for R2)\n\n These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227\nof the constitution of India praying to declare that Section\n39(1) is ultra vires the object of Section 28(g) and Section 38\nof the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000 and etc.\n\n These writ petitions, having been heard and reserved for\norders on 03.07.2013, coming on for pronouncement this\nday, Ashok B.Hinchigeri J., delivered the following:\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 101,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 237,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 432,
"end": 443,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 615,
"end": 628,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 833,
"end": 840,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1026,
"end": 1035,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1252,
"end": 1263,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1355,
"end": 1373,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1519,
"end": 1605,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1657,
"end": 1677,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1816,
"end": 1831,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1858,
"end": 1867,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1901,
"end": 1926,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2276,
"end": 2288,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2451,
"end": 2467,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2643,
"end": 2654,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2956,
"end": 2972,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2999,
"end": 3017,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3202,
"end": 3222,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3384,
"end": 3399,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3433,
"end": 3442,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3470,
"end": 3491,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3878,
"end": 3896,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Judgment reserved on: 12.11.2013\n\n% Judgment delivered on: 26.03.2014\n\n+ Cs(Os) 1633/2012 and Cc 18/2013 and I.A. Nos. 10623/2012 &\n 16134/2012\n\n Karan Madaan And Others ..... Plaintiffs\n Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior\n Advocate along with Ms. Anu Bagai\n & Mr. Bhuvan Mishra, Advocates.\n versus\n\n Nageshwar Pandey ..... Defendant\n Through: Mr. Sunil K. Mittal, Mr. Kshitij\n Mittal & Mr. Anshul Mittal,\n Advocates along with defendant in\n person.\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 46,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 268,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 349,
"end": 367,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 431,
"end": 440,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 491,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 534,
"end": 550,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 641,
"end": 656,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 662,
"end": 715,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 722,
"end": 735,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 899,
"end": 911,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat At\n Jabalpur\n\n M.Cr.C. No.12735/2012\n\n\n Shankarlal Khambra\n Vs.\n Smt. Malti Verma & others\n\n\nFor petitioner : Shri Avinash Zargar Advocate.\nFor respondents No.1 & 3 : Shri Anuj Agrawal, Advocate.\nFor respondent/State : Smt. Jhanvi Pandit, Public Prosecutor\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 198,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 294,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 362,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 428,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 484,
"end": 497,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.MC.No. 4159 of 2003()\n\n\n1. V.S. Achuthanandan, Chief Editor,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. G. Kamalamma, D/O. Gowrikutty Amma,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State Of Kerala, Represented By\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.K.Balachandran (Mangalath)\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K.Mohanan\n\n Dated :22/04/2008\n\n O R D E R\n V.K.Mohanan,J. (C.R)\n ----------------------------------------------\n Crl.M.C.Nos.4159/2003, 5631/2003\n &\n 755 Of 2004\n ----------------------------------------------\n Dated, 22nd April, 2008.\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 91,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 191,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 278,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 347,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 398,
"end": 415,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 441,
"end": 452,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 514,
"end": 525,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\t\t\t\t\t\nDated : 1.12.2011\n\nCoram :\n\nThe Honourable Mrs.JUSTICE R.Banumathi\nand\nThe Honourable Ms.JUSTICE R.Mala\n\nO.S.A.No.365 of 2011\n\n\nMatrix Laboratories limited\n1-1-151/1, 4th Floor,\nSai Ram Towers\nAlexander Road\nSecunderabad \u0016 500 003. \t\t \t... Appellant\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\nVs.\n\n1.F.Hoffman \u0016 La Roche Ltd.,\n Group Headquarter\n Grenzacherstrasse 124\n Ch-4070, Basel Switzerland\n rep.by its Constituted Attorney\n Ms.Sujatha Subramaniam\n\n2.Osi Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,\n41, Pinellawn Road,\nMelville,\nNew York, 11747,\nUnited States of America\nrep.by its Constituted Attorney\nMs.Sujatha Subramaniam\t\t.... Respondents\n\n\tPrayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent read with Order Xxxvi Rule 1 of O.S.Rules against the Order dated 19.8.2011 in Application No.5529 of 2010 in Application No.5166 of 2010 in C.S.No.801 of 2010 on the file of this Court.\t\t\t\t\n\n\tFor Appellant\t\t: Mr.T.V.Ramanujam,\n\t\t\t\t Senior Counsel\n\t\t\t\t for\n\t\t\t\t Mr.Feroz Ali\n\n\tFor Respondents\t\t: Mr.P.S.Raman,\n\t\t\t\t Senior Counsel\n\t\t\t\t for\n\t\t\t\t Mr.M.S.Bharath\n\n\t\t\tJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 116,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 153,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 205,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 339,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 458,
"end": 477,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 479,
"end": 506,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 615,
"end": 634,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 940,
"end": 953,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1003,
"end": 1012,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1037,
"end": 1046,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1096,
"end": 1107,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\npdp\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1076 Of 2008\n\n\n\n\n \n Adnan Bilal Mulla\n Aged 29 yrs. Occ: Business\n Resident of Village Borivali,\n\n\n\n\n \n Post: Padgha, Taluka - Bhiwandi,\n Dist. Thane (Presently in judicial\n custody at Thane Central Prison, Thane) .. Appellant\n (Org.Accd. No.15)\n\n\n\n\n \n Vs. \n The State of Maharashtra\n Through Dcb, Cid, Police Hq,\n \n Crawford Market, Mumbai. .. Respondent\n (Org. Complainant)\n\n Mr. Akhil Sibbal i/by Mr. Mubin Solkar for appellant.\n \n\n\n Mrs. Aruna Pai, Addl. P.P. for respondent.\n \n\n\n\n Coram: B. H. Marlapalle &\n Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, Jj.\n\n Reserved on : February 11, 2010.\n\n\n\n\n\n Pronounced on : February 22, 2010.\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 335,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 778,
"end": 798,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1020,
"end": 1032,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1042,
"end": 1054,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1095,
"end": 1104,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1182,
"end": 1198,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1243,
"end": 1259,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court Of The Ix Addl. Small Causes And Addl.\n Mact., Bangalore, (Scch-7)\n\n Dated this, the 24th day of August, 2015.\n\nPresent : Smt.Indira Mailswamy Chettiyar,\n B.Com., LL.B.(Spl.),LL.M.,\n Ix Addl. Small Causes Judge & Xxxiv Acmm,\n Court of Small Causes,\n Member, Mact-7, Bangalore.\n\n\n M.V.C.No.3437/2013\n C/w. M.V.C.No.3438/2013\n\nLavanya, .....Petitioner In\nD/o T. Srinivas, M.V.C.No.3437/2013\nAged about 22 years,\nR/at No.1/28,\nChunchanaghatta,\nKonanakunte Cross,\nSharadanagar,\nKanakapura Main Road,\nBangalore - 560 062.\n\nPrevious Address.\n\nNo.2-303 /1-285,\nPuliyan Thoppu Street,\nArakkonam Taluk,\nVellur District.\n\n(By Smt.Shoba. G., Adv.,)\n\n V/s\n\n1. National Insurance Company Ltd., .....Respondents INDivision - Iii, 15-17-19, M.V.C.No.3437/2013 Shri Lakshmi Complex, St. Marks Road, Scch-7 2 MVC.No.3437 & 3438/2013 Bangalore - 560 001. \n\n(Insurer of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-D-6688) (Policy No.60220031126165005183, Valid from 19.03.2013 to 18.03.2014)\n\n2. Ravi. B., No.183, 1st 'F' Cross, 3rd Stage, 4th Block, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore. \n\n(Owner of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-D-6688) ((R-1 By Sri. S.S.Pandit, Adv.,) (R-2 Exparte) .....Petitioner In Vinay.T M.V.C.No.3438/2013 S/o Thimmappa C.M., Age 31 years, R.at No.1/28, Chunchanagatta, Konanakunte Cross, Sharadanagar, Kanakapura Main Road, Bangalore - 560 062. \n\n(By Smt.Shobha. G. Adv.,) V/s\n\n1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Division - Iii, 15-17-19, .....Respondents In Shri Lakshmi Complex, M.V.C.No.3438/2013 St. Marks Road, Bangalore - 560 001. \n\n(Insurer of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-D-6688) (Policy No.60220031126165005183, Valid from 19.03.2013 to 18.03.2014)\n\n2. Ravi.B, No.183, 1st 'F' Cross, 3rd Stage, 4th Block, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore. \n\n(Owner of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-51-D-6688) (R-1 By Sri. S.S.Pandit, Adv.,) (R-2 Exparte) Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 188,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 468,
"end": 475,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 815,
"end": 824,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 874,
"end": 905,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1250,
"end": 1258,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1407,
"end": 1417,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1459,
"end": 1466,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1636,
"end": 1650,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1662,
"end": 1693,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1953,
"end": 1959,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2107,
"end": 2117,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n\n Writ Petition No.14819/2014\n\n Smt. Sangeeta Bansal\n\n Vs.\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh & others\n\n____________________________________________________________\n\nShri Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri\nManikant Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner.\n\nShri R.P. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents\nNo.1 and 2.\n\nShri Siddharth Seth, learned Counsel for respondent No.4.\n\nShri V.S. Shroti, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri\nAshish Shroti, learned Counsel for the intervenor in I.A.\nNo.12964/2014.\n\nShri V.S. Shukla, learned Counsel for the intervenor in I.A.\nNo.13970/2014.\n____________________________________________________________\n\nPresent : Hon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi\n____________________________________________________________\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 131,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 203,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 296,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 353,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 408,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 481,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 526,
"end": 537,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 579,
"end": 592,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 658,
"end": 669,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 822,
"end": 834,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Keralaat Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice K.T.Sankaran\n &\n The Honourable Mr.Justice M.L.Joseph Francis\n\n Wednesday, The 3Rd Day Of April 2013/13Th Chaithra 1935\n\n WP(C).No. 29820 of 2012 (B)\n\nPetitioner:\n\n Rajesh Babu @ Unni,S/O.Rajendra Babu,\n Kallingal Veedu, M.C.Puram,\n Thazham Thekku Cherry, Meenadu Village\n Kollam Taluk, Kollam District.\n\n By Adv. Sri.C.Rajendran\n\nRespondents:\n\n 1. The State Of Kerala\n Represented By The Chief Secretary, Secretariat\n Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.\n\n 2. The District Magistrate, Kollam District, Kollam - 691 013.\n\n\n 3. The City Police Commissioner, Kollam City,\n Kollam District- 691 001.\n\n 4 .The Assistant Police Commissioner, Chathannoor,\n Kollam District.\n\n 5. The Police Circle Inspector, Kottiyam, Kollam District.\n\n 6. The Circle Inspector Of Police, Chathannoor Circle\n Kollam District.\n\n 7. The Sub Inspector Of Police, Paravoor Police Station\n Kollam District.\n\n 8. The Sub Inspector Of Police, Chathannoor Police Station\n Kollam District.\n\n R2,R5 By Director General Of Prosecution Sri.Asaf Ali\n\n This Writ Petition (Civil) Having Been Finally Heard On\n3-04-2013, The Court On The Same Daydelivered The Following:\n\f\n Appendix\n\nPetitioner'S Exhibits:\n\n\nExt.P1 Photocopy Of The Detention Order Bearing No.9-\n 23436/Kaa(P)/12 Dated 16.4.2012.\n\nExt.P2 Photocopy Of The Grounds Of Detention.\n\nExt.P3 Photocopy Of The Final Report Dated 26.3.2012.\n\nExt.P4 Photocopy Of The Forwarding Letter Dated 26.3.2012.\n\nExt.P5 Photocopy Of The Preliminary Report.\n\nExt.P6 Photocopy Of The Certificates Issued By The Fourth\n Respondent To The Effect That The Petitioner Is Liable\n To Be Propceeded Under Kaa(P)A Dated 16.3.2012.\n\nExt.P7 Photocopy Of The Certificates Issued By The 5Th\n Respondent To The Effect That The Petitioner Is Liable\n To Be Proceeded Under Kaa(P)A Dated 16.3.2012.\n\nExt.P8 Photocopy Of The Order Dated 26.3.2011.\n\nExt.P9 Photocopy Of The Grounds For Ext.P8 Detention Order.\n\nExt.P10 Photocopy Of The Order Under Section 10(4) Of Kaa(P)A\n To Release The Petitioner From Detention.\n\nExt.P11 Photocopy Of The Petition Dated 8.10.2012.\n\nExt.P12 Photocopy Of The Reply Dated 31.10.2012.\n\nExt.P13 Photocopy Of The Index Of The Documents Furnished To\n The Second Respondent By The Third Respondent.\n\nExt.P14 Photocopy Of The Index Of The Documents Furnished To\n The Third Respondent By The 8Th Respondent.\n\nExt.P15 Photocopy Of The Writ Petition Without Exhibits.\n\nExt.P16 Photocopy Of The Judgment Dated 4.4.2012.\n\nExt.P17 Photocopy Of The Writ Petition (C) No.10487/2012 Without\n Exhibits.\n\nExt.P18 Photocopy Of The Judgment Dated 6.6.2012.\n\nExt.P19 Photocopy Of The Petition.\n\nExt.P20 Photocopy Of The Order Datede 17.7.2012.\n\nExt.P21 Photocopy Of The Affidavit.\n\nExt.P22 Photocopy Of The Relevant Portions In Kaa(P)A\n Containing The Classes.\n\nExt.P23 Photocopy Of The Representation Dated 29.2.2012.\n\f\nExt.P24 Photocopy Of The Representation Dated 10.1.2013.\n\nExt.P25 Photocopy Of The Receipt Addressed To District\n Collector Dated 1/3/2012.\n\nEXT.P25(a) Photocopy Of The Receipt Addressed To Home Secretary\n Dated 1.3.2012.\n\nEXT.P25(b) Photocopy Of The Receipt Addressed To Chief Minister\n Dated 1.3.2012.\n\nEXT.P25(c) Photocopy Of The Receipt Addressed To Chief Secretary\n Dated 1.3.2012.\n\nExt.P26 Photocopy Of The Judgment Of This Court Dated 7.1.2013.\n\n\nRespondents' Exhibits: Nil\n\n\n\n //True Copy//\n\n\nAhz/\n\f\n\n\n K.T.Sankaran &\n M.L.Joseph Francis, Jj.\n ----------------------------------------------------\n W.P.(C) No.29820 Of 2012 B\n ----------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2013\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 138,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 234,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 372,
"end": 390,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 553,
"end": 564,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 592,
"end": 607,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 715,
"end": 769,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 785,
"end": 856,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 871,
"end": 937,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 952,
"end": 1003,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1017,
"end": 1087,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1102,
"end": 1174,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1189,
"end": 1264,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1320,
"end": 1328,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4009,
"end": 4021,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 4044,
"end": 4062,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 18.09.2006\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.A.P.SHAH, Chief Justice\nand\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.Chandru\n\nWrit Appeal Nos. 336 of 2003, 997 of 2006 and 1006 of 2006 \nand\nconnected miscellaneous petitions\n------------\n\n\n\nW.A.No.336 of 2003\n\nE.Ramasamy\t\t\t\t\t\t\u0005. Appellant\n\n\tVs.\n\n1. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n rep. by its Chairman,\n 800, Anna Salai,\n Chennai \u0016 600 002.\n\n2. Chief Engineer (General)\n Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n 800, Anna Salai,\n Chennai \u0016 600 002.\t\t\t\t\t\u0005. Respondents\n\n\n\nW.A.No.997 of 2006\n\n1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board\n rep. by its Chairman,\n No.800, Anna Salai,\n Chennai \u0016 600 002.\n\n2. The Chief Engineer/Personnel\n Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n 800, Anna Salai,\n Chennai \u0016 2.\n\n3. The Additional Chief Engineer\n Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle,\n Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n Meenatchinaickenpatti,\n Dindigul \u0016 2.\n\n4. The Superintending Engineer (Incharge)\n Dindigul Electricity Distribution Circle,\n Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n Meenatchinaickenpatti,\n Dindigul \u0016 2.\t\t\t\t\t\u0005. Appellants\n\n\tVs.\n\nN.Karthick\t\t\t\t\t\t\u0005. Respondent\n\n\n\n\nW.A.No. 1006 of 2006 \n\n1. The Chairman,\n Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n 800, Anna Salai,\n Chennai \u0016 2.\n\n2. The Superintending Engineer,\n Erode Electricity \n Distribution Circle/TNEB,\n Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n Erode.\t\t\t\t\t\t\u0005. Appellants\n\n\tVs.\n\nM.Rubasri\t\t\t\t\t\t\u0005. Respondent\n\n\n\n\tPrayer: \n\t\nW.A.No.336 of 2003: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the \norder of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.39441 of \n2002 dated 25.10.2002. \n\n\tW.A.No.997 of 2006: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the \norder of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.17640 of \n2004 dated 21.03.2006. \n\t\n\tW.A.No.1006 of 2006: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the \norder of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.4333 of \n2006 dated 22.03.2006. \n\n\nFor Appellant in\n\t\t\tW.A.No.336 of 2003\t:::: Mr. K.M.Ramesh\n\n\t\t\tFor Respondents in\n\t\t\tW.A.No.336/2003\t\t:::: Mr.M.Vaidyanathan\n\n\n\t\t\tFor Appellants in\n\t\t\tW.A.No.997 of 2006\t::: Mr.M.Vaidyanathan\n\n\t\t\tFor Respondent in\n\t\t\tW.A.No.997 of 2006\t:::: Mr.T.S.Sivagnanam\n\n\t\t\tFor Appellants in\n\t\t\tW.A.No.1006 of 2006\t:::: Mr.M.Vaidyanathan\n\n\t\t\tFor Respondent in\n\t\t\tW.A.No.1006/2006\t:::: Mr.S.Selvathirumurugan\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 96,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 151,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 297,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 354,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 430,
"end": 531,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 582,
"end": 610,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 692,
"end": 787,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 797,
"end": 946,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 956,
"end": 1114,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1141,
"end": 1151,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1205,
"end": 1285,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1295,
"end": 1416,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1444,
"end": 1453,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2058,
"end": 2068,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2120,
"end": 2134,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2188,
"end": 2202,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2255,
"end": 2269,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2323,
"end": 2337,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2388,
"end": 2407,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n High Court Of Madahya Pradesh : At Jabalpur\n W.A.No. 353/07\n Shyam Narayan Sharma & Ors.\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n_______________________________________________\n Shri K.K.Trivedi, Adv.for appellants.\n\nShri P.K.Kaurav,Deputy Ag for respondents 1 to\n 4.\n Shri S.Paul, Advocate for intervenor.\n\n Shri Rajendra Tiwari,Sr.Adv.with Shri Udyan\n Tiwari and Shri T.K.Khadka, Counsel for\n respondents 5 to 7.\n______________________________________________\n W.P.No.14599/07\n Rajendra Prasad\n Vs.\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n______________________________________________\n Shri R.N.Singh, Sr.Adv.with Shri B.Nigam for\n petitioner.\n Shri P.K.Kaurav, Deputy Ag for State.\n\n W.P.No.2579/09\n D.S.Kushwaha & Ors.\n Vs.\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Sr.Adv.with Shri Udyan\n Tiwari and Shri T.K.Khadka, Advocates for\n petitioner.\n\n Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.AG for State.\n Shri K.K.Trivedi and Shri Sanjay Agarwal,\n Advocates for intervenors.\n\n &\n W.P.No.2934/09\n Santosh Kumar Tripathi\n Vs.\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n Shri Sujoy Paul, Adv.for petitioner.\n Shri P.K.Kaurav, Deputy Ag for State.\n_______________________________________________\n 2\n\n\n\n\n Db: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Arun Mishra&\n Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C.Sinho\n\n\n Order passed on :19/20-07-2010\n\n\n Whether approved for reporting :Yes.\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 113,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 185,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 255,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 293,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 365,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 400,
"end": 415,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 449,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 459,
"end": 469,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 611,
"end": 626,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 665,
"end": 688,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 742,
"end": 751,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 770,
"end": 777,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 821,
"end": 831,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 899,
"end": 911,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 956,
"end": 979,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 986,
"end": 1001,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1020,
"end": 1025,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1044,
"end": 1054,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1113,
"end": 1123,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1150,
"end": 1161,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1171,
"end": 1185,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1296,
"end": 1318,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1358,
"end": 1381,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1393,
"end": 1403,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1435,
"end": 1445,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1584,
"end": 1604,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1637,
"end": 1646,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Criminal Appeal (Db) No.43 of 1992\n\n Against the judgment of conviction dated 02.04.1992 and order of sentence\n dated 03.04.1992 passed by Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, 4th Additional\n Sessions Judge, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 1988/112 of 1990.\n===========================================================\n1. Sunaina Yadav @ Sunil Yadav\n2. Pramod Yadav, Both sons of Raghunandan Yadav\n3. Yugal Yadav, son of Somar Yadav\n4. Ramdeo Yadav, son of Yugal Yadav All resident of village Churaman Bigha, P.S. Rahui, District Nalanda. \n\n5. Bijendra Yadav, son of Raghu Yadav resident of village Mahamadpur, P.S.Chandi, District Nalanda. \n\n .... .... Appellants Versus State of Bihar .... .... Respondent with =========================================================== Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 157 of 1992 Against the judgment of conviction dated 02.04.1992 and order of sentence dated 03.04.1992 passed by Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 1988/112 of 1990. =========================================================== Raghunandan Yadav, son of late Ganauri Yadav, resident of village Churaman Bigha, P.S. Rahui, District Nalanda .... .... Appellant Versus State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Appellant in both appeals : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad-II, Advocate For the State in both appeals : Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh and Honourable Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 426,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 430,
"end": 442,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 489,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 513,
"end": 525,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 621,
"end": 635,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 749,
"end": 763,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1159,
"end": 1176,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1297,
"end": 1311,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1446,
"end": 1465,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1515,
"end": 1526,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1625,
"end": 1646,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1674,
"end": 1695,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Principal City Civil &\n Sessions Judge, At Bengaluru\n\n Dated this the 27th day of August, 2015\n\nPresent : Sri Gunaki Narendrakumar Basavaraj,\n B.A. LL.B(Spl.)\n Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge,\n Bengaluru.\n\n S.C.No.1025/2010\n\n\n Complainant : The State of Karnataka,\n By R.T. Nagar Police,\n Bengaluru.\n\n [Rep. by Sri N.M. Bellakki,\n Public Prosecutor]\n\n Vs.\n\n Accused : Bejoy Samuel,\n S/o P.S. Samuel,\n Aged 29 years,\n No.18, 2nd Floor, 1st 'B' Cross,\n Muthappa Block, Ganganagar,\n R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru - 32,\n Native of No.105,\n Good Shepherd Colony,\n Kolar Road, Bhopal,\n Madhya Pradesh.\n\n [By Sri Siji Malayil, Advocate]\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 185,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 425,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 555,
"end": 568,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 682,
"end": 694,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1172,
"end": 1184,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.975 of 2013\n======================================================\n1. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh S/O Surendra Prasad Singh R/O Flat No. 404,\nSuryalok Apartment, Budha Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, Patna-800001\n2. Smt. Arunima Kumari Singh W/O Rajeev Kumar Singh R/O Flat No.\n404, Suryalok Apartment, Budha Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, Patna-\n800001\n3. Mr. Anupam Raj Kumar S/O Late Ram Bahadur Singh R/O Flat No. 404,\nSuryalok Apartment, Budha Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, Patna-800001\n\n .... .... Petitioner/s\n Versus\n1. Chairman Cum Managing Director Indian Bank, Corporate Office, P.B.\nNo. 5555, 254-60, Awai Shanmugam Salai, Royapattah, Chennai- 600014\n2. Authorized Officer Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Govind Bhawan, 1st\nFloor, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna-800001\n3. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal 34, Bank Road, Opp. New\nPolice Line, Lodhipur, Patna-800001\n\n .... .... Respondent/s\n======================================================\n with\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3705 of 2013\n======================================================\n1. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh S/O Surendra Prasad Singh R/O Flat No. 404,\nSuryalok Apartment, Budha Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, Patna - 800001\n2. Smt. Arunima Kumari Singh W/O Rajeev Kumar Singh R/O Flat No.\n404, Suryalok Apartment, Budha Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, Patna -\n800001\n\n .... .... Petitioner/s\n Versus\n1. Chairman Cum Managing Director, Indian Bank, Corporate Office, P.B.\nNo. 5555, 254-60, Awai Shanmugam Salai, Royapattah, Chennai - 600014\n2. Authorized Officer, Indian Bank, Zonal Office, Govind Bhawan, 1st\nFloor, New Dak Bunglow Road, Patna - 800001\n3. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, 34, Bank Road, Opp. New\nPolice Line, Lodipur, Patna - 800001\n\n .... .... Respondent/s\n======================================================\n with\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1749 of 2013\n======================================================\n1. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh S/O Surendra Prasad Singh R/O Flat No. 404,\nSuryalok Apartment, Budha Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, Patna-800001\n2. Smt. Arunima Kumari Singh W/O Rajeev Kumar Singh R/O Flat No.\n404, Suryalok Apartment, Budha Colony, P.S. Budha Colony, Patna-\n800001\n3. Mr. Anupam Raj Kumar S/O Late Ram Bahadur Singh R/O Flat No. 404,\nSuryalok Apartment, Budha Colony, P.S.- Budha Colony, Patna-800001\n Patna High Court Cwjc No.975 of 2013 (5) dt.09-09-2013 2\n\n\n\n\n .... .... Petitioner/s\n Versus\n 1. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Indian Bank Corporate Office, P.B.\n No. 5555, 254-60, Awai Shanmugam Salai, Royapattah, Chennai- 600014\n 2. Asst. General Manager Indian Bank, Biscomaun Bhawan, West Gandhi\n Maidan, Patna-800001\n 3. Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal 34, Bank Road, Opp. New\n Police Line, Lodhipur, Patna-800001\n\n .... .... Respondent/s\n ======================================================\n Appearance :\n (In Cwjc No.975 of 2013)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha\n For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dr. Binay Kumar Singh\n (In Cwjc No.3705 of 2013)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha\n For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dr. Binay Kumar Singh\n (In Cwjc No.1749 of 2013)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha\n For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dr. Binay Kumar Singh\n ======================================================\n Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Kishore Kumar\n Mandal\n Oral Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 179,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 318,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 434,
"end": 450,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 680,
"end": 722,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 818,
"end": 848,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 928,
"end": 1029,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1321,
"end": 1339,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1460,
"end": 1480,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1710,
"end": 1753,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1850,
"end": 1881,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1963,
"end": 2066,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2355,
"end": 2373,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2492,
"end": 2512,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2628,
"end": 2644,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3015,
"end": 3058,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3189,
"end": 3222,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3314,
"end": 3501,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3717,
"end": 3733,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3785,
"end": 3802,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3893,
"end": 3909,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3961,
"end": 3978,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4069,
"end": 4085,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4137,
"end": 4154,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4276,
"end": 4289,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri P.S. Teji : District & Sessions \n Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\nSc No.28/2012\nUnique Case Id No.02402R0130802012\n\nFir No.28/2012\nPolice Station Madhu Vihar\nUnder Section 186/353/307/411/482 Ipc &\nU/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act\n\nState Versus (1)Rashid\n S/o Bhoora Pahlwan\n R/o 245/30, Gali No.4,\n Allah Colony, Mandawali,\n Delhi.\n\n (2)Suresh @ Subhash\n S/o Murari Lal\n R/o H.No.168, Sainik Enclave,\n Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,\n Delhi.\n\nDate of Institution : 15.05.2012\nDate of judgment reserved : 21.03.2014\nDate of judgment : 29.03.2014\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 98,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 263,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 316,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 638,
"end": 656,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Dr. Kamini Lau: Addl. Sessions \n Judge\u00adIi (North\u00adWest) : Rohini Courts: Delhi\n\n\nSessions Case No. 125/2013\nUnique Case Id: 02404R0147582013\n\nState Vs. 1) Rakesh @ Nipal\n S/o Sh. Lala Ram\n R/o D\u00ad277, Gp Block, \n Pitampura, Delhi.\n (Convicted)\n\n 2) Sonu @ Chhotu\n S/o Late Sh. Bindeshwar\n R/o Vill. Mirjapur, Bawan Tolla\n Ps : Birol, Distt.: Darbanga, Bihar\n (Convicted)\n\n 3) Raman @ Firoz\n S/o Sh. Nathu Ram\n R/o Jhuggi No. 55/195,\n Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.\n (Convicted)\nFir No. : 40/2013\nPolice Station : Maurya Enclave\nUnder Section : 394/397/34 Indian Penal Code\n\nDate of Institution in Sessions Court : 31.05.2013\nDate when judgment reserved : 17.12.2013\nDate when judgment pronounced : 03.01.2014\n\n\nState Vs. Rakesh @ Nipal etc., Fir No. 40/2013, Police Station : Maurya Enclave Page No.1 of 70\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 98,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 167,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 227,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 553,
"end": 566,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 927,
"end": 940,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1587,
"end": 1592,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1597,
"end": 1611,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice K.M.Joseph\n &\n The Honourable Mr.Justice K.Harilal\n\n Friday, The 11Th Day Of July 2014/20Th Ashadha, 1936\n\n WP(C).No. 23656 of 2012 (F)\n ----------------------------\nPetitioners :\n-------------------\n 1. Aishabeevi, Aged 35 Years,\n W/O.Abdul Jeleel, Kuzhikadavil House,\n West Kadungallur, Alwaye-683 110.\n\n 2. Abdul Jaleel, Kuzhikadavil House,\n West Kadungallur, Alwaye-683 110.\n\n By Adv. Sri.P.K.Manojkumar\n\nRespondents :\n----------------------\n 1. The Superintendent Of Police,\n Ernakulam Rural\n Office Of The Superintendent Of Police,\n Rural, Alwaye-683 101.\n\n 2. The Circle Inspector Of Police,\n Alwaye-683 101.\n\n 3. The Superintendent Of Police,\n Binanipuram Police Station, Binanipuram,\n Alwaye-683 110.\n\n 4. Kerala Karshaka Thozhilalil Union,\n Paravoor Area Committee, Represented By Mr.N.A.Ali,\n Area Secretary, Cpm Paravoor Area Committee,\n Cpm Area Committee Office, Nar Muncipal Office,\n North Paravoor-683 513.\n\n 5. The Secretary\n Alangad Grama Panchayath, Neerkode P.O., Pin-683 511.\n\n R1 To R3 By State Attorney Sri. P.Vijayaraghavan\n By Government Pleader Sri. Shyamkumar\n R4 By Advs. Sri.Peeyus A.Kottam\n Sri.T.A.Shaji\n\n This Writ Petition (Civil) Having Been Finally Heard\n On 21/3/2013 , The Court On 11-07-2014 Delivered The\n Following:\nBp\n\f\nWP(C).No. 23656 of 2012 (F)\n\n\n Appendix\nPetitioner(S) Exhibits\n\nExhibit P1. The Photostat Copy Of The Sale Deed No.301/2012\n Dated 26/6/2012 Issued By The Sub Registrar Office, Alangad,\n Erankulam District.\n\nExhibit P2. The Photostat Copy Of The Order Of Rejection\n No.A4-7183/2011 Dated 22/10/2011 Issued By The\n Secretary,Alangad Grama Panchayath, Ernakulam District\n To The Benadict Cerafine.\n\nExhibit P3. The Photostat Copy Of Order Dated 30/1/2012 In Appeal\n No.830/2011 Passed By The Tribunal For Local Self\n Government Institutions.\n\nExhibit P4. The Photostat Copy Of Permit No.A2.39/11-12(P) Dated 3/3/2012\n Issued By The Secretary, Alangad Grama Panchayath,\n Ernakulam District To The Benadict Cerafine.\n\nExhibit P5. The Photostat Copy Of The Complaint Dated Nil Submitted\n By The I St Petitioner To The Sub Inspector Of Police.\n\nRespondents' Exhibits :\n\nEXT.R4(a): Copy Of The Order No. L10/72679/2008 Dt 30/4/2012 Of The\n District Collector, Ernakulam.\n\n\n //True Copy//\n\n\n\n\n P.A. To Judge\n\nBp\n\f\n\n\n K.M.Joseph & K.Harilal, Jj\n -------------------------------------------------\n W.P(C) No.23656 of 2012\n --------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 11th day of July, 2014\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 155,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 269,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 516,
"end": 526,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 651,
"end": 663,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 757,
"end": 771,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 825,
"end": 964,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 982,
"end": 1036,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1054,
"end": 1159,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1173,
"end": 1206,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1441,
"end": 1515,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1562,
"end": 1578,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1630,
"end": 1640,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1669,
"end": 1684,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1716,
"end": 1725,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3178,
"end": 3188,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3191,
"end": 3200,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Chattisgarh At Bilaspur \n\n Crr No 633 of 2006\n\n Dr Premish Verma\n\n ...Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n Lokesh Sharma\n\n ...Respondent\n\n! Applicant by Shri Ashish Shrivastava\n\n learned counsel\n\n^ Non Applicant by Shri Pravin Kumar Tulsiyan\n\n with Shri Vivek Rathore learned counsel\n\n Honble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh J\n\n Dated: 13/11/2007\n\n: Order\n\n\n\n Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of\n\n the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 44,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 106,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 203,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 288,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 366,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 399,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 460,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Paramjit Singh : Addl. District Judge\n (West)\u00ad02, Tis Hazari Courts:Delhi \n\n\n\nRca No. 43/2013\nUnique Id Case No. 02401C0490802013\n\nSh. H. L. Kohli\n\nS/o Sh. Devi Ditta Mal Kohli\n\nR/o 48/2, Ist Floor, East Patel Nagar\n\nNew Delhi. ... Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSh. Rakesh Basra\n\nS/o late Sh. K.L. Basra\n\nR/o 13319, Holliger Ave.\n\nFairfax, Va\u00ad22033, Usa\n\nThrough his Attorney\n\nSh. Subhash Basra\n\nS/o Sh. K.L. Basra\n\nR/o 48/8, East Patel Nager\n\nNew Delhi. ... Respondent\n\n\nDate of institution of the appeal \u00ad27.09.2013\nDate on which, judgment have been reserved\u00ad04.08.2014 \nDate of pronouncement of judgment\u00ad19.08.2014\n\n\nRca No. 43/2013 1/14\n 2\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 39,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 185,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 410,
"end": 422,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 526,
"end": 539,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Santosh Kumar Singh Metropolitan\n Magistrate (Traffic) Dwarka Courts: Delhi\n\nChallan No: 714097\nCircle: Mayapuri\nVehicle Number: Dl 8Sax 7630\nU/S: 185, 146/196, 128/177, 129/177 and 132/149 of Motor Vehicles Act\n\n In The Matter Of:-\n\n State\n Vs.\n Kunwar Pal\n S/O Sh. Kanhiya Lal\n R/O Rzp-2/225, P Block, Mata Mandir Road, Dayal Park,\n West Sagarpur, New Delhi\n\n\n\nDate of institution : 25.04.2013\nDate of reserving Judgment/Order : 03.03.2014\nDate of pronouncement of Judgment/Order: 18.03.2014\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 39,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 335,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 410,
"end": 420,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Dilip B.Bhosale And The Honble Sri Justice A.Ramalingeswara Rao \n\nWrit Appeal Nos.233 of 2013 and batch \n\n19-03-2015 \n\nGowda Rajender & others Appellants. \n\nDr.M.Radha Krishna & others Respondents. \n\nCounsel for Appellants :C.V.Mohan Reddy, \n learned senior counsel.\n Deepak Bhattacharjee \n\nCounsel for Respondents:G.Vidya Sagar, \n learned senior counsel\n Ghanshyamdas Mandhani, \n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred :1) (1995) 3 Scc 486 \n 2) (1979) 2 Scc 339 \n 3) (1990) 2 Scc 746 \n 4) Air 1965 Sc 491 \n 5) (1992) 2 Scc 220 \n 6) 1992 Supp(2) Scc 481 \n 7) (2012) 12 Scc 106 \n 8) 2009(5) Scc 515 \n 9) (2011) 8 Scc 737 \n 10) (1994) 1 Scc 169 \n 11) (1984) 4 Scc 27 \n 12) Air 1981 Sc 1777 \n 13) (1993) 3 Scc 663 \n 14) Air 1987 Sc 454 \n 15) (1980) 3 Scc 418 \n 16) 1991 Supp(1) Scc 313 \n 17) 2008(4) Scc 273 \n 18) 1984(2) Scc 631 \n 19) 2005(9) Scc 49 \n 20) (1975) 3 Scc 765 \n 21) Air 1968 Sc.579 \n 22) (1995) 2 Uplbec 1137 \n 23) Air 1998 Punjab and Haryana 211 \n 24) 1995 Supp (1) Scc 188 \n\n\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice Dilip B.Bhosale \nAnd \nThe Honble Sri Justice A.Ramalingeswara Rao \n\nWrit Appeal Nos.233 to 235 Of 2011 & 1553 to 1555 of 2013 and \nWa Cross-Objections (Sr) No.112907 Of 2011 \n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 87,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 175,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 219,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 287,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 385,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 412,
"end": 425,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 502,
"end": 523,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1628,
"end": 1643,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1681,
"end": 1701,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": ": 1 :\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Devender Kumar Jangala: \n Addl. District Judge: West:Tis Hazari: Delhi\n Civil Suit No. 196/14\n \n\n\nSh. Naresh Kumar\nproperitor of M/s Vandana Gems and Jewels\nC\u00ad14, Hari Nagar, New Delhi ...........Plaintiff\n\n Versus\n\nSh. Arun Bagree\nr/o H. No: Ca\u00ad22\u00adD, \nShalimar Bagh, Delhi \n\nAlso at\n Sh. Arun Bagree\nProp. of M/s Babosa Incorporation,\nplot no. 56, Pocket no.1, \nSector\u00ad24, Rohini, Delhi\u00ad110088 ..........Defendant\n\nDate of filing the suit : 24.01.2012\nDate of final arguments : 29.10.2014\nDate of Order : 11.11.2014\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 57,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 114,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 221,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 387,
"end": 398,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 456,
"end": 467,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order\n\n\n 1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature\n At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Arbitration Petition No.374 Of 200 4\n\n Maharas h t r a State Electricity Distribution ...Petitioners\n Vs.\n\n\n\n\n \n Dsl Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ...Responden t s\n\n Mr. S.Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.P. Chavan\n i/b. Little & Co. for Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. Rafiq Dada, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.J. Khambat a, Sr.\n Advocate with Ms. Swati Deshpa n de and Mr. Chirag Balsar\n \n i/b. Mohmedbh ai & Co. for Responde nt s\n\n Coram: Smt.Roshan Dalvi, J.\n \n Dated: 18 Th March , 200 9\n\n J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 147,
"end": 212,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 536,
"end": 582,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 719,
"end": 744,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 816,
"end": 821,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 845,
"end": 856,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 965,
"end": 975,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 999,
"end": 1011,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1041,
"end": 1058,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1067,
"end": 1080,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1212,
"end": 1224,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Date of decision: 4th December, 2012\n+ Mac.App. 575/2012\n\n M/S. The United India Insurance Company Ltd... Appellant\n Through: Mr. D.D. Singh, Adv. with\n Mr. Navdeep Singh, Adv..\n\n versus\n\n\n Sh. Suraj Bhan & Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Kundan Lal, Adv. for R-1 to R-5.\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice G.P.Mittal\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 212,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 272,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 335,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 387,
"end": 397,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 493,
"end": 503,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 572,
"end": 582,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur\n\nSingle Bench : Hon'Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta, J.\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1893/1997\n\n Rinku @ Rajesh Kumar Verma\n\n Versus\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri J.S.Singh and Shri Shivam Singh, counsel for the\nappellant.\nShri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 91,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 188,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 275,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 366,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 376,
"end": 388,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 422,
"end": 435,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "- 1 -\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n \n O.O.C.J.\n\n\n\n Appeal No. 799 Of 2004\n\n\n\n\n \n In\n\n Arbitration Petition No.493 Of 2003\n\n\n\n\n \n ...\n\n \n Patel Engineering Company Ltd. ...Appellant\n\n v/s.\n \n Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent\n\n ...\n \n\n\n Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Z.Andhyarujina\n \n\n\n\n i/b M/s.Munim & Co. for the Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mrs.Kiran Bagalia with Ms.Asha Bhambwani with\n\n Ms.Latika Panakshari for the Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\n Alongwith\n\n\n\n\n \n - 2 -\n\n\n\n\n \n \n Cross-Appeal (L) No.3 Of 2005\n\n\n\n\n \n Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. ...Appellant\n\n\n\n\n \n v/s.\n\n Patel Engineering Company Ltd. ...Respondent\n ig ...\n \n Mrs.Kiran Bagalia with Ms.Asha Bhambwani with\n\n Ms.Latika Panakshari for the Appellant.\n\n Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Z.Andhyarujina\n \n\n\n i/b M/s.Munim & Co. for the Respondent.\n \n\n\n\n ...\n\n\n\n\n\n Coram: D.K.Deshmukh &\n\n A.A.Sayed,Jj.\n Dated: 29th April, 2009 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 61,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 504,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 562,
"end": 593,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 660,
"end": 671,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 692,
"end": 706,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 770,
"end": 783,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 792,
"end": 806,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 820,
"end": 837,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1187,
"end": 1218,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1292,
"end": 1322,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1401,
"end": 1414,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1423,
"end": 1437,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1451,
"end": 1468,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1496,
"end": 1507,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1528,
"end": 1542,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1678,
"end": 1690,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1733,
"end": 1742,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Rajeev Bansal,\n Asj-03 (South District), Saket Courts,\n New Delhi.\n\n S.C. No.19/13\n (Unique Id No.02406R0336052011)\n\n Fir No.52/11\n Ps: Fatehpur Beri\n U/S: 323/341/308/34 Ipc\n\nState Vs\n\n(1) Sunil Kumar @ Dabbu\n S/o Sh. Riccha Ram,\n R/o H. No. 182, Karia Mohalla,\n Village Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi.\n\n(2) Vijender Kumar @ Birju\n S/o Sh. Balesh Raj\n R/o H. No. 183, Karia Mohalla,\n Village Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi.\n\n(3) Rakesh Kumar\n S/o Sh. Balesh Raj\n R/o H. No. 183, Karia Mohalla,\n Village Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi.\n\n(4) Mukesh Kumar\n S/o Sh. Balesh Raj\n R/o H. No. 183, Karia Mohalla,\n Village Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi.\n\nDate of Initial Institution :05.11.2011\nDate of Institution in this court :15.01.2013\nDate of Pronouncement Order :19.02.2014\n\n\nS.C. No. 19/13 Fir No. 52/11 State vs. Sunil Kumar etc. 1 /23\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 452,
"end": 457,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 466,
"end": 485,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 588,
"end": 610,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 712,
"end": 724,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 826,
"end": 838,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1172,
"end": 1177,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1182,
"end": 1193,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Principal Seat At Jabalpur\n\n Division Bench\n Criminal Revision No.1422/2008\n\n\n Ajoy Acharya, aged 56 years, s/o\n Lt. Shri M.C. Acharya, r/o D-Ii/7,\n Cornwallis Road, Subramaniam\n Bharti Marg, New Delhi.\n\n versus\n\n State Bureau of Investigation\n Against Economic Offences,\n Bhopal.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Petitioner: Shri Amit Prasad, advocate.\nFor the Resp./State: Shri S.K. Rai, Government Advocate.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPresent: Honourable Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena\n Honourable Shri Justice M.A. Siddiqui\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nDate of hearing: 08/08/2011\nDate of Judgment: 29/08/2011\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 256,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 526,
"end": 555,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 781,
"end": 792,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 842,
"end": 850,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1100,
"end": 1114,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1155,
"end": 1168,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nBail Appl..No. 1163 of 2010()\n\n\n1. Dr.K.A.Koshy,\n ... Petitioner\n2. Dr.Serena, W/O. Dr.K.A.Koshy,\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Represented By\n ... Respondent\n\n2. S.I. Of Police,\n\n3. Commissioner Of Police,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu\n\n For Respondent :Sri.K.Ramakumar (Sr.)\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T.Sankaran\n\n Dated :01/03/2010\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 89,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 141,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 211,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 290,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 318,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 358,
"end": 372,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 411,
"end": 422,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 454,
"end": 466,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nEastern Engineering Enterprises & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 52,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 103,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Additional Sessions \n Judge\u00ad02, South District, Saket Court, Delhi.\n\nSession Case No. 05/2014.\n\nIn the matter of :\n\nState \n\nVersus\n\n1. Chetan,\nS/o Sh. Ashok,\nR/o H. No.6/309, \nDakshinpuri, Delhi.\n\n\n2. Sunder,\nS/o Sh. Balwan Singh,\nR/o H. No.6/331, \nDakshinpuri, Delhi.\n\n\n3. Mahadev @ Chintu,\nS/o Sh. Jaidev,\nR/o H. No.6/209 & 210, \nDakshinpuri, Delhi.\n\n\nFir No. : 462/2013.\nPolice Station : Ambedkar Nagar.\nUnder section. : 308/34 Ipc.\n\nDate of assignment : 15.01.2014. \nReserved for order on : 19.09.2014.\nDate of decision : 30.09.2014.\n\n\nState v. Chetan and Ors, Fir No. 462/2013. Page 1 of 20\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 170,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 191,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 258,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 342,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 634,
"end": 639,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 643,
"end": 649,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Shri M.K.Nagpal\n Asj/Special Judge-Ndps/South District\n Saket Court Complex, New Delhi\n\n\n\nDirectorate of Revenue Intelligence\nDelhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi\nThrough Ms Anju Singh, Intelligence Officer\n\n\n\n V E R S U S\n\n\n\nMs. Annabelle Analista Malibago\nD/o Mr. Pythias Analista\nR/o Linek Kiamba Sarangani Province,\nMindanso, Philippines\n\n\nPresently lodged in Central Jail\nTihar, New Delhi.\n\nSc No.: 27A/09\nU/S : 21 Ndps Act\nComputer Id No: 02403R0117532009\n\n\nDate of institution : 09.04.2009\nDate of reserving judgment : 11.03.2014\nDate of pronouncement : 19.03.2014\nDecision : Convicted\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 52,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 155,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 222,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 244,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 350,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Anju Bajaj Chandna\n Additional District Judge\u00ad01 (Central)\n Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi \n\n\nC.S. No. 162/2008\nUnique I. D. No. 02401C0144752001\n\nSh. Ram Pal\nS/o Late Sh. Tek Chand,\nR/o Village Rajokari,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110038.\n ......Plaintiff\n Versus\n\n1)Sh. Ravinder,\nS/o Late Sh. Om Prakash,\nR/o Village Rajokari,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110038.\n\n2)Sh. Ram Mehar, (Abated vide order 28.01.08)\nS/o Late Sh. Dhani Ram,\nR/o Village Rajokari,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110038.\nThrough his Guardian :\u00ad\nSh. Zile Singh.\n\n3)Sh. Ram Narain,\nS/o Late Sh. Dhani Ram,\nR/o Village Rajokari,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110038.\n\nCs No.162/2008\nRam Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 1/25\n 4)Sh. Ram Nath,\nS/o Late Sh. Dhani Ram,\nR/o Village Rajokari,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110038.\n\n5)Sh. Sis Ram, (Abated vide order 28.01.08)\nS/o Late Sh. Mohan,\nR/o Village Rajokari,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110038.\n\n6)Sh. Bhagwan Singh,\nS/o Sh. Sis Ram,\nR/o Village Rajokari,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110038.\n\n7)Sh. Sri Ram, (Suit abated against Lr of \nS/o Sh. Sis Ram, deceased/defendant no\u00ad7 vide\nR/o Village Rajokari, order dated 28.01.08)\nNew Delhi\u00ad110038.\nLeaving behind Legal Heirs:\u00ad\n(A)Ashok,\nS/o Late Sh. Sri Ram,\nR/o Village Rajokari,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110038.\n\n(B)Manoj,\nS/o Late Sh. Sri Ram,\nR/o Village Rajokari,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110038.\n\n\nCs No.162/2008\nRam Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 2/25\n (C)Smt. Pushpa,\nD/o Late Sh. Sri Ram,\nR/o Village Rajokari,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110038.\n\n8)Sh. Ramesh Kumar,\nS/o Sh. Sis Ram,\nR/o Village Rajokari,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110038.\n\n9)Sh. Naresh Kumar,\nS/o Sh. Sis Ram,\nR/o Village Rajokari,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110038.\n\n10)Sh. Bhushan Arora (Huf)\nthrough its Karta Sh. Bhushan Arora,\nR/o C\u00ad5/11, Safdarjang Development Area,\nNew Delhi.\n\n11)Sh. Pawan Arora,\nR/o C\u00ad5/11, Safdarjang Development Area,\nNew Delhi.\n\n12)British Airways,\nthrough its Chief Executive Officer/Chief Manager,\n11th Floor, Gopal Dass Bhavan,\nBarakhamba Road, New Delhi\u00ad110001.\n\n\n\n\nCs No.162/2008\nRam Pal Vs. Ravinder & Ors. 3/25\n 13)American Express Bank,\nthrough its Chief Executive Officer/Chief Manager,\nDcm Building, Barakhamba Road,\nNew Delhi\u00ad1100001.\n .......Defendants\n\n\n Suit For Declaration, Permanent Injunction And \n Damages/Mesne Profits\n\n Date of institution of suit : 30.10.2001\n Date of reserving the judgment : 18.07.2014\n Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.07.2014\n\nJudgment \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 144,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 219,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 414,
"end": 422,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 505,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 677,
"end": 687,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 769,
"end": 776,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 782,
"end": 790,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 867,
"end": 875,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 948,
"end": 955,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1085,
"end": 1098,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1164,
"end": 1171,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1588,
"end": 1595,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1601,
"end": 1609,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1759,
"end": 1771,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1837,
"end": 1849,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1916,
"end": 1929,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2033,
"end": 2044,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2099,
"end": 2117,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2255,
"end": 2262,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2268,
"end": 2276,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2316,
"end": 2340,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMithilesh Kumari & Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nPrem Behari Khare\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 28,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 72,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1) Cr.A.No.1196/2000\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh: Jabalpur\n\n\n Division Bench: Hon'ble Justice Shri Rakesh Saksena\n Hon'ble Justice Shri M.A.Siddiqui\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1196/2000\n\n\n Kanhaiya Lal S/o Ganesh Prasad\n Shrivastava, aged about 64 years,\n Retd. Govt.Servant,R/o village\n Kamta,P.O.Kanhiwara,\n District Seoni (M.P.)\n\n .......Appellant\n -Versus-\n State of Madhya Pradesh,\n Through Police Station Special Police\n Establishment,Lokayukta Office,\n Bhopal (M.P.)\n\n .......Respondent\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n For the appellants: Shri Ashok Tiwari, Advocate.\n For the State: Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned\n Special Public Prosecutor.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nDate of hearing: 23/08/2011\nDate of Judgment: 29/08/2011\n\n **********\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 101,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 156,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 207,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 287,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 624,
"end": 647,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1006,
"end": 1018,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1076,
"end": 1091,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n\nSingle Bench : Justice Ms.Vandana Kasrekar\n\n Writ Petition No.13760/2017\n\n Nayagaon Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.\n Vs.\n State of M.P. and others\n\n\n Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned senior counsel with\n Ku.C.V. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.\n Shri Shri R.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate\n General with Shri Sudeep Deb, learned Govt. Advocate\n for the respondents.\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 83,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 177,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 245,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 289,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 336,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 390,
"end": 400,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 454,
"end": 464,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": ":1:\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Writ Petition No. 234 Of 2008\n\n\n\n\n \n Prakash Pralhad Patil ..Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n \n Vs.\n\n The State of Maharashtra\n and ors. ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. V.T. Tulpule with Mr. Umesh Mankapure for\n petitioner.\n\n Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General, with Mr. D.S.\n Mhaispurkar, App for State.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. A.P.\n Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Sudatta Patil and\n \n Mr.S.B. Shetye for respondent no.7.\n\n Mr. Nitin Jamdar i/by Mr. Vijay Killedar for\n respondent no.8.\n \n Coram: B.H. Marlapalle & R.Y. Ganoo,Jj.\n\n Reserved on: June 27, 2008.\n \n\n\n Pronounced on: July 04, 2008.\n \n\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 453,
"end": 474,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 653,
"end": 765,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1262,
"end": 1279,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1306,
"end": 1319,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1366,
"end": 1377,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1408,
"end": 1420,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1430,
"end": 1444,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1545,
"end": 1560,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1563,
"end": 1573,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Sushil Anuj Tyagi,\n Metropolitan Magistrate: Rohini Courts, Delhi\n\n\nCc No. : 276/1/06\nUnique Id No. : 02404R0445982006\n\n\nM/S. Popular Jewelery Mart (Huf)\n .........Complainant\nVs.\n\nSeema Singh W/o Mahinder Singh\nR/o House no. 7, Sukh Vihar,\nParwana Road, Delhi ..........Accused\n\n\n\nDate of institution of case : 10.04.2006\nDate of reserving the judgment : Not reserved\nDate of pronouncement of judgment : 03.02.2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 216,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 330,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1) Cr.A.128/2004\n Cr.A.143/2004\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh: Jabalpur\n (Afr)\n Division Bench : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena\n Hon'ble Shri Justice T.K.Kaushal\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 128/2004\n\n 1. Shambhoo Khare,\n son of Shri Radhay Shyam Khare,\n aged about 23 years, student and-\n Service, Resident of Chanakyapuri,\n Sehore District: Sehore (M.P.)\n 2. Manoj Khare,\n son of Radheyshyam Khare,\n aged about 21 years, student and-\n service, R/o Chanakyapuri, Sehore,\n District:Sehore (M.P.)\n 3. Shanker Khare, son of Radhey Shyam\n Khare, aged about 26 years, Service-\n R/o Chanakya Puri, Sehore, District\n Sehore (M.P.)\n .......Appellants\n -Versus-\n State of M.P. Through P.S.\n Kotwali-Sehore,\n District:Sehore (M.P.)\n\n .......Respondent\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n For the appellants: Shri Sumit Raghuvanshi, Advocate.\n For the respondent: Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate\n General and Shri P.K.Chourasia, Panel\n Lawyer.\n For the complainant: Shri Ishtiaq Hussain, Advocate.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Criminal Appeal No.143/2004\n\n Abhishek alias Lallu(though Abhishek\n has no alias), son of Shri Vijay Singh,\n aged 23 years, Occupation: Student,\n resident of Chanakyapuri, Sehore,\n District, Sehore (M.P.)\n ........Appellant\n -Versus-\n\n State of M.P. Through P.S.\n Kotwali-Sehore,\n District:Sehore (M.P.)\n\n .........Respondent\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n For the appellant : Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with\n Shri Siddharth Datt Advocate.\n For the respondent: Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate\n General and Shri P.K.Chourasia, Panel\n Lawyer.\n For the complainant: Shri Ishtiaq Hussain, Advocate.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n (2) Cr.A.128/2004\n Cr.A.143/2004\n\n\n\n Date of hearing: 10/03/2011\n Date of Judgment: 23/03/2011\n\n **********\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 179,
"end": 217,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 376,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 422,
"end": 433,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 506,
"end": 520,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 739,
"end": 750,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 955,
"end": 968,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1275,
"end": 1288,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1624,
"end": 1641,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1702,
"end": 1714,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1793,
"end": 1806,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1915,
"end": 1930,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2118,
"end": 2145,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2507,
"end": 2520,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2859,
"end": 2867,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2939,
"end": 2953,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3013,
"end": 3025,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3104,
"end": 3117,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3226,
"end": 3241,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Punjab\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nKhemi Ram\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 56,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 7975 of 2001\n\n\n\nPetitioner:\nDr. J.J. Merchant & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nShrinath Chaturvedi\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 72,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 118,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair\n &\n The Honourable Mr. Justice K.P.Jyothindranath\n\n Wednesday, The 22Nd Day Of July 2015/31St Ashadha, 1937\n\n MFA.No. 85 of 2009 ( )\n -----------------------\n\n\n Against The Order/Judgment In Wcc 32/2004 of W.C.C.,Ernakulam\n Dated 26-09-2008\nAppellant(S)/2Nd Opposite Party:\n--------------------------------------------------------------\n\n National Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n Aluva, Rep. By The Manager, Kochi Regional Office\n M.G.Road, Kochi-35.\n\n By Adv. Sri.E.M.Joseph\n\nRespondent(S)/Applicants & First Opposite Party\n--------------------------------------------------\n\n 1. Chacko, Aged 62,\n S/O.Ouseph, Paracka House, Kallupalam Road\n Angamaly, Ernakulam District.\n\n 2. Rosy, Aged 60,\n W/O.Chacko, Paracka House, Kallupalam Road\n Angamaly, Ernakulam District.\n\n 3. N.K.Chandran,\n Naissery House, Kallupalam Road, Near Kothakulangara\n Angamaly.\n\n R1,R2 By Adv. Sri.V.V.Nandagopal Nambiar\n R1,R2 By Adv. Smt.Reshmi Jacob\n R3 By Adv. Sri.R.V.Sreejith\n\n This Misc. First Appeal Having Been Finally Heard On 22-07-\n2015, Along With Mfa 219/2010, The Court On The Same Day Delivered The\nFollowing:\n\f\n\n\n T.R. Ramachandran Nair &\n K.P. Jyothindranath, Jj.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n M.F.A. (WCC)Nos.85/2009 and 219/2010\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2015\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 143,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 239,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 619,
"end": 646,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 752,
"end": 762,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 877,
"end": 883,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 995,
"end": 999,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1111,
"end": 1123,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1229,
"end": 1251,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1278,
"end": 1290,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1314,
"end": 1326,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1501,
"end": 1523,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1546,
"end": 1565,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated: 22/02/2012\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mrs.Justice Chitra Venkataraman\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice R.Karuppiah\n\nWrit Appeal (Md) No.1715 Of 2011\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011\n\n1.State Bank of India,\n Rep. by its Chief General Manager,\n Rajaji Salai,\n Chennai - 1.\n\n2.The Assistant General Manager,\n (Region Ii),\n State Bank of India,\n Zonal Office,\n Mc.Donald's Road,\n Thiruchirappalli. .. Appellants\n\nvs.\n\nMohammed Abdul Raheem .. Respondent\n\n\tWrit Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order\ndated 14.07.2011 passed in W.P.(MD)No.8079 of 2005 on the file of this Court.\n\n!For appellants ... Mr.S.Sethuraman\n^For Respondent ... Mr.R.Vijayakumar\n \t for Mr.S.Deenadayalan\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 118,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 161,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 243,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 447,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 494,
"end": 515,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 738,
"end": 750,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 778,
"end": 791,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 819,
"end": 833,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah And Honble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao \n\nCriminal Appeal No.1136 of 2011 \n\n09-02-2016 \n\n1)Syed Arif ,Syed Saif.Accused Nos.1 and 2/ Appellants \n\nThe State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P,\nHyderabad.. Respondent Counsel for Appellants : Smt. Deepika Gadde Counsel for Respondent: Public Prosecutor (T.G) Head Note: \n? Cases referred:\n1) (2009) 17 Scc 497 \n2) (2014) 12 Scc 410 \n3) (2014) 5 Scc 697 \n4) (2015) Scc Online Sc 495 \n5) Air 1999 Sc 3830 = (1999) 8 Scc 555 \n6) Air 1999 Sc 883 \n7) Air 2002 Sc 1965 \n\nThe Honble Sri Justice G.Chandraiah \nand \nThe Honble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao \n\nCriminal Appeal No. 1136 of 2011 \n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 76,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 154,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 165,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 228,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 347,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 673,
"end": 685,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 723,
"end": 741,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 3.1.2008\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice D. Murugesan\nAnd\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Periya Karuppiah\n\nCrl.A.No.1447 of 2004\n\n1.\tSolaimuthu\n2.\tKandasamy\t\t\t\t\t\t...Appellants.\n\nvs.\n\nState By:-\nInspector of Police,\nKunnam Police Station,\nPerambalur \t\t\t\t\t\t...Respondent.\n\n\tAppeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and conviction made in S.C.No.94 of 2004 dated 6.12.2004 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur.\n\n\t\tFor Appellants\t:\tMr. A. Padmanabhan \n\n\t\tFor Respondent\t:\tMr. V.R. Balasubramanian \n\t\t\t\t\t\tAddl. Public Prosecutor\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 153,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 191,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 204,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 236,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 527,
"end": 541,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 567,
"end": 587,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.117 Of 2006 \n\n\n\nState of Punjab .....Appellant(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n - Versus -\n\n\n\n\n\nDalbir Singh ....Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 175,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 282,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSteel Authority Of India Limited\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nJ.C. Budharaja, Government And Mining Contractor\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 44,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 79,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy \n\nCriminal Revision Case NOs.1137 Of 2017 And Batch \n\n01-11-2017 \n\nJallarapu Laxman Rao .Petitioner \n\nJallarapu Pedda Venkateswarlu and two others . Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Public Prosecutor (Telangana) Head Note: \n? Cases referred:\n1. 2007 Criminal Law Journal 2057\n2. (1997) 4 Scc 241 \n3. 2016(3) Alt (Crl.) 179 (A.P.)\n4. 1981 Air 746 = 1981 Scr (2) 516 \n5. (1996)2 Scc 549 \n6. (1994)6 Scc 349 \n7. (1974)4 Scc 3\n8. 2009 Crl.L.J.889\n9. (2006)8 Scc 726 \n10. Air 1977 Sc 2185 \n11. 2016 Crl.L.J.1970\n12. 2012 Crl.L.J.1827\n13. (2013)2 Mlj 406 \n14. (2008)1 Klt 750 to 752\n15. (2009)1 Jcc 520 \n16. (2007)3 Khc 757, 762 (Ker.)\n17. (2010)1 (Khc) 417 \n18. (2016)5 Alj 419\n19. (2015)2 Scc 99 \n20. Manu/De/8716/2007 \n21. (1952)1 Scr 218 \n22. 2007(2) K.L.T. 36\n23. 2012(2) Rcr (Criminal) 730 The Honble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy Criminal Revision Case NOs.1137 And 1247 Of 2017 Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 45,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 156,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 200,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 284,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 957,
"end": 979,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A.F.R.\n\n\n Judge\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur\n\n Miscellaneous Appeal No.485/2005\n\n Proprietor Eastern Minerals Co. Ltd.\n\n Vs.\n\n Smt. Nisha Tomar and others\n\n Miscellaneous Appeal No.1053/2005\n\n Smt. Nisha Tomar and others\n\n Vs.\n\n Noor Mohammad and others\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri Anoop Nair, counsel for Proprietor Eastern\nMinerals Co. Ltd.\n Shri N.K. Salunke, counsel for Smt. Nisha Tomar,\nSatendra Singh and Dushyant Singh/claimants.\n Smt. Asgari Khan, counsel for United India Company\nLtd. (Insurer).\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 87,
"end": 124,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 225,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 296,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 392,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 462,
"end": 475,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 604,
"end": 614,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 700,
"end": 710,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 772,
"end": 784,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 816,
"end": 830,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 835,
"end": 849,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 872,
"end": 883,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 178410\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Writ Petition No. 1784 Of 2010\n\n Indian Harm Reduction Network, ]\n a Society registered under Societies Registration ]\n\n\n\n\n \n Act, 1860, Registration No. S/58430/2007, ]\n having its office at F 6/8A Vasant Vihar, ]\n New Delhi 110057 ] ...Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n \n V/s.\n \n 1. The Union of India, through\n 1A. Secretary, Department of Revenue,\n ]\n ]\n Ministry of Finance, North Block, ]\n \n New Delhi 110 001 ]\n\n 1B. Director General, ]\n Narcotics Control Bureau, Ministry of ]\n Home Affairs, West Block No.1, Wing No.V, ]\n \n\n\n R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066 ]\n \n\n\n\n 1C. Zonal Director ]\n Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai Zonal Unit, ]\n Exchange Building, 3rd Floor, Sprott Road, ]\n\n\n\n\n\n Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400 001 ]\n\n 2. State of Maharashtra ]\n Mantralaya, Mumbai ] ...Respondents\n\n With\n\n\n\n\n\n Criminal Writ Petition No. 1790 Of 2010\n\n Gulam Mohammed Malik ]\n Age 53 years, Indian National, ]\n R/o. Village Banzinara, Kashmir ]\n [at present in custody of Yeroda (sic) Central ]\n Prison as a convict in Ndps Special Case ]\n No. 60 of 2002 ] ...Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n \n 2 178410\n\n\n\n\n \n V/s.\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. Vipin Nair ]\n Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, ]\n Mumbai ]\n\n 2. The State of Maharashtra ]\n\n\n\n\n \n 3. Union of India through ]\n a) Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice ]\n b) Secretary, Department of Revenue, ]\n\n\n\n\n \n Ministry of Finance ] ...Respondents\n \n Mr. Anand Grover with Ms. Tripti Tandon, Mr. Vijay Hiremath,\n Mr. Amaritananda Chakravarty i/by Mr. Prakash Mahadik for\n \n the Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1784 of 2010\n\n Mr. H.E. Mooman for the Petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1790\n of 2010\n \n\n\n Mr. D.J. Khambata, Additional Solicitor General with\n \n\n\n\n Mr. S.K. Shinde and Mr. R.I. Chagla for Respondent No. 1 and Attorney\n General\n\n Mr. D.P. Adsule, A.P.P., for the State\n\n\n\n\n\n Coram: A.M. Khanwilkar And\n A.P. Bhangale, Jj.\n Date: June 16, 2011 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 96,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 382,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 833,
"end": 847,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1698,
"end": 1718,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1954,
"end": 1974,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2644,
"end": 2654,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2832,
"end": 2852,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2942,
"end": 2956,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3276,
"end": 3288,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3298,
"end": 3311,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3317,
"end": 3331,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3342,
"end": 3366,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3376,
"end": 3391,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3494,
"end": 3505,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3591,
"end": 3604,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3656,
"end": 3667,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3676,
"end": 3687,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3745,
"end": 3756,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3820,
"end": 3835,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3875,
"end": 3888,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nS. S. Gadgil, Income-Tax Officer, Bombay\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nLal And Company\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 87,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1634 of 2008()\n\n\n1. Parameswaran Nair,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Surendran, S/O. Karuthkunju Panicker,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State Of Kerala, Represented By\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.S.Sreekumar\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Ramkumar\n\n Dated :26/05/2008\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 95,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 178,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 270,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 336,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 414,
"end": 424,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nNaresh Shridhar Mirajkar And Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Maharashtra And Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 36,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 85,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao \n\nCriminal Appeal No.32 of 2006 \n\n22-04-2014 \n\nKollapu Paparao (died)Rep by Smt.K. Meri Lalitha Bai.. Appellant\n\nState of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Special P.P. for ACB,High Court of A.P,\nHyderabad . Respondent \n\nCounsel for Appellant : Sri A. Hari Prasad Reddy\n\nCounsel for Respondent : Sri M.B. Thimma Reddy, \n Special Public Prosecutor for Acb\n\nHead Note: \n\n?Cases referred:\n1)2002 (1) Ald 443 (Sc) \n2)2004(2) Ald (Crl) 371 (Ap)\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao \nCriminal Appeal No.32 of 2006 \n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 118,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 192,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 322,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 371,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 571,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nDewan Daulat Rai Kapoor Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nNew Delhi Municipal Committee & Another Etc. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 94,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Vinod Kumar Meena, Civil Judge\u00ad\n 02,New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi\n\nSh. Rakesh Gupta vs. Devender Jain\n\nCase Id No. : 02403R0066672011\n\nCc No. : 271/12/12\n\n\nDate of Institution of the Complaint :13.09.2011\n\n\nName and address of Complainant : Sh. Rakesh Gupta \n Proprietor of \n M/s Bala Enterprises\n 1350, Hsidc Rai Industrial \n Estate, Haryana.\nName, parentage and address of \nthe accused : Sh. Devender Jain\n Prop. Devendra Industries\n Plot No.195,HSIDC, Kundli, \n Phase\u00ad4, Sonepat Haryana.\n Also at:\u00ad\n C/o Sh. Ganga Ram Jain\n 16/11, Shakti Nagar, Delhi\u00ad110007\n\nOffence Complained of : U/s 138 of Negotiable \n Instruments Act, 1881\n\nOffence Proved : No\n\n\nPlea of the Accused in his : Impugned amount was already \nexamination. paid through Rtgs by accused.\n\nDate of reservation of Order : 13.12.2013\nFinal Order : 17.01.2014\nDate of Order : 17.01.2014\nPolice Station : Connaught place\n\n\n\n Cc No. 271/12 Rakesh Gupta v Devender Jain 1 of pages 10\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 111,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 129,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 147,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 526,
"end": 538,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1037,
"end": 1050,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2384,
"end": 2396,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2400,
"end": 2413,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n Hyderabad Bench 'A', Hyderabad\n\n Before Shri Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member and\n Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan, Judicial Member\n\n Ita No. 696/Hyd/2013 - A.Y. 2007-08\n Ita No. 697/Hyd/2013 - A.Y. 2008-09\n\nThe Income Tax Officer vs. M/s. Prashanth Sai Builders\nWard-8(1) Hyderabad\nHyderabad Pan: Aahfp6577A\nAppellant Respondent\n\n Appellant by: Smt. K. Haritha\n Respondent by: Sri K.C. Devadas\n\n Date of hearing: 11.12.2013\n Date of pronouncement: 22.01.2014\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 163,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 301,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 340,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 517,
"end": 527,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 562,
"end": 574,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nGujarat Steel Tubes Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nGujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 36,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 89,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 24.09.2008\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.Nagamuthu\n\nWrit Petition Nos.11118, 15842 and 15892 of 2008 and\nM.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2008 in W.P.No.11118 of 2008,\nM.P.Nos.1 of 2008 in W.P.Nos.15842 and 15892 of 2008\n\n\nW.P.No.11118 of 2008:-\n\nS.Nalini\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPetitioner \n Vs\n\n1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its\nSecretary to Government,\nHome(Prison0IV) Department,\nFort St. George,\nChennai \u0016 600 009.\n\n2.Advisory Board,\nSpecial Prison for Women,\nVellore,\nRep. by Collector of Vellore District.\n\n3.The Additional Director General of Prison,\nCmda Tower-II, Egmore,\nChennai \u0016 8.\n\n4.Ministry of Home Affairs,\nGovernment of India,\nNew Delhi.\t \t\t\t\t\t\tRespondentsW.P.No.15842 of 2008:-\nS.Jeyakumar\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPetitioner \nvs\n\n1.Union of India rep. by the Secretary,\nMinistry of Home Affairs,\nNew Delhi \u0016 110 001.\n\n2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,\nRep. by its Secretary to Home Department,\nFort St. George,\nChennai \u0016 600 009.\n3.The Advisory Board for the \nprematurely release of life convicts,\nRep. by its Chairman,\nCollector of Vellore District,\nVellore.\n\n4.The Superintendent,\nVellore Prison, Vellore \u0016 2.\t\t\t\tRespondents\n\n\nW.P.No.15892 of 2008:-\n\nRobert Payas @ Kumaralingam\t\t\t\tPetitioner \n\nvs\n\n\n1.Union of India rep. by the Secretary,\nMinistry of Home Affairs,\nNew Delhi \u0016 110 001.\n\n2.The Government of Tamil Nadu,\nRep. by its Secretary to Home Department,\nFort St. George,\nChennai \u0016 600 009.\n\n3.The Advisory Board for the \nprematurely release of life convicts,\nRep. by its Chairman,\nCollector of Vellore District,\nVellore.\n\n4.The Superintendent,\nVellore Prison, Vellore \u0016 2.\t\t\t\tRespondents\n\n\nPrayer in W.P.No.11118/08:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the proceedings of the Advisory Board dt 28.12.2006 on the file of the second respondent and the subsequent order of the first respondent dated 31.10.2007 in G.O.(D) No.1303, Home (Prison-IV) Department quash the same and direct the respondents to order premature release of the petitioner from the prison forthwith. \nPrayer in W.P.No.15842/08:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for records from the 2nd and 3rd respondents relating to the records of proceedings of the Advisory Board dated 28.12.2006 and quash the same and set aside the consequent order of the second respondent dated 25.07.2007 in G.O.(D) No.911 and direct the respondents to consider and release the petitioner prematurely under Rules 339 and 340 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules 1983. \n\nPrayer in W.P.No.15892/08:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for records from the 2nd and 3rd respondents relating to the records of proceedings of the Advisory Board dated 28.12.2006 and quash the same and set aside the consequent order of the second respondent dated 24.10.2007 in G.O.(D) No.1258 and quash the same direct the respondents to consider and release the petitioner prematurely under Rules 339 and 340 of the Tamil Nadu Prison Rules 1983. \n\n In W.P.11118/08:-\n For Petitioner : Mr.S.Doraisamy For Rr1 to 3 : Mr.G.Masilamani, Advocate General Assisted by Mr.V.Arun, Additional Government Pleader For R.4 : Mr.M.Ravindran, Additional Solicitor General of India, Assisted by Mr.Ullasavelan, Senior Standing Counsel In W.P.Nos.15842 & 15892/08:-\n For Petitioner : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, For R.1 : Mr.M.Ravindran, Additional Solicitor General of India, Assisted by Mr.Ullasavelan, Senior Standing Counsel For Rr2 to 4 : Mr.G.Masilamani, Advocate General Assisted by Mr.V.Arun, Additional Government Pleader Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 110,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 301,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 356,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 459,
"end": 475,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 558,
"end": 629,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 634,
"end": 692,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 735,
"end": 746,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 769,
"end": 785,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 863,
"end": 887,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 973,
"end": 1033,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1104,
"end": 1143,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1190,
"end": 1217,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1239,
"end": 1255,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1333,
"end": 1357,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1444,
"end": 1504,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1575,
"end": 1614,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3221,
"end": 3232,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3251,
"end": 3263,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3297,
"end": 3303,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3348,
"end": 3359,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3415,
"end": 3426,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3503,
"end": 3515,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3530,
"end": 3541,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3597,
"end": 3608,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3652,
"end": 3664,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3698,
"end": 3704,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Criminal Appeal No.486-DB of 2007 etc. 1\n\n\n\n\n In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n Date of decision:December 06, 2011\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.486-DB of 2007\n\nRakesh Kumar @ Bhutto ......Appellant\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nState of Haryana .......Respondent\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.491-DB of 2007\n\nParminder Singh ......Appellant\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nState of Haryana .......Respondent\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.633-DB of 2007\n\nNarender Kumar and another ......Appellants\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nState of Haryana .......Respondent\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.573-DB of 2008\n\nSunil Kumar ......Appellant\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nState of Haryana .......Respondent\n Criminal Appeal No.486-DB of 2007 etc. 2\n\n\n\n\n Criminal Revision No.188 of 2008\n\n\nAjay Kumar ......petitioner\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nState of Haryana .......Respondent\n\n\nCoram: Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh\n\n Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Sabina\n\nPresent: Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr.Advocate with\n Ms.Sumanjit Kaur, Advocate for the\n appellant in Cra No.491-DB of 2007\n\n Mr.Vinod Ghai, Advocate,\n for the appellants in Cra No.633-DB of 2007 and\n Cra No.573-DB of 2008.\n\n Mr.Deepender Singh, Advocate,\n for the appellant in Cra No.486-DB of 2007.\n\n Mr.Arun Singla, Advocate for\n Mr.G.S.Chahal, Advocate\n for the petitioner in Crr No.188 of 2008.\n\n Mr.Pardeep Singh Poonia, Addl.A.G.Haryana.\n\n ****\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 123,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 291,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 383,
"end": 399,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 527,
"end": 542,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 638,
"end": 654,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 782,
"end": 796,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 894,
"end": 910,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1038,
"end": 1049,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1154,
"end": 1170,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1359,
"end": 1369,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1471,
"end": 1487,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1570,
"end": 1582,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1619,
"end": 1625,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1644,
"end": 1654,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1789,
"end": 1799,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1928,
"end": 1943,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2031,
"end": 2042,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2074,
"end": 2084,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2169,
"end": 2189,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCotton Corporation Of India\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnited Industrial Bank\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 39,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nShivaji Dayanu Patil & Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSmt. Vatschala Uttam More\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 84,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nDwarkadas Marfatia & Sons\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nBoard Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 96,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 14.03.2011\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice R.Banumathi\nand\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V.Periya Karuppiah\n\nO.S.A.No.379 Of 2008\n\nN.Ravindran \t\t \t..\tAppellant\n\nVs.\n\nV.Ramachandran\t\t\t..\tRespondent\n\n\tPrayer: Original Side Appeal is filed under Order Xxxvi Rule 9 of the Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 30.7.2008 made in Application No.2632 of 2008 in C.S.No.264 of 2007 on the file of this Court. \n\n\t\tFor appellant \t: Mr.K.Alagirisamy,Sr.Counsel\n\t\t\t\t for\n Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanandam\n\n\t\tFor respondent \t: Mr.N.R.Chandran,Sr.Counsel\n\t\t\t\t for \n\t\t\t\t Mr.V.Chandrakanthan\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 153,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 188,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 226,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 516,
"end": 529,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 623,
"end": 640,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 665,
"end": 677,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 723,
"end": 739,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 8Th Day Of June 2012\n\n Before\n The Hon'Ble Mr Justice K. N. Keshavanarayana\n\n Criminal Petition No.1983/2012\n\nBetween:\n\nSri.H.D.Kumaraswamy,\nS/o Sri.H.D.Devegowda,\nAged about 53 years,\nFormer Chief Minster and\nPresent Member of Parliament,\nResiding at No.286, 3rd Main Road,\n3rd Phase, J.P.Nagar,\nBangalore-560 078. ....Petitioner\n\n(By M/s. Hashmath Pasha & Associates , Advocates)\n\n\nA N D:\n\nState of Karnataka,\nBy Lokayukta Police,\nBangalore City,\nM.S.Building,\nBangalore.\n(Represented by Learned\nPublic Prosecutor of Lokayukta) ...Respondent\n\n(By Smt.Gayathri, Advocate)\n\n This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438\nCr.P.C. praying to release the petitioner on anticipatory\nbail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.2/2012 of\n 2\n\nLokayukta Police, Bangalore City, for the offences\npunishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 463, 465,\n468 and 471 of Ipc and Sections 13 (1) (d), 13 (1) (e)\nand 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections\n3 and 4 of Karnataka Land (Restriction of Transfer) Act\nread with Section 34 of Ipc, which is on the basis of\nreferred order passed under Section 156 (3) of the Code\nof Criminal Procedure in Pcr No.30/2011 on the file of\nthe Hon'ble Special Court for Prevention of Corruption\nAct, Bangalore City.\n\n Reserved on : 31.05.2012\n Pronounced on : 08.06.2012\n\n This Criminal Petition having been heard and\nreserved for orders, coming on for pronouncement of\norder this day, the Court made the following:\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 173,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 247,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 469,
"end": 483,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 520,
"end": 538,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 688,
"end": 696,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt \n\nWrit Petition Nos.24587 Of 2014 \n\n01-06-2015 \n\nC.Radhakrishnama Naidu and others...Petitioners \n\nThe Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep. by its Principal Secretary,\nRevenue(Registration)Department,Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others...Respondents Counsel for Petitioners: Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu Sri S.Rama Moorthy Reddy Sri A.Giridhar Rao Sri M.V.Pratap Reddy Sri A.Chandraiah Naidu Sri P.Lakshma Reddy Sri Ch.Venkat Raman Counsel for Respondents: G.P. for Revenue(AP) G.P. for Endowments(AP) Sri K.R.Prabhakar S.C. for S S H Mutt ? Cases referred 2010 (5) Ald 444 2 2011 (4) Ald 43 3 2011 (6) Ald 502 4 (2005) 12 Scc 77 5 2012 (2) Ald 332 6 2012 (6) Ald 260 7 (1989) 3 Scc 99 8 (2012) 1 Scc 656) 9 Air 1957 Madras 472 10 Air 1970 Orissa 22 11 Air 1958 Patna 193, 12 (2009) 7 Scc 363 13 2013 (4) Ald 426 14 Air 1955 Sc 604 15 1902 Ac 474 16 2014 (4) Ald 358 17 2013 1 Alt 774 18 (2003) 5 Scc 662 19 (1989)14 Appeal Cases 493 20 (1980) 2 Scc 120 21(1980) 4 Scc 653 22(1980) 4 Scc 697 23 Air 1941 Pc 16 24 Air 1967 Sc 1427 Head Note: \nHonble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt Writ Petition Nos.24587 Of 2014, 31074 Of 2014, 24629 Of 2014, 24989 Of 2014, 27046 Of 2014, 27140 Of 2014, 27279 Of 2014,27301 Of 2014, 18835 Of 2014, 11858 Of 2014, 4917 Of 2014, 20039 Of 2014, 35090 Of 2014, 36290 Of 2014, 36573 Of 2014, 36584 Of 2014,36693 Of 2014, 36701 Of 2014, 36711 Of 2014, 35792 Of 2014 39183 Of 2014 And 41141Of 2014. \nCommon Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 28,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 109,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 169,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 336,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 361,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 380,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 385,
"end": 401,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 424,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 444,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 449,
"end": 464,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 539,
"end": 552,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1106,
"end": 1115,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated :: 23-08-2010\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.Dhanapalan\n\nW.P.No.17016 of 2010\n\nC.Sakthivel\t\t\t\t...\t\t\tPetitioner\n\n\t\t\t\t\t-vs-\n\nThe Commissioner of Police,\nCommissioner Office,\nEgmore, \nChennai-600 008.\t\t\t...\t\t\tRespondent\n\n\n\t\tPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a certiorarified mandamus.\n\n\t\tFor petitioner : Mr.P.Vijendran\n\t\n\t\tFor respondent : Mr.N.Senthil Kumar,\n\t\t\t\t\tAddl.Govt.Pleader.\n\n\t\t\t\t\tO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 111,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 146,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 252,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 419,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 444,
"end": 459,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Judicature Madhya Pradesh,\n Jabaplur\n\n Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J\n\n Criminal Appeal No.838 Of 2012\n Dwarika Singh.\n Vs.\n State of Madhya Pradesh.\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri S.K.Patel, Advocate for the appellant.\n\nShri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 67,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 119,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 216,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 291,
"end": 314,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 414,
"end": 423,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 459,
"end": 471,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh\n ASJ/Special Judge : Ndps : Rohini Courts : Delhi\n\n In the matter of :\n Sc No. 12/14\n State Vs. Anoj Kumar Yadav @ Manoj\n Fir no. 417/13\n Ps Begumpur\n U/s 326A/307/366/342/506 Ipc\n\n State\n\n Versus\n Anoj Kumar Yadav @ Manoj\n S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh\n R/o D-266, Rajeev Nagar,\n Begumpur, Delhi.\n\n Permanent Add : Village Naryan Pokria,\n Ps Chawda, Dano,\n Distt. Motihari, Bihar.\n\n Date of receipt : 22.02.2014\n Date of arguments : 16.12.2014\n Date of announcement : 16.12.2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 54,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 116,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 226,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 260,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 442,
"end": 447,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 500,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBombay Gas Co.\tLtd\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nGopal Bhiva & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 61,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n Civil Appeal No.5896 Of 2010\n (Arising out of Slp (Civil) No.7445 of 2009)\n\n\n\n\nShalini Shyam Shetty and another ..Appellant(s)\n\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n\nRajendra Shankar Patil ..Respondent(s)\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 220,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 327,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Cr.A. No. 1536/00\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur\n\n Division Bench:\n Hon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava &\n Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Jain\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1536/2000\n\n\nAppellants: 1. Batanlal, son of Hajari Lal, resident of\n Bhainsakhedi, P.S. Khajuri Sadak,\n Bhopal.\n\n 2. Suresh, son of Batanlal, resident of Near\n Hanuman Mandir, Bairagarh, Bhopal.\n\n 3. Mukesh, son of Batanlal, resident of\n Bhainsakhedi, P.S. Khajuri Sadak,\n Bhopal.\n\n 4. Raghuveer, son of Batanlal, resident of\n resident of Bhainsakhedi, P.S. Khajuri\n Sadak, Bhopal.\n\n 5. Santosh, son of Batanlal, resident of\n Bhainsakhedi, P.S. Khajuri Sadak,\n Bhopal.\n\n Versus\n\nRespondent: State of Madhya Pradesh through P.S.\n Khajuri Sadak, Bhopal.\n\nShri G.S. Ahuluwalia, learned counsel for the appellants.\n\nShri C.K. Mishra, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 155,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 199,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 278,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 423,
"end": 429,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 547,
"end": 553,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 696,
"end": 705,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 860,
"end": 867,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1053,
"end": 1076,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1142,
"end": 1157,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1201,
"end": 1212,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh Ajay Gupta: Additional Session \n Judge\u00ad4 (Shahdara), Karkardooma Courts , Delhi \n\n Cr. Revision No. : 22/15 \n Uid No : 02402R0189152015 \n \n\nIn the matter of\n\n Mr. Ajay Chopra,\n Director of M/s Drive India Enterprise Solutions Ltd.,\n Having its registered office at\n Kamla Executive Park, \n th\n 7 Floor, near Vazir Glass\n Factory, Off Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri\n (East), Mumbai\u00ad59\n Also at \n Flat No. 61/32, Tower No. 2,\n Wings Garden Tower\n Oshiwara, Andheri West, Mumbai\u00ad ...... Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n\n\n 1. State \n Through App \n Department of Prosecution \n Karkardooma Court,\n\n 2. M/s Overseas Mobiles Pvt. Ltd. \n 175, F.I.E Patparganj, Delhi ....... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n Crl. Revision No. 22/15 Ajay Chopra vs. State Page 1/21\n Date of argument :- 19/09/2015\n Date of order :- 02/12/2015\n Decision :- Disposed of.\n\n\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 100,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 326,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 814,
"end": 819,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1050,
"end": 1076,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1218,
"end": 1229,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1234,
"end": 1239,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\nDate :02.07.2007\nCoram:\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice A.C.Arumugaperumal Adityan\nCrl.R.C.Nos.1379,1384,1385 and 1386 of 2004\n\n\nA.B.M.Raja Sah\t\t\t \t\t \t..Petitioner in \n\t\t\t\t\t\t \t all the revisions/\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\taccused\n\nvs.\nB.M.S.Srinivasa Sah\t\t\t\t\t..Respondent in all the revisions/ complainant These Revisions are filed against the Judgment dated 20.5.2004 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge,Fast Track Court No.2,Kancheepuram in C.A.Nos.26 of 2003,27 of 2003, 24 of 2003 and 25 of 2003 respectively confirming the Judgment dated 5.3.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kancheepuram in C.C.Nos.276 of 2001, 277 of 2003,274 of 2001 and 275 of 2001 respectively. \n\n For Petitioner : Mr.D.N.Durgasha For Respondent : Mr.P.N.Prakash C O M M O N O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 118,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 179,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 284,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 753,
"end": 765,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 786,
"end": 797,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nIbrahim Mahommed Issak\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 47,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 89,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nJain Bros. & Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Union Of India & Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar And The Honble Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti \n\nReferred Trial No.1 Of 2014 \n\n25-11-2016 \n\nSpecial Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge,Guntur... Referring\nOfficer\n\n\n(For confirmation of Death Sentence awarded on 10.03.2014 to the\naccused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No.382 of 2012 on the file of Iv\nAdditional District and Sessions Judge at Guntur (Letter Dis.No.321,\ndated 21.03.2014)\n\n\nCounsel for the Appellant/A.1 : Ms.Naseeb Afshan\nCounsel for the appellants/A2 and A3 : Sri A. Samir Kumar Reddy \n\nCounsel for the respondent: Public ProsecutorHead Note: \n? Cases Referred: \n1. Air 1947 Pc 67 \n2. (2011) 3 Scc (Crl) 473\n3. (2014) 10 Scc 473 \n4. Air 1997 Sc 3471 \n5. Air 2012 Sc 2435 \n6. 2008(8) Supreme 178 \n7. 1989 Supp (2) Supreme 706 \n8. 2015 (2) Ald (Crl) 50 (Sc)\n9. (2013) 6 Scc 195 \n10. (2003) 12 Scc 199 \n11. (2005) 3 Scc 114 \n12. (2001) 6 Scc 296 \n13. (2003) 1 Scc 506 \n14. Air 1983 Sc 957 \n15. (2015) 1 Scc 253 \n16. Air 1983 Sc 367 \n17. Air 1989 Sc 1410 \n18. Air 1988 Sc 345 \n19. Air 1987 Sc 1222 \n20. (1999) 4 Scc 370 \n21. (2001) 9 Scc 550 \n22. (2005) 9 Scc 631 \n23. (2013) 9 Scc 283 The Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar And The Honble Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti R.T.No.1 of 2014, Crl.A.No.418 of 2014 & Crl.A.No.847 of 2016 Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 81,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 490,
"end": 503,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 547,
"end": 567,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1215,
"end": 1227,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1255,
"end": 1274,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 10703 of 1996\n\nPetitioner:\nN.R. Dongre And Ors\n\nRespondent:\nWhirlpool Corporation And Anr,\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 64,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 107,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 8150 of 2010(P)\n\n\n1. C.Krishna Kumar, Member (Under\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Kerala State Election Commission,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Special Grade Secretary,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.V.Chitambaresh (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Murali Purushothaman, Sc,K.S.E.Comm\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair\n\n Dated :02/07/2010\n\n O R D E R\n T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n W.P.(C) No. 8150 of 2010-P\n - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 88,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 212,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 289,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 343,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 388,
"end": 408,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 449,
"end": 470,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 525,
"end": 547,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Criminal Appeal (Sj) No.1052 of 2011\n===========================================================\nBirendra Kumar Sharma .... .... Appellant Versus Union Of India .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Appellant : Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate & Mr. Aaruni Singh, Amicus Curiae. \n\nFor the Respondent : Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, C.G.C. =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 181,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 223,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 354,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 383,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 427,
"end": 445,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 544,
"end": 563,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nHindustan Steels Ltd., Rourkela\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nA. K. Roy & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 72,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.MC.No. 2623 of 2010()\n\n\n1. Shibu S/O.Surendra, Shibu Sadanam,\n ... Petitioner\n2. Sivadasa @ Dasan, S/O.Sivarajan,\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala Represented By Public\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Ramkumar\n\n Dated :14/09/2010\n\n O R D E R\n C R\n\n V. Ramkumar, J.\n .............................................\n\n Crl.M.C..No.2623 of 2010\n\n .............................................\n\n Dated: 14th September, 2010\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 78,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 165,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 231,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 336,
"end": 350,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 428,
"end": 438,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 580,
"end": 591,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe J. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Mills Co., Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 63,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 109,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nHoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. And Another Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Bihar And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 40,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 91,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nExecutive Engineer Irrigation Galimala & Ors. A\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nAbaaduta Jena\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 50,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 92,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 963-64 of 2000\n\nPetitioner:\nState of U.P. and Anr.\n\nRespondent:\nJohri Mal\t\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 67,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 99,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Criminal Appeal No.228-DB of 2008 1\nCriminal Revision No.1651 of 2008\n\n\n\n In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n Date of decision:November 16, 2011\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.228-DB of 2008\n\n\nGurdeep Singh @ Kala and others ......Appellants\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nState of Haryana .......Respondent\n\n\n Criminal Revision No.1651 of 2008\n\n\nAshok Kumar ......petitioner\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nState of Haryana and others .......Respondents\n\n\n\nCoram: Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh\n\n Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Sabina\n\n\n\nPresent: Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate with\n Mr.Daldeep Singh, Advocate,\n Mr.Aman Pal, Advocate and\n Mr.Namit Kumar, Advocate,\n for the appellants.\n\n Mr.Sandeep Vermani, Addl.A.G.Haryana.\n\n Mr.Alok Mittal, Advocate and\n Mr.Hiten Nehra, Advocate for\n Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate\n for the complainant.\n\n ****\n Criminal Appeal No.228-DB of 2008 2\nCriminal Revision No.1651 of 2008\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 169,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 337,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 445,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 574,
"end": 585,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 684,
"end": 700,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 785,
"end": 797,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 833,
"end": 839,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 859,
"end": 871,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 907,
"end": 920,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 948,
"end": 956,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 987,
"end": 998,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1060,
"end": 1075,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1112,
"end": 1123,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1154,
"end": 1165,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1196,
"end": 1207,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 06.03.2012\n\nCoram :\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian\n\nWrit Petition Nos.6114 and 7948 of 2011\nAnd\nM.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2012\n\n\nK.Kumaran\t ...\t Petitioner in Wp 6114/2011\nT.Saravanan\t ...\t\t Petitioner No.1 in Wp 7948/2011\nP.R.Natarajan\t ...\t\t Petitioner No.2 in Wp 7948/2011\nV.R.Sharmila\t ...\t\t Petitioner No.3 in Wp 7948/2011\n\nVs\n\n1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,\n Rep.by its Secretary to Government,\n Personnel and Administrative Reforms\n Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.\n\n2.The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,\n Rep.by its Secretary, Omanthoorar \n Government Estates, Chennai.\n\n3.V.Jeya Chitra\n(R-3 impleaded as per order of Court made in M.P.No.3 of 2011 dated 22.8.2011)\n\n4.V.Balamurugan\n5.R.Ethiraj\n6.C.Anandakumar\n7.B.Thulasi Raman\n8.E.Elangovan\n9.K.Vijayaraj\n10.S.Sanjeevi Sathya Seelan\n11.M.Kumaravelu\n12.K.Chandrasekaran\n13.K.Thomas\n(R-4 to R-13 impleaded as per order of Court made in M.P.Nos.4 to 6 and 3 and 4 of 2011 dated 20.9.2011)\t\t \t \n\t\t\t\t\t...Respondents in Wp 6114/2011\n\n1.Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,\n 1, Greams Road, Old Commercial Tax Office \n Annexure, Chennai-5.\n\n2.Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu,\n Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department,\n Secretariat, Chennai-9.\n\n3.V.Balamurugan\n4.C.Ananthakumar\n5.K.Vijayaraj\n6.E.Elangovan\n7.B.Thulasi Raman\n8.S.Sanjeevi\n9.M.Kumaravelu\n10.K.Bharathi Raja\n(R-3 to R-10 impleaded as per order of Court made in M.P.Nos.4 to 6 and 3 and 4 of 2011 dated 20.9.2011)\t\t\t...Respondents in Wp 7948/2011\n\nW.P.No.6114/2011:\n\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents herein from in any manner recruiting/filling up 186 posts of Assistant Section Officer in Secretariat (other than Law and Finance Department) in Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service under Post Code No.1072, for which advertisement/notification has not been issued and 26 posts of Assistant Section Officer in the Office of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in Tamil Nadu Secretariat Service under Post Code No. 2201 in excess of the notified number of vacancies, from among the candidates who have applied for and taken written examination pursuant to the Notification/Advertisement of the second respondent herein bearing No.219 dated 15.11.2009.\nW.P.No.7948/2011:\n\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from filling up 186 posts of Assistant Section Officers in Secretariat, other than Law and Finance Department, by clubbing those vacancies, which are not originally notified in the interview, which is combined for the Combined Service Examination-I, pursuant to the Advertisement No.219 dated 15.11.2009 and directing the respondents to notify the above 186 vacancies as fresh.\n\tFor Petitioners in both WPs : Mr.C.Selvaraju, Senior Counsel and \n\t\t\t\t Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel\n\t\n\tFor the State of Tamil Nadu : Mr.A.Navaneetha Krishnan, Advocate\n\t\t\t\t General assisted by Mr.N.Srinivasan,\n\t\t\t\t Additional Government Pleader.\n\n\tFor Tnpsc\t\t : Ms.C.N.G.Niraimathi & M.Devendran, \t\t\t\t Standing Counsel.\n\n\tFor Contesting Respondents : Mr.N.G.R.Prasad\n\n\tFor Contesting Respondents : Mr.R.Thiagarajan,\n\t\t\t\t Senior Counsel and \n\t\t\t\t Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthy\n\n\nC O M M O N O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 116,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 197,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 269,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 334,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 398,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 461,
"end": 485,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 616,
"end": 652,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 725,
"end": 740,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 821,
"end": 836,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 837,
"end": 848,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 849,
"end": 864,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 865,
"end": 882,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 883,
"end": 896,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 897,
"end": 910,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 911,
"end": 938,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 939,
"end": 954,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 955,
"end": 974,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 975,
"end": 986,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1134,
"end": 1183,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1256,
"end": 1302,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1384,
"end": 1399,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1400,
"end": 1416,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1417,
"end": 1430,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1431,
"end": 1444,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1445,
"end": 1462,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1463,
"end": 1475,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1476,
"end": 1490,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1491,
"end": 1509,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3034,
"end": 3045,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3078,
"end": 3093,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3151,
"end": 3172,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3214,
"end": 3226,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3288,
"end": 3304,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3307,
"end": 3318,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3387,
"end": 3399,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3440,
"end": 3453,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3497,
"end": 3516,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe State Of Punjab\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nGurmit Singh & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 63,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao \n\nM.A.C.M.A Nos.924 of 2009 and batch \n\n25-08-2014 \n\nM.Posham and another.. Appellants \n\nS. Kalavathi and others.. Respondents \n\nCounsel for Appellants : Sri S. Surender Reddy\n\nCounsel for Respondent No.2 : Dr. Muddu Vijay\n Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Sri I. Raja Mallaiah\n\n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n1) 2009 (6) Scc 280 \n2) 2003 Acj 203 = 2002 (2) Ald 811 \n3) 2005 (1) Ald 111 \n4) 2000 Acj 801 = (2000) 5 Scc 113 \n5) 1998 (6) Ald 1 \n6) 2007 Acj 1477 (Rajasthan) \n\n\nHonble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao \nM.A.C.M.A. Nos.924 and 3593 of 2009 \nCommon Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 116,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 158,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 233,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 284,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 339,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 598,
"end": 617,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n\n Writ Petition No.6478/2006\n\n Vijay Singh & others\n\n Vs.\n\n State of M.P. & others\n____________________________________________________________\nShri Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior Counsel assisted by Shri\nM.K. Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioners.\nShri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate, for\nrespondents/State.\n\n____________________________________________________________\nPresent : Hon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi\n____________________________________________________________\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 126,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 204,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 293,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 345,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 405,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 560,
"end": 572,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\nDated : 28.08.2009\n\nCoram :\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.Raviraja Pandian\n\nand\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice T.Raja\n\nWrit Petitions No.16057 of 2009\n\n\nR.Narayanan \t\t\t\t\t\tPetitioner \nv.\n\n1.The Secretary to Government\nPublic (Law Officers) Department\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu\n\n2.The Registrar\nMadras High Court\nChennai \u0016 102\n\n3.Mr.P.Kumaresan\nAdditional Public Prosecutor\nPublic Prosecutor (Incharge)\nHigh Court of Madras\nChennai \u0016 102. \t\t\t\t\tRespondents\n\n\tWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issue of writ of Quo warranto directing the third respondent to show cause by what authority he claims to have, use, enjoy and perform the rights, duties and privileges of the Office of the Additional Public Prosecutor and Public Prosecutor (In Charge) in the High Court of Madras and consequently declaring that the appointment of the third respondent as an Additional Public Prosecutor and Public Prosecutor (in charge) of the High Court of Madras as ab initio void. \n\n\tFor petitioner\t:\tMr.R.Sankarasubbu\n\n\tFor respondents\t:\tMr.P.S.Raman,\n\t\t\t\t\tAdvocate General\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 118,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 157,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 204,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 314,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 359,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 381,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1062,
"end": 1076,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1100,
"end": 1109,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMohan Lal & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 53,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 82,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1/32 Cr.wp.3920.2012.doc\n\nnsc.\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Writ Petition No. 3920 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n Ravi Hanumant Thorat,\n Age : 28 years, An Indian Inhabitant,\n Residing at 288, Ekbote Colony,\n Near Bhavsar Mangal Karyalaya, ... Petitioner/\n\n\n\n\n \n Ghorpade Peth, brother-in-law\n Pune. of the Detenu\n\n Sahadeo @ Sada Laxman Dhavare ... Detenu\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n\n 1.\n \n The State of Maharashtra,\n through the Secretary to the\n Government of Maharashtra\n \n (Preventive Detention),\n Home Department (Special),\n Mantralaya,\n Mumbai - 400 032.\n \n\n\n 2. Mr. Gulabrao Pol,\n \n\n\n\n The Commissioner of Police,\n Pune City.\n\n 3. The Superintendent of Prison,\n Yerwada Central Prison,\n\n\n\n\n\n Pune.\n\n 4. The Superintendent of Prison,\n Nasik Road Central,\n Nasik. ... Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n ----\n Mrs. Aisha Zubair Ansari a/w. Mrs. N.S.K. Ayubi, for the\n Petitioner.\n Mr. J.P. Yagnik, App for the State.\n ----\n\n\n\n\n \n 2/32 Cr.wp.3920.2012.doc\n\n Coram: A.S. Oka &\n A.P.Bhangale, Jj.\n\n\n\n\n \n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 69,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 363,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 917,
"end": 937,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1199,
"end": 1211,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1303,
"end": 1386,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1405,
"end": 1480,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1595,
"end": 1614,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1625,
"end": 1637,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1677,
"end": 1688,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1916,
"end": 1924,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1966,
"end": 1978,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nDalip Singh And Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Punjab.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 23,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 5957 of 2011(T)\n\n\n1. Punjab National Bank,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum\n ... Respondent\n\n2. N.P.Vijayan, Kallelil Thekkethil\n\n3. Sobhana, W/O.N.P.Vijayan,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.K.Suresh Kumar\n\n For Respondent :Sri.M.D.Sasikumaran\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Siri Jagan\n\n Dated :29/07/2011\n\n O R D E R\n S. Siri Jagan, J.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n W.P.(C)No.5957 of 2011\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 29th day of July, 2011\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 93,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 204,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 264,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 297,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 370,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 409,
"end": 424,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 450,
"end": 462,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 518,
"end": 531,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nG.J. Fernandez\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Karnataka & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 64,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBabu Singh And Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of U.P.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 68,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[Pg. 1 of 24]\n\n\n\n In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh : Additional Sessions Judge\n Spl. Judge : Ndps (Nw) : District Courts : Rohini : Delhi\n\n In the matter of :\n Sc No. : 25/12\n State Vs. : Meenu\n Fir No. : 49/11\n Ps : Bharat Nagar\n U/s : 21/61/85 Ndps Act\n\n State\n\n Versus\n\n Meenu\n W/o Sh. Ajay\n R/o B-52, J.J.Colony,\n Wazirpur, Delhi\n\n Date of receipt : 21.04.2012\n Date of arguments : 05.03.2014\n Date of announcement : 05.03.2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 56,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 152,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 303,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 323,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 536,
"end": 541,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 581,
"end": 586,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSmt Sarla Dixit & Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nBalwant Yadav & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sc No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Gautam Manan\n Additional Sessions Judge-04\n District Courts Dwarka ; New Delhi\n\n In the matter of:-\n S. C. No. 03/14\n Fir No. 35/09\n Police Station Palam Village\n Under Section 186/353/333 Ipc &\n 129/177/184 Mv Act\n Id No. 02405R0438102009\n\n\n State\n\n\n Versus\n 1. Pardeep @ Yogender\n S/o Sh. Surinder\n R/o Rz-296/I, Durga Park,\n Main Nasirpur, New Delhi -46\n\n 2. Ravinder\n S/o Sh. Prem Raj\n\n 3. Joginder\n S/o Sh. Prem Raj\n\n Both Resident of :-\n Wz-1122 Palam Village\n Badial Mohalla\n New Delhi ......Accused Persons\n\n\nJudgment 1 of 21\n Sc No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.\n\n\n\n\n Date of institution 28/10/2009\n File received on transfer 15/01/2014\n Judgment reserved on 22/07/2014\n Judgment Pronounced on 07/08/2014\n Decision Pradeep stands Convicted\n Accused Ravinder &\n Yogender are acquitted\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 68,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 142,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 653,
"end": 658,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 711,
"end": 729,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 891,
"end": 899,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 962,
"end": 970,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1371,
"end": 1376,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1381,
"end": 1389,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 7173 of 2002\n\nPetitioner:\nGhaziabad Development Authority\t\t\n\nRespondent:\nBalbir Singh\t\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 83,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 111,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated 27.04.2009\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice K. Raviraja Pandian\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice M.M.Sundresh\n\nW.P. Nos.23317 and 24211 Of 2008\n\n\n\nD.Sivakumar\t\t\t\t\t\t ..\t Petitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(in W.P.23317/2008)\n\nA.Chandrasekaran\t\t\t\t\t..\tPetitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(in W.P.24211/2008)\n\nVersus\n\n1.The Government of Tamil Nadu\n Rep. by its Secretary to Government\n Industries Department\n Fort St. George\n Chennai \u0016 600 009.\n\n2.The Secretary to Government\n Public Works Department\n Fort St. George\n Chennai \u0016 600 009.\n\n3.Director of Geology and Mining\n Guindy, Chennai \u0016 600 032.\n\n4.The District Collector\n Krishnagiri District\n Krishnagiri.\t\t\t\t\t\t..\tRespondents\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t (in W.P.23317&24211/2008)\n\nPrayer : Petitions filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Declaration, to declare Rule 38-B of the Tamil Nadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 and introduced by G.O.Ms.No.158, Industries (Mmc I) Department dated 25.08.2008 as illegal, ultra vires, Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 301 to 304 of the Constitution of India.\n\n\t\tFor Petitioner\t: Mr.V.T.Gopalan\n\t\t\t\t\t Senior Counsel \n\t\t\t\t\t for\n\t\t\t\t\t Mr.K.Ramakrishna Reddy\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\tFor Respondents\t: Mr.P.S.Raman\n\t\t\t\t\t Additional Advocate General \n\t\t\t\t\t for\n\t\t\t\t\t Mr.S.M.Hasan Fizal\n\t\t\t\t\t Government Advocate\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\t* * * * *\t\n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 117,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 161,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 210,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 277,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 363,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 566,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 569,
"end": 630,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 639,
"end": 696,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1215,
"end": 1226,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1271,
"end": 1290,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1320,
"end": 1329,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1387,
"end": 1402,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMatajog Dobey\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nH. C. Bhari(With Connected Appeal)\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 61,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nWrit Petition (civil) 41 of 2003\n\nPetitioner:\nAssociation of Registration Plates\n\nRespondent:\nUnion of India & Ors. \n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 91,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 119,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 1067 of 2006(A)\n\n\n1. Viswanathan,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala.\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Appellant In Prison\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :17/03/2010\n\n O R D E R\n R.Basant & M.C. Hari Rani,Jj\n\n ==============================\n\n Crl.A. No. 1067 Of 2006\n\n ============================\n\n Dated This The 17th Day Of March 2010\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 173,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 358,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 384,
"end": 397,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 443,
"end": 451,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 454,
"end": 468,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nBail Appl..No. 2845 of 2009()\n\n\n1. Pramod Issac, S/O.Issac,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Represented By\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Detective Inspector,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.George Varghese(Perumpallikuttiyil)\n\n For Respondent : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T.Sankaran\n\n Dated :08/06/2009\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 89,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 189,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 273,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 348,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 423,
"end": 435,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nK Ramachandra Reddy & Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Public Prosecutor\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 79,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\nDated: 09.04.2009\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice K.Raviraja Pandian\nAnd\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice P.P.S.Janarthana Raja \n\nT.C.(A) Nos.887 of 2004, 2246, 2248, 2277, 2305, 2322, 2323, 2341, 2484, 2495, 2606, 2614, 2615, 2635, 2656, 2706, 2707, 2713 & 2722 of 2006, 10, 22, 112, 269, 270, 382, 400, 410, 485, 488, 517, 627, 646, 647, 684, 686, 717, 729, 871, 949, 1006 to 1008 & 1162 of 2007, 81 to 84, 244, 245, 356, 543, 578, \t 1450, 2126, 2213, 2215 & 2441 of 2008\n\nT.C.(A) No.887 fo 2004\n\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax,\nChennai.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\t\t\t\t\t\tVs.\n\nM/s Chemplast Sanmar Limited,\nChennai.\t\t\t\t\t\t \t... Respondent\n\n\tTax Case Appeal No.887 of 2004 is filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras \"C\" Bench, Chennai dated 22.03.2004 made in Ita No. 1468/(Mds.)/2003.\n\n\tFor appellant\t:\tMrs.Pushya Sitaraman,\n\tin all TCs\t\tSenior Standing Counsel for It\n\t\t\t\t\tassisted by Mr.J.Narayanasamy\n\n\t\n\tFor respondents in\t : Mr.Venkatnarayanan\n\tT.C.Nos.887/04, 2246,\n\t2277, 2323, 2606, 2615 \n\t2656 of 2006, 10, 410, 717,\n\t1006 to 1008 of 2007, 81 to \n 84, 245, 356, 543 & 578 of 2008\n\n\tFor respondent in\t\t :\tMr.N.Quadin Hoseyn\n\tTc.2305/06\n\n\tFor respondent in\t\t:\tMr.V.S.Jayakumar\n\tT.C.2322/06\n\n\tFor respondent in\t\t:\tMr.M.P.Senthilkumar\n\tT.C.2484 & 2495/06\t \tfor M/s Philip George\n\t& 244/08\n\n\tFor respondent in \t\t:\tMr.R.Shankaranarayanan\n\tT.C.2614/06\n\n\tFor respondent in\t\t:\tMr.N.Srinivasan \n\tT.C. 2707/06\n\n\tFor respondent in\t\t:\tMr.R.Srinivasan\n\tT.C.2722/06, 270\n\t& 871/07\n\n\tFor respondent in\t\t:\tMs.Dr.Anita Sumanth\n\tT.C.2706/06, 112, 382\n\t& 405/07\n\n\tFor respondent in\t\t:\tMr.T.N.Seetharaman\n\tT.C.269/07\n\n\tFor respondent in\t\t:\tMr.S.A.Balasubramaniam\n\tT.C.400/07\n\n\tFor respondent in\t\t:\tMr.A.S.Chandrasekaran\n\tT.C.517/07\n\n\tFor respondent in\t\t:\tMr.J.Balachander\n\tT.C.684 & 729/09\n\n\tFor respondent in\t\t:\tMr.C.Manishankar\n\tT.C.1162/07\n\n\n\nCommon Judgment\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 114,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 163,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 549,
"end": 584,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 623,
"end": 647,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 934,
"end": 950,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1016,
"end": 1030,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1069,
"end": 1084,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1256,
"end": 1271,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1310,
"end": 1323,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1363,
"end": 1379,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1465,
"end": 1484,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1524,
"end": 1536,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1598,
"end": 1610,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1669,
"end": 1682,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1742,
"end": 1757,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1796,
"end": 1815,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1854,
"end": 1872,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1911,
"end": 1924,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1969,
"end": 1982,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nWillie (William) Slaney\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Madhya Pradesh.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 82,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n Afr\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Principal Seat At Jabalpur\n Division Bench\n\n Criminal Reference No.2/2011\n In Refeence\n Received from Iii Additional\n Sessions Judge (Fast Track\n Court), Narsinghpur, M.P..\n\n Versus\n\n 1. Rahul Rajak, s/o Ashok\n Rajak, aged about 25 years,\n resident of Near Shyam\n Talkies, Narsinghpur (M.P.).\n\n 2. Ashok Kumar, s/o Bhawani\n Prasad Vishwakarma, aged 37\n years, resident of Ganesh\n Nagar, Bargi Colony,\n Narsinghpur, Police Station,\n Tehsil and District\n Narsinghpur (M.P.).\n\n 3. Satish Parochi, s/o\n Imrat Lal Parochi, aged 28\n years, resident of Housing\n Board Colony, Police Station,\n Narsinghpur (M.P.).\n\n----------------------------------------------------------\nFor the State: Shri Umesh Pandey,Govt. Advocate.\nFor the Complainant: Shri Surendra Singh,Sr. Advocate,\n with Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey,\n advocate.\nFor the Respondents/: Shri S.C. Datt, Sr. Advocate,\nAccused with Shri Siddharth Datt,Advocate,\n Shri R.S. Patel, Shri Alok\n Vagrecha, advocates.\n----------------------------------------------------------\n Criminal Appeal No.1780/2011\n Rahul Rajak, s/o Ashok Rajak,\n aged about 25 years, resident\n of Near Shyam Talkies,\n Narsinghpur (M.P.).\n\n Versus\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh,\n through Police Station\n Narsinghpur, district\n Narsinghpur (Mp).\n 2\n\n\n----------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Appellant: Shri R.S. Patel, Advocate.\nFor the Resp./State: Shri Umesh Pandey,Govt. Advocate.\nFor the Complainant: Shri Surendra Singh,Sr.Advocate,\n with Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey,\n Advocate.\n----------------------------------------------------------\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1793/2011\n Ashok Kumar, s/o Bhawani\n Prasad Vishwakarma, aged 37\n years, resident of Ganesh\n Nagar, Bargi Colony,\n Narsinghpur, Police Station,\n Tehsil and District\n Narsinghpur (M.P.).\n\n Versus\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh,\n through Police Station\n Narsinghpur, district\n Narsinghpur (Mp).\n\n----------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Appellant: Shri S.C. Datt, Sr. Advocate with\n Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate.\nFor the Resp./State: Shri Umesh Pandey,Govt. Advocate.\nFor the Complainant: Shri Surendra Singh,Sr. Advocate,\n with Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey,\n Advocate.\n----------------------------------------------------------\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1818/2011\n Satish Parochi, s/o Imrat Lal\n Parochi, aged 28 years,\n resident of Housing Board\n Colony, Police Station,\n Narsinghpur, district\n Narsinghpur (M.P.).\n\n Versus\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh,\n through Police Station\n Narsinghpur, district\n Narsinghpur (Mp).\n\n----------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Appellant: Shri Alok Vagrecha, Advocate.\nFor the Resp./State: Shri Umesh Pandey, Govt.Advocate.\nFor the Complainant: Shri Surendra Singh, Sr.Advocate,\n with Shri Ashwani Kumar Dubey,\n Advocate.\n 3\n\n----------------------------------------------------------\n\n----------------------------------------------------------\nPresent: Honourable Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena\n Honourable Shri Justice T.K. Kaushal\n----------------------------------------------------------\nDate of hearing: 10/07/2012\nDate of Judgment: 25/07/2012\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 78,
"end": 149,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 449,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 611,
"end": 622,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 913,
"end": 930,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1188,
"end": 1200,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1247,
"end": 1261,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1311,
"end": 1330,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1397,
"end": 1406,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1457,
"end": 1471,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1512,
"end": 1522,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1529,
"end": 1567,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1697,
"end": 1708,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1898,
"end": 1929,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2179,
"end": 2189,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2231,
"end": 2243,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2290,
"end": 2304,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2353,
"end": 2372,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2526,
"end": 2539,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2863,
"end": 2892,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3106,
"end": 3115,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3165,
"end": 3179,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3221,
"end": 3233,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3280,
"end": 3294,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3344,
"end": 3363,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3517,
"end": 3531,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3813,
"end": 3842,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 4056,
"end": 4069,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4111,
"end": 4123,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4170,
"end": 4184,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4234,
"end": 4253,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4483,
"end": 4497,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 4532,
"end": 4544,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 472 of 2008\n\nPetitioner:\nDivine Retreat Centre\n\nRespondent:\nState of Kerala & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 71,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 100,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nH. Holck Larsen\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Maharashtra\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nDigambar\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 60,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Ravinder Singh\u00adIi\n Metropolitan Magistrate\n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi\n\n\nCase No. : 4522/14\nUnique Case Id No. : R0765252009\n\n\nM/s G E Capital Transportation\nFinancial Services Ltd.\nAifacs Building,\n1 Rafi Marg,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110001 ..........................................Complainant\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nSh. Ismile Khan (Proprietor)\nM/s Sojat Traders\nVillage Dhakri\nTeh. Sojat, District\u00ad Pali,\nPali\u00ad306104 ........................................Accused\n\n\nDate of Institution: 16.04.2009\nPlea of the accused: Pleaded Not Guilty\nDate of Reserving Judgment: 20.10.2014\nSentence or final Order: Acquitted\nDate of Judgment: 12.11.2014\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 245,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 431,
"end": 442,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n Civil Appeal Nos. 2525-2516 Of 2013\n (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.5752-53 of 2008\n\n\n\n\n Rajesh Kumar & Ors. etc. \u2026Appellants\n Versus\n State of Bihar & Ors. etc. \u2026Respondents\n With\n Civil Appeal No. 2517 Of 2013\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.6456 of 2008)\n\n\n Abhishek Kumar & Ors. \u2026Appellants\n Versus\n State of Bihar & Ors. \u2026Respondents\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 255,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 342,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 561,
"end": 575,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 638,
"end": 652,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rca No.114/2014: \"Vijay Kr. Sharma & Ors. V/s Jagdishwar Dayal Gupta & Ors.\" Dod: 16.09.2014\n\n\n In The Court Of Vinod Yadav: Addl. District Judge\u00adI:\n South\u00adWest District: Dwarka Courts: New Delhi\n Regular Civil Appeal No.114/2014\nIn the matter of:\n1. Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, \n S/o Shri Umrai Singh Sharma,\n R/o E\u00ad55, Gali No.16, Sadh Nagar,\n Palam Colony, New Delhi.\n2. Shri Sultan Singh Negi,\n S/o Shri Kirth Singh Negi,\n R/o E\u00ad54, Gali No.16, Sadh Nagar,\n Palam Colony, New Delhi.\n .....Appellants\n (Through Shri P.K Bhardwaj, Advocate)\n\n Versus\n\n1. Shri Jagdishwar Dayal Gupta,\n S/o Late Shri Ishwar Dayal,\n R/o 68, New Rajdhani Enclave,\n Vikas Marg, New Delhi\u00ad92.\n\n2. Municipal Corporation of Delhi,\n Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi\u00ad06.\n (Through its Commissioner)\n3. The Executive Engineer (Works),\n Mcd, Najafgarh Zone, Delhi Gate,\n Najafgarh, New Delhi\u00ad45.\n4. Delhi Development Authority,\n Vikas Sadan, Ina Market, New Delhi.\n (Through its Vice\u00adChairman)\n .....Respondents\n (R\u00ad1 Through Shri R.K Gupta, Advocate)\n (R\u00ad2 & R\u00ad3 Nemo)\n (R\u00ad4 Through Shri Arvind Gupta, Advocate)\n\nDate of Institution of Appeal : 22.05.2010\nDate of transfer to this court : 31.01.2014\nDate of reserving judgment : 03.09.2014\nDate of pronouncement : 16.09.2014\n\n\nRca U/s 96 Cpc: \"Rca Dismissed\" Page 1 of 22\n Rca No.114/2014: \"Vijay Kr. Sharma & Ors. V/s Jagdishwar Dayal Gupta & Ors.\" Dod: 16.09.2014\n\n\n Appeal U/s 96 Cpc Against The Order Dated 12.04.2010 Passed In Civil Suit \n No.22/09/05 By Shri Vikas Dhull, Ld.ASCJ (S/W), Dwarka, New Delhi\n\n\n16.09.2014\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 34,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 68,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 141,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 226,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 335,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 459,
"end": 476,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 735,
"end": 747,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 846,
"end": 868,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 995,
"end": 1025,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1128,
"end": 1232,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1244,
"end": 1271,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1562,
"end": 1571,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1782,
"end": 1794,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2270,
"end": 2286,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2298,
"end": 2320,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao \n\nWrit Petition No.2241 of 2015 \n\n06-03-2015 \n\nSmt.I.G.Ramana Kumari.....Petitioner\n\nEastern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited. Rep. by its Chairman-cum- \nManaging Director and another.. Respondents \n\nCounsel for the Petitioner: Sri Vedula Srinivas\n\n$Counsel for Respondents: Sri P.Anand Seshu \n Sri Krishna Rachakatla\n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao \n\nWrit Petition No. 2241 Of 2015 \n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 127,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 195,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 317,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 349,
"end": 362,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 413,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 500,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait And Honble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao \n\nCrl.A.No.1586 of 2010\n\n30-06-2017 \n\nKaranam Nagaraju @ Snathakumar...Appellant \n\nThe State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Public Prosecutor...Respondent. For Appellant :Sri M.K.Raj Kumar, Advocate. \n\nFor Respondent: Public Prosecutor. \nHead Note: \n? Citations: \n1.Air 1997 Sc 2960 2.2010 (173) Dlt 741 \n3.(2012) 191 Dlt 225 (Fb) Honble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait And Honble Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao Criminal Appeal No.1586 of 2010 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 36,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 78,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 167,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 212,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 290,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 461,
"end": 478,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 502,
"end": 520,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nPandurang, Tukia And Bhillia\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Hyderabad.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 28,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 40,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 82,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n \u00ae\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 03Rd Day Of September 2014\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy\n\n Writ Petition No.8815 of 2014 (Gm-Cpc)\nBetween:\n\nSri. Hanumappa,\nSon of Erabhovi,\nnow 53 years,\nResident of Suragondanahalli Village,\nImangala Hobli,\nHiriyur Taluk,\nChitradurga District - 577 501.\n\n ...Petitioner\n(By Shri. Madhukar Nadig, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Yallakka,\n Wife of Hanumappa,\n Now 48 years,\n2. Manjula,\n Daughter of Hanumppa,\n Now 24 years,\n3. Laxmi,\n Daughter of Hanumappa,\n 2\n\n\n\n Now 22 years,\n\n (The respondent 1 to 3 are\n Resident of Adivala Bhovi Colony,\n Hiriyur Taluk,\n Chitradurga District - 577 501.\n\n4. Sri. Chandrappa,\n Son of Era Bhovi,\n Now 38 years,\n\n5. Smt. Thippamma,\n Wife of Pujari Hanumaiah,\n Now 48 years,\n\n6. Smt. Laxmidevi,\n Daughter of Era Bhovi,\n Now 43 years,\n\n7. Smt. Kanumakka,\n Wife of Thimmaiah,\n Now 53 years,\n\n (the Respondent Nos. 4 to 7\n Resident of Suragondanahalli Village,\n Imangala Hobli,\n Hiriyur Taluk)\n Chitradurga District - 577 501.\n\n8. Sri. Puttagangaiahnavar,\n Son of not known,\n Aged not know,\n Resident of Tavandi Village,\n Imangala Hobli,\n Hiriyur Taluk),\n 3\n\n\n\n Chitradurga District - 577 501.\n ...Respondents\n\n(By Shri. K.N. Nitish, Advocate for Shri. K.V.Narasimhan,\nAdvocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3\nNotice to respondent nos. 4 to 8 dispensed with)\n *****\n This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the\nConstitution of India praying to set aside the impugned order\ndated 13.1.2014 passed in R.A.No.11/2010 by the Senior Civil\nJudge at Hiriyur on I.A.No.2 filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3\nunder Order 26 Rule 10-A read with Section 112 of Evidence Act,\nvide Annexure-H.\n\n This Writ Petition having been heard and reserved on\n22.8.2014 and coming on for pronouncement of Orders this day,\nthe Court delivered the following:-\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 236,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 307,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 506,
"end": 520,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 546,
"end": 554,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 610,
"end": 617,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 676,
"end": 681,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 908,
"end": 918,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 973,
"end": 982,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1045,
"end": 1054,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1114,
"end": 1123,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1334,
"end": 1352,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1616,
"end": 1627,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1648,
"end": 1662,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n+ Rcr 31/2009 & Cm 6929/2009\n\n\nTagore Education\nSociety Regd. ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog,\n Senior Advocate with\n Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate\n\n versus\n\nKamla Tandon & Anr. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior\n Advocate with Mr. Rajender\n Aggarwal, Advocate\n\n\n Reserved on: May 13, 2009\n\n% Date of Decision: July 10, 2009\n\n\nCoram:\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice Manmohan\n\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 46,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 115,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 241,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 356,
"end": 365,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 419,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 517,
"end": 532,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 603,
"end": 664,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 844,
"end": 852,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "..(1)..\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Application No.2015 Of 2008\n\n Rafael Palafox Garcia. ..Applicant.\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n The Union of India,\n and Anr. ..Respondents.\n\n ....\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.Anil Anney, Sr.Counsel a/w. Pravin Singhal,\n Adv. i/b. Rajeev Sawant & Associates for the\n applicant.\n\n Smt.Revati M. Dere, Counsel a/w. Mandar Goswami,\n\n\n\n\n \n Counsel for respondent No.1-U.O.I.\n\n Mr.S.S.Pednekar, App, for the State.\n \n ....\n\n Coram : Smt.V.K.Tahilramani,J.\n Date Of Reserving The Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 268,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 391,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 534,
"end": 544,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 562,
"end": 595,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 615,
"end": 628,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 693,
"end": 707,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 722,
"end": 736,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 826,
"end": 838,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 947,
"end": 962,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Meenu Kaushik, Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini: \n Delhi\n\nUnique Id No. 02404R0094482011\nCc No. 14468/1/11\n\nSubhash Basoya\nS/o Sh. Suraj Singh\nR/o 2736, Main Road,\nHansapuri, Tri Nagar,\nDelhi\u00ad110035 ............Complainant\n\nV/s\n\nRahul Bhatia\nS/o Sh. Ravinder Nath Bhatia\nR/o E\u00ad22, IInd Floor,\nSector\u00ad1, Rohini,\nDelhi\u00ad110085. ................Accused \n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 107,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 173,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 346,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nK.I. Shephard & Ors. Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 76,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rc No. 11/88 Ps : Cbi/Siu\u00adIx/Nd U/s 120B/420 Ipc and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. \n Dod: 11.07.2014\n\n\n In The Court Of Pooran Chand: Chief Metropolitan\n Magistrate: Central District: Tis Hazari Courts:\n Delhi\n\nRc No.: 11/88\nPs: Cbi/Siu-Ix/Nd\nU/s 120B/420 Ipc and U/s 5 of Import and Exports (Control)\nAct, 1947.\nCbi Vs. M/s Bothra Rugs P Ltd.\nUnique Id No.: 02401R0872892005\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 218,
"end": 230,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 331,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 438,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 465,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAshok Kumar Gupta , Vidya Sagar Gupta & Ors\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of U.P. & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 49,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 88,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms Bhawani Sharma: Acj/Ccj/Arc \n Shahdara: Karkardooma Courts: Delhi\n\nE - 40/2014 \nUnique Identification No. 02402C0136602014\n\nSmt. Poonam Chadha\nW/o late Sh. Anil Chadha,\nR/o 3/61, (Old No.3/21),\nRam Gali, Vishwas Nagar,\nShahdara, Delhi\u00ad110032. .....Petitioner\n\n Versus \nSh. Suresh Chand Jain\nS/o late Sh. S.C. Jain,\nR/o B\u00ad157, Surajmal Vihar, \nDelhi\u00ad110092. .....Respondent\n\n Application for Eviction of tenant under Section 14\u00adD, 14 (1) (e) of \n the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.\n\nPetition filed on : 08.05.2014\nOrder reserved on : 15.11.2014\nDate of Order : 20.11.2014\nDecision : Leave to defend application of the \n respondent - dismissed and \n eviction order passed. \n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 165,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 406,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'Ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar \nW.P. No.7764 Of 2006 \n\nDated 19-02-2013 \n\nK.B.Jagan Mohan, son of K.Sunder Rao,A.P.State Agro Industries Development \nCorporation Ltd.,Eluru, WGDt and others....Petitioners\n\nThe State of A.P. rep.by its Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation Dept.,\nSecretariat,Hydbad and another..Respondents Counsel for Petitioner:Sri K.R.Prabhakar and Sri T.P.Acharya Counsel for Respondents : Sri MaHERCHAND Nori; G.P.for Co-operation and G.P.for Agriculture. \n\nHead Note: \n?Cases Referred: \n1)2006 (2) Ald 210 \n2)2007 (6) Supreme 97 = Air 2007 Sc 3100 1 2006 (2) Ald 210 2 2007 (6) Supreme 97 = Air 2007 Sc 3100 wp.7764,7765,19505,and 20387 of 2006 Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 36,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 107,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 243,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 387,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 396,
"end": 407,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 453,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Harvinder Singh,\n Metropolitan Magistrate - 03 (West),\n Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi - 110 054.\n\n Fir No.982/2004\n Ps - Nangloi\n State Vs. Anil etc.\nUnique Case Id No.02401R1300162005\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 146,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 378,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 383,
"end": 387,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon\n\n Monday, The 9Th Day Of February 2015/20Th Magha, 1936\n\n WP(C).No. 3435 of 2015 (D)\n --------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\nPetitioner(S):\n----------------------\n\n Asharaf, S/O.Abbas, Aged 31 Years\n Kunnupara House, Thettil P.O,\n Kasargode District.\n\n By Adv. Sri.S.Shajahan (Adoor)\n\nRespondent(S):\n-------------------------\n\n 1. Station House Officer\n Kasargode Police Station,\n Kasargode District 671 121.\n\n 2. Sub Divisional Magistrate\n Kasargode - 671 121.\n\n 3. District Collector\n Civil Station, Kasargode. 671 121.\n\n By Government Pleader Sri.Kc.Vincent\n\n\n This Writ Petition (Civil) Having Come Up For Admission\n On 09-02-2015, The Court On The Same Day Delivered The\n Following:\n\n\nPj\n\f\nWP(C).No. 3435 of 2015 (D)\n--------------------------------------\n\n Appendix\n\nPetitioner(S)' Exhibits\n-------------------------------------\n\nExt.P1 - A Copy Of The Seizure Mahazar Prepared By The First\n Respondent Dated 29-1-2015\n\nRespondent(S)' Exhibits\n---------------------------------------\n\n Nil.\n\n / True Copy /\n\n\n P.S. To Judge\n\nPj\n\f\n\n\n C.R.\n P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.\n ---------------------------------------\n W.P.(C) No.3435 of 2015\n ---------------------------------------\n Dated this the 9th day of February, 2015\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 162,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 426,
"end": 433,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 559,
"end": 569,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 632,
"end": 730,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 744,
"end": 801,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 815,
"end": 879,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 923,
"end": 930,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1729,
"end": 1751,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax,Ahmedabad\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nKaramchand Premchand Ltd.,Ahmedabad.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 48,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 93,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n+ Writ Petition (Civil) 12602 of 2006\n\n\n Reserved on : 18th August , 2008\n Date of Decision: 24th September,2008\n\n # M/S Hongkong And Shanghai\n Banking Corporation Ltd. ..... Petitioner\n Through : Mr.Kailash Vasdev, Sr.Advocate\n with Mr.Siddharth Dias, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n $ Govt. Of India & Anr. ... Respondents\n ^ Through : Mr.Sewa Ram and\n Mr.R.K.Bachchan, Advocate for Union of\n India.\n\n Ms.Manju Saxena in person.\n\n\n % Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Siddharth Mridul\n\n\n1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the\n judgment? Yes.\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes.\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 303,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 385,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 430,
"end": 444,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 490,
"end": 504,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 584,
"end": 592,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 626,
"end": 638,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 730,
"end": 742,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 791,
"end": 807,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated 12.02.2010\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mrs. Justice R.Banumathi\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice M.M.Sundresh\n\nC.M.A. No.3352 Of 2004\n\nS.Valli\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..\tAppellant\n\nversus\n\nN.Rajendran\t\t\t\t\t\t..\tRespondent\n\t\n\n\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, against the judgment in O.P.No.326 of 2001 dated 23.07.2004 on the file of the I Additional Family Court, Madras and granting divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and set aside the judgment.\n\n\tFor Appellant\t : M/s.D.Nagasaila for\n\t\t\t\t\t M/s.S.Tamizharasi\n\n\tFor Respondent\t\t: M/s.Sheila Jayaprakash\n\n* * * * *\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 111,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 155,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 188,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 228,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 595,
"end": 606,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 622,
"end": 635,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 660,
"end": 678,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Vineeta Goyal, Additional \nDistrict Judge \u00ad 01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi \n District, New Delhi\n\n\nSuit No. 328/13\nUnique Id no. 02403C0126172013\n\n\nSh. K.P. Singh (Kiran Pal Singh)\nS/o Late Sh. Manju Singh \nR/o 6073/2, Gf, Pocket D\u00ad6, Dda Flats,\nVasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110 070\n ......... Plaintiff\n Versus\nJay Kumar Singh @ Jay Kumar Kiran Singh \nS/o Sh. K.P. Singh (Kiran Pal Singh) \nC/o Sh. S.C. Yamawar (Father in Law)\nH.No. 14, Perfect Housing Society \nIndraprastha Nagar, Pannse Layout\nNear Mukhare College,\nBhamti Nagpur - 440 022\n ........ Defendant\n Suit presented On : 19.09.2013\n Arguments Heard On : 10.10.2014\n Order Pronounced On : 16.10.2014 \n\n\nAppearance : Sh. Rakesh C. Agarwal, counsel for the plaintiff.\n Sh. J. Andrews, counsel for the defendant.\n\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 100,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 204,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 450,
"end": 489,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 986,
"end": 1003,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1049,
"end": 1059,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 110 of 2002\n\n\n\nPetitioner:\nMadhukar D. Shende\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nTarabai Aba Shedage\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 72,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 111,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMaharao Sahib Sri Bhim Singhji Etc. Etc\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 42,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 85,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Ep 10/2014\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Bench At Gwalior\n\n Sb: Justice Sujoy Paul\n Election Petition No.10/2014\n Rasal Singh\n vs.\n The Election Commission of India\n and others\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri Anil Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.\nShri D.K.Katare, Advocate for the respondents No.1 to 4.\nShri S.K.Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.5.\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 132,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 183,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 282,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 376,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 519,
"end": 530,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 566,
"end": 576,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 623,
"end": 638,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy And The Honble Ms. Justice J.Uma Devi \n\nCrl.A. Nos.71 of 2011\n\n26-07-2017 \n\nBejjipalli Reyyamma and another ..... Appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2\n\nState of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad. .....RespondentCounsel for the appellant: Mr.G.Vijayasaradhi, for Mr.Y.Kanakalingeswara Rao Counsel for the respondent: Public Prosecutor (Ap) Counsel for the appellant: Public Prosecutor (Ap) Counsel for the respondent: Mr.A.Ravi Shankar Head Note: \n? Cases referred:\n1. (2016) 11 Scc 673 \n2. (2015) 11 Scc 154 \n3. Air 1999 Sc 3255 \n4. (2015) 11 Scc 154 \n5. (2010) 8 Scc 514 = (2010) 3 Scc (Cri) 942 \n6. Air 1970 Sc 1566 =(1971) 1 Scr 599 = 1970 Cri Lj 1415 \n7. (2012) 7 Scc 569 = (2012) 3 Scc (Cri) 430 The Honble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy And The Honble Ms Justice J.Uma Devi Criminal Appeal Nos.71 of 2011 and 13 of 2013 Date: 26.07.2017 The Court made the following:\nCommon Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 80,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 156,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 232,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 340,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 349,
"end": 371,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 504,
"end": 518,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 820,
"end": 839,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 866,
"end": 876,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Metropolitan \n Magistrate\u00ad1 (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi \n\n Fir No. 289/2010\n Ps : Gandhi Nagar \n Under section 420/34 Ipc\nIn the matter of:\n\nState \n Versus \n\n1. Neeraj Jain,\n2. Prabash Jain \n Both S/o Late Sh. Mittal Jain\n Both R/o H. No. X/2696, \n Gali no. 6A, Raghubarpura No. 2, \n Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. \n \nDate of Institution : 20.04.2011\nDate of arguments : 21.11.2013\nDate of judgment : 16.12.2013\n\n\n Judgment \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 58,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 114,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 383,
"end": 388,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 458,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 463,
"end": 475,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSultan Brothers (P) Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 36,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 82,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High\u00a0Court\u00a0Of\u00a0Madhya\u00a0Pradesh\u00a0\u00a0:\n Jabalpur.\n\n Writ Petition No.10938/2014\n\n Rajesh Kumar Rathore & others.\n\n Vs.\n Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others.\n\n\nPresent :\n\nHon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J.\n\n Shri R.N. Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Shri\n Abhishek Arjariya, learned counsel for the petitioner.\n\n Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Senior counsel assisted by\n Shri Ritvik Parasar, learned counsel for the respondent\n No.1.\n\n Shri Vaibhav Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer, for the\n respondent No.2-State.\n\n Shri Jayant Neekhra, learned counsel for the\n respondent No.3.\n\n Shri Manikant Sharma, learned counsel for the\n respondent No.4.\n\n\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 141,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 228,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 287,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 314,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 379,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 444,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 492,
"end": 506,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 567,
"end": 581,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 654,
"end": 668,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 729,
"end": 744,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nShree Sajjan Mills Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, M.P. Bhopal And Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 94,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Arun Bhardwaj\n Presiding Officer: Motor Accident Claims Tribunal\u00adIi, \n Dwarka Courts: New Delhi\n\n Mact No. 34/13\n\nIn The Matter Of : \u00ad\n\n 1. Smt. Meena Sarkar (Widow) (aged 23 yrs.)\n W/o late Sh. Uttam Sarkar\n \n 2. Kumari Shweta Sarkar (Daughter) (aged 03 yrs.)\n D/o late Sh. Uttam Sarkar\n\n Both permanent R/o Basant Pur,\n Palus Bagh, P.O. Surchiya, \n P.S. Bhatar, Distt. Vardhman (West Bengal)\n\n Presently at House of Sh. Ravi Kumar,\n Village Pochanpur, Sector\u00ad23,\n Dwarka, New Delhi.\n ... Claimants\n\n Versus\n\n 1. Sh. Dushyant Singh (Owner)\n S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh,\n R/o H.No. 1256/3, Gali No. 5,\n Rajiv Nagar, Gurgaon (Hr).\n \n 2. Oriental Insurance Co. (Insurer)\n Do: Payal Cinema Complex,\n Sector\u00ad14, Delhi Road,\n Gurgaon (Hr).\n Ro: Oriental House, A\u00ad25/27, \n Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi\u00ad2.\n ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\nMact No. 34/13 Smt. Meena Sarkar & Anr. v. Sh. Dushyant Singh & Anr. Page No. 1 of 17\n Filed On : 03.04.2013\nReserved On : 06.12.2013\nDecided On : 03.01.2014\n\n \u00ad: J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 128,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 227,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 317,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 746,
"end": 760,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 881,
"end": 903,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1175,
"end": 1187,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1202,
"end": 1216,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Li Addl. Cityf Civil &\n Sessions Judge At Bengaluru City. (Cch 52)\n\n Dated this the 21st day of October 2015\n\n Present:\n Sri G.D.Mahavarkar, M.A., Ll.B (Spl),\n M.L. (Lab & Indstrl Rlns & Adm. Laws),\n Ll.M (Business) Laws), M.Phil-in-Law\n (Juridical Science)\n Li Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.\n\n Crl. Appeal No. 395/2013\n\nAppellant : B.M. Raju,\nOriginal Complainant S/o. Marisiddappa,\n Aged about 46 years,\n R/a. C/o. Lord Mary,\n Nearby Church,\n Holebeedi Road, Dodda Begur,\n Bangalore - 570 068.\n\n And also at:\n\n Provisions Store,\n Next to V.J.Bakery,\n Last Bus Stop, Kudlu,\n Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk,\n Bangalore Urban District.\n\n (By Sri K.V.Sathish & Associates,\n Advocates)\n\n Vs.\n 2 Crl.Appeal No.395/2013\n\n\nRespondent : Smt. Ashwathamma,\nOriginal accused W/o. Muninarayanappa,\n Aged about 48 years,\n R/a. No.137, Ground Floor,\n 10th Main, Opp, Water Tank,\n Aecs Layout, Kudlu,\n Bangalore - 560 068.\n\n (By Sri J.M. Ravikumar,\n Advocate)\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 77,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 196,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 400,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 466,
"end": 475,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1057,
"end": 1068,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1252,
"end": 1263,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1630,
"end": 1644,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nJaswant Singh Nerwal Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Punjab And Ors. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 72,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms.Madhu Jain:Special Judge\u00ad01 (Pc Act):\n Cbi, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.\n\n\nCc No.18/2011\nRc No.26A/2003/CBI, Acb, New Delhi\nU/s.120(B) Ipc & U/s 7, 13(2) R/W Section 13(1)(D) of Pc Act, 1988\n\n\nCase Id No.:02403R0662082004\n\n\nIn the matter of:\n\n\n Cbi\n Versus\n\n\n\n1. Hiren Tokas,\n S/o Shri Sukhbir Singh,\n R/o 236, Vill. Munirka, New Delhi\u00ad67.\n\n\n2. Subhash Chander Jain,\n S/o Late Shri Kedarnath Jain,\n R/o Rz\u00ad57, Kailash Puri,\n Palam Colony, New Delhi. ... Accused \n\n\n\nDate of Institution : 11.08.2004\nDate of Argument heard : 22.05.2014\nDate of Decision : 22.05.2014\n\n\n\n\nCbi Vs. Hiren Tokas & Anr.\nCc No.18/2011 Page No. 1 / 87\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 293,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 356,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 443,
"end": 463,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 744,
"end": 747,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 752,
"end": 763,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nKamarunnissa Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 68,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated:28/07/2009\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Ms.JUSTICE R.Mala\n\nS.A.No.87 of 2004\n\n1. V.Sadasivan Nair\n\n2. V.Ramachandran Nair\n\n3. Sakunthala\n\n4. Usha\n\n5. Jayan\t\t\t ..plaintiffs/Appellants\n\nvs.\n\nRaghavan Nair\t\t ..Defendant/Respondent\n\nPrayer\n\nSecond Appeal filed under Section 100 of the civil Procedure Code\nagainst the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.101 of 1999, dated 04.06.2003, on\nthe file of the Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram confirming the judgment and\ndecree made in O.S.No.932 of 1994, dated 17.09.1999,on the file of the\nAdditional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.\n\n!For Appellants ...Mr.K.N.Thampi\n^For Respondent ...Mr.V.M.Balamohan Thampi\n\t\t\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 103,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 128,
"end": 144,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 169,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 185,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 195,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 206,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 257,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 670,
"end": 680,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 704,
"end": 724,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nUnion Of India\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nPrafulla Kumar Samal & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 66,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Cc No. 33/1: U/s 195 Ipc r/w section 340 Cr.PC : Ps Subzi Mandi Dod: 27.11.2014\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Pooran Chand: Chief Metropolitan\n Magistrate: Central District: Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi\n\nCc No.:33/1\nPs: Subzi Mandi\nU/s : 195 Ipc r/w section 340 Cr.P.C.\nUnique Id No.: 02401R0263722011\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 158,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 240,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Keralaat Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice K.M.Joseph\n &\n The Honourable Mr. Justice A.Hariprasad\n\n Thursday,The 2Nd Day Of January 2014/12Th Pousha, 1935\n\n WA.No. 1321 of 2013 () In Wp(C).4435/2011\n -------------------------------------------------------------\nAgainst The Judgment In Wp(C) 4435/2011 of High Court Of Kerala Dated 16-07-2013\n\n\n\n\n Appellant/3Rd Respondent In The Wpc :\n -----------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Pramod Kumar\n Srivilas, West Veliyathunad\n Alangad P.O.,Pin - 683 511.\n\n By Adv. Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair\n\n Respondents/Petitioner And Respondents 1,2 & 4 In Wp(C):\n -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n 1. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation,\n Represented By Its Managing Director,\n Transport Bhavan, Fort P.O.,\n Thiruvananthapuram- 23.\n\n 2. The Regional Transport Authority,\n Ernakulam Represented By Its\n Secretary,Pin - 682 030.\n\n 3. The Secretary, Regional Transportauthority,\n Ernakulam, Pin - 682 030.\n\n 4. The Statetransportappellatetribunal, Ernakulam,\n Pin - 682 016.\n\n R1 Byadv.Sri. P.C.Chacko\n R1 Byadv.Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha,Sc,Ksrtc\n R2 To 4 By Government Pleader Sri. C.R. Syamkumar\n Advocate Commissioner By Adv. Jeevan Mathew Manayani\n\n This Writ Appeal Having Come Up For Admission On 02-01-2014,\n The Court On The Same Day Delivered The Following:\n\f\nWA.No. 1321 of 2013\n\n\n\n\n Appendix\n\n\n\n\nPetitioner'S Exhibits:\n------------------------------------\n\nAnnexure A1 - Copy Of The Judgment Of The State Transportappellate\n Tribunal In M.V.A.A. No.474/2009 Dated 19.12.2009.\n\nAnnexure A2 - Copy Of The Certificatealong With The Certificate\n Issued By The Assistant Engineer, National Highway Sub\n Division, Aluva, Dated 7.4.2010\n\nAnnexure A3 - Copy Of The Regular Permit Issued To The Appellant\n Valid Up To 19.10.2017.\n\n\nRespondents' Exhibits\n-------------------------------------\n\n Nil\n\n\n // True Copy //\n\n\n\n\nsou.\n\f\n\n\n C.R.\n\n\n\n\n K. M. Joseph & A. Hariprasad, Jj.\n =.=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=.=\n W. A. No. 1321 of 2013\n =.=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=.=\n Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 159,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 275,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 698,
"end": 724,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 794,
"end": 813,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 980,
"end": 1019,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1137,
"end": 1165,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1241,
"end": 1310,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1321,
"end": 1352,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1405,
"end": 1415,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1434,
"end": 1458,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1508,
"end": 1522,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1557,
"end": 1579,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2643,
"end": 2655,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2658,
"end": 2671,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 6247-6250 of 2000\n\nPetitioner:\nState Of Karnataka And Anr.\n\nRespondent:\nMangalore University Non-Teaching Employees Association And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 75,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 153,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 19.6.2006\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran\nAnd\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice P.P.S.Janarthana Raja\n\nT.C.(A) Nos.76 to 86, 105, 129 \nto \n133 of 2003 and 287 to 290, \n322 to 328 \nand \n459 to 463 of 2006\n\n\nT.C.No.76 of 2003\n\nM/s.Bilahari Investments (P) Ltd.,\n45, Poes Road, I Floor, \nChennai-18.\t\t\t\t\t..\tAppellant\n\n\t\tVs.\n\n\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Ii, Chennai.\t\t\t\t..\tRespondent \n\n\tT.C. Appeals filed against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated 5.7.2002 made in I.T.A. Nos.2138(Mds)/93, 1793(Mds)/96, 810(Mds)/95, 2073(Mds)/95 and 1361 (Mds)/96.\n\n\tFor Appellants in\t:\tMr.V.D.Gopal\n\tall the cases\n \tFor Respondent\t\t:\tMrs.Pushya Sitaraman\n\tin all the cases\t\tSenior Standing Counsel\n\n-----\nCommon Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 104,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 153,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 310,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 427,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 654,
"end": 663,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 703,
"end": 719,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Anurag Sain, Adj\u00ad03 (East), \n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\n\n Rca No.: 80/14 \n Unique Case Id No. 02402C0188592014 \n\nRajiv Jain\nS/o Sh. Rajender Kumar Jain\nR/o Ix/25, Main Road,\nOpp. Durga Mandir,\nKailash Nagar, Delhi\u00ad31.\n ...........Appellant\n Versus\n\nSh. Rattan Lal\nS/o Sh. Pooran Mal\nR/o E\u00ad49, Ashok Vihar,\nPhase : 1, Delhi\n ........Respondent\n\n\n\nDate of institution of appeal : 01.07.2014\nDate of reserving judgment : 04.12.2014\nDate of pronouncement : 10.12.2014\n\nJudgment \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 156,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 376,
"end": 386,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWA.No. 428 of 2008()\n\n\n1. Muhammed Ashraf, Aged 38 Years,\n ... Petitioner\n2. Smt. C.Arifa, Aged 31 Years,\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Union Of India,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State Of Kerala,\n\n3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,\n\n4. The State Bank Of Travancore,\n\n5. The Tahsildar,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Varghese C.Kuriakose\n\n For Respondent :Sri.T.Krishnan Unni (Sr.)\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B.Koshy\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N.Ravindran\n\n Dated :13/08/2008\n\n O R D E R\n J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, Jj.\n ---------------------------------------------------------\n W.A.No.428 of 2008, W.P.(C)Nos.13512 of 2007,\n 7956, 13954, 14048, 14910, 15545, 16691,\n 17647, 17672, 18441, 19315, 19440 of 2008\n and\n Crl.R.P.1726 of 2008\n ----------------------------------------------------------\n Dated August, 2008\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 83,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 153,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 218,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 283,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 318,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 352,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 371,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 411,
"end": 431,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 485,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 517,
"end": 526,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 551,
"end": 564,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 617,
"end": 626,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 629,
"end": 642,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 184 of 2003()\n\n\n1. Subash, S/O. Gangadharan,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.Narayanan\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B.Koshy\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.Hema\n\n Dated :25/02/2008\n\n O R D E R\n J.B. Koshy & K. Hema, Jj.\n\n --------------------------------------------\n\n Crl.Appeal No. 184 of of 2003\n\n --------------------------------------------\n\n Dated this the 25th day of February, 2008.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 77,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 184,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 279,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 366,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 392,
"end": 398,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 453,
"end": 463,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 466,
"end": 473,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nRSA.No. 1008 of 2003()\n\n\n1. Subaida Ashraf, W/O.Ashraf,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. District General Manager,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Union Of India, Rep. By Its\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Rajesh Nambiar\n\n For Respondent :Sri.B.Krishna Mani, Sc, Bsnl\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Thomas P.Joseph\n\n Dated :13/11/2009\n\n O R D E R\n \"C.R.\"\n\n Thomas P.Joseph, J.\n = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n R.S.A. No. 1008 of 2003\n = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n Dated this the 13th day of November, 2009\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 194,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 258,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 324,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 377,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 428,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 560,
"end": 575,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1512 Of 2010\n (Arising out of Slp (Crl.) No.4684 of 2009)\n\n\nPreeti Gupta & Another ...Appellants\n\n Versus\n\nState of Jharkhand & Another ....Respondents\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 56,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 217,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 302,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMadan Lal & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 76,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nOp No. 6273 of 1998(V)\n\n\n\n1. T.M.Abdul Azeez\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n1. State Of Kerala\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.N.Dharmadan (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Sri.K.P.Dandapani\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair\n\n Dated :10/04/2007\n\n O R D E R\n T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.\n\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n O.P.Nos.6273 & 20334 of 1998\n\n - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n Dated this the 10th day of April, 2007\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 86,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 172,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 266,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 324,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 371,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 430,
"end": 452,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe State Of Bombay\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nR. M. D. Chamarbaugwala\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 76,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Wp/8936/2012\n 1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature Of Bombay\n Bench At Aurangabad\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No. 8936 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n Ramniwas Bansilal Lakhotiya, Died Thr. L.Rs. And Anr\n Versus\n Sunil Pannalal Agrawal And Ors\n ...\n\n\n\n\n \n Advocate for Petitioners : Shri V.J.Dixit, Sr. Advocate\n i/b Shri L.V.Sangeet\n Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri A.S.Bajaj\n Respondent 4 : Served.\n ...\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.\n Dated: November 20th & 25th, 2014 ig ... \n\n Oral Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 170,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 404,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 498,
"end": 520,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 676,
"end": 689,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 740,
"end": 751,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 991,
"end": 1008,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nShyam Lal\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\n1. The State Of Uttar Pradesh2. The Union Of India\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 73,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 93,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Cs No.213/2012: \"Chander Bhan Yadav V/s Dinesh Diwakar & Anr.\" Dod: 17.10.2014\n\n\n In The Court Of Vinod Yadav: Addl. District Judge\u00adI:\n South\u00adWest District: Dwarka Courts: New Delhi\n\n Civil Suit No.213/2012\n\nIn the matter of:\n\nShri Chander Bhan Yadav,\nS/o Late Shri Kanheya Lal Yadav,\nR/o Wz\u00ad2A, Village Todapur,\nPusa, New Delhi\u00ad110 012.\n .....Plaintiff\n (Through Shri S.K Tomar, Advocate)\n\n Versus\n\n1. Shri Dinesh Diwakar,\n S/o Shri Jogeshwar Bhagat,\n R/o Quarter No.F\u00ad1, Pusa,\n New Delhi\u00ad110 012.\n\n2. Shri Om Prakash,\n S/o Late Shri Kanheya Lal Yadav,\n R/o Wz\u00ad44, Village Todapur,\n Pusa, New Delhi\u00ad110 012.\n .....Defendants\n (D\u00ad1 Through Shri M.K Pathy, Advocate)\n (None for D\u00ad2)\n\nDate of Institution of Suit : 15.03.2011\n\nDate of transfer to this Court : 08.08.2012\n\nDate of reserving judgment : 09.10.2014\n\nDate of pronouncement : 17.10.2014\n\n\n\n\nSuit for recovery of Poss.,Cancellation,Decl. & Mandatory Injn.: \"Suit Dismissed\" Page 1 of 22\n Cs No.213/2012: \"Chander Bhan Yadav V/s Dinesh Diwakar & Anr.\" Dod: 17.10.2014\n\n\n Suit For Recovery Of Possession, Cancellation, \n Declaration And Mandatory Injunction\n\n\n17.10.2014\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 36,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 55,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 142,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 222,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 330,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 594,
"end": 603,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 689,
"end": 703,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 815,
"end": 825,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1108,
"end": 1117,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1620,
"end": 1638,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1643,
"end": 1657,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal NOs. 9821-9822 Of 2010\n (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 14985-14986 of 2010)\n\n\nM/s J.P. Builders & Anr. .... Appellant(s)\n\n Versus\n\nA. Ramadas Rao & Anr. .... Respondent(s)\n\n With\n\n Civil Appeal NOs. 9824-9825 Of 2010\n (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 15008-15009 of 2010)\n\n And\n\n Civil Appeal No. 9826 Of 2010\n (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 17435 of 2010)\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 234,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 317,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 8270 of 2001\n\nPetitioner:\nGovernment of Andhra Pradesh & Ors\n\nRespondent:\nSmt. P. Laxmi Devi\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 80,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 118,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hon'Ble Sri Justice G. Bhavani Prasad \n\nCriminal Petition Nos.7063 of 2008 and 2539 of 2009\n\n29/02/2012 \n\nA. Ashok Vardhan Reddy and others \n\nSmt. P. Savitha and another \n\nCounsel For The Petitioners: Sri T. Pradyumna Kumar Reddy \n\nCounsel For 1St Respondent: Sri P. Krishna Reddy ^Counsel For 2Nd Respondent: -- \nCrl.P. No.2539 of 2009:\nA. Ashok Vardhan Reddy and others ... Petitioners State of A.P. represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another ...Respondents Counsel For The Petitioners: Sri Sharad Sanghi Counsel For 1St Respondent: -- \nCounsel For 2Nd Respondent: Sri P. Krishna Reddy ? Citations: \n1.1992 (3) Alt 468\n2. 2002 (1) Alt (Crl.) 300 (D.B.) (A.P.)\n3. 2008 (Tls) 1227198 \n4. 2008(2) Crimes 235 (M.P.)\n5. 2006 (Tls) 43393 \n6. 2009 (2) Ald (Crl.) 155 (Ap)\n7. 2011 (2) Mlj (Cri) 429\n8. Air 1991 Sc 1406 \n9. 2010(2) Ald (Crl.) 689 (Ap)\n10. 2007 Crl.L.J. 3361 = 2007(2) Ald (Crl.) 248\n11. Air 2008 Sc 899 \n12. Air 1990 Sc 1849 \n13. 2009(1) Alt (Crl.) 285 (A.P.)\n14. 2008(2) Ald (Crl.) 1 (Ap)\n15. 2010 (1) Ald (Cri.) 1 (Ap)\n16. (2002) 4 Scc 297 \n17. Air 1957 Sc 540 (1) \n18. Air 1974 Sc 1032 \n19. Air 1989 Sc 509 \n20. 1997 (1) Ald 73\n21. Air 1954 Madras 1039 \n22. (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 406 \n23. 2011 (2) Ald (Crl.) 191 (Ap)\n24. 2010 (2) Ald (Crl.) 391 (Ap)\n25. 2010 (4) Kerala Law Times 384 \n26. Air 2008 Madras 162 \n27. 2007 Crl.L.J. 4742\n28. Air 1975 Sc 105 \n29. 1998(1) Ald (Crl.) 122 (Ap)\n30. Air 1963 Sc 1 \n31. 2008(2) Alt 241 \n32. 2001 (1) Alt (Crl.) 219 (Sc)\n33. 2009 (3) Alt (Crl.) 242 (A.P.)\n34. Air 2000 Sc 2324 \n35. 2005 Air Scw 3569 \n36. I (2007) Dmc 545 \n37. 1998(5) Ald 426 Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 136,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 179,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 271,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 331,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 404,
"end": 426,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 454,
"end": 467,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 602,
"end": 615,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 687,
"end": 703,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 1102 of 2005()\n\n\n1. K.K.Vijayachandran, Assistant,\n ... Petitioner\n2. P.P.Naushad, Proprietor,\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Superintendent Of Police,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State Of Kerala, Represented By\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.Jacob Varghese\n\n For Respondent :Sri.S.Sreekumar, Sc For Cbi\n\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.Hema\n\n Dated :29/09/2006\n\n O R D E R\n K.Hema, J.\n\n ---------------------------------------\n\n Crl.A.No.1102 of 2005\n\n ---------------------------------------\n\n Dated this the 29th day of September, 2006\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 90,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 155,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 231,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 296,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 367,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 417,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 456,
"end": 462,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 526,
"end": 532,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 854 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 855 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 870 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 874 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 877 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 878 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 879 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 883 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 7353 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 7354 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 7355 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 7356 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 873 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 876 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 880 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 3552-60 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 4067 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 5380-81 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 875 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 881 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 8467-8499 of 2002\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil) 19373-405 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 8511 of 2002\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil) 12322 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 7314-35 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 3561-65 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 896 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 955 of 2002\nAppeal (civil) 8500 of 2002\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil) 7966 of 2002\n\nPetitioner:\nBank of India & Ors.\n\nRespondent:\nO.P. Swarnakar etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 949,
"end": 962,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 983,
"end": 997,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay \n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction \n\n\n\n\n \n Appeal Lodging No. 53 Of 2009\n In\n\n\n\n\n \n Notice Of Motion No. 2012 Of 2007\n In\n Suit No.1453 Of 2007\n\n\n\n\n \n Kuljinder Singh Ahluwalia, )\n 201-202, Lumiere Co-operative Housing )\n Society Limited, Picnic Cottage, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Bus Stop, J.P. Road, Versova, Andheri )\n (West), Mumbai - 400 061.\n ig ).. Appellant\n\n\n Versus\n \n 1. Smt. Sandeep Kaur Ahluwalia, )\n 37, Parag Apartments, J.P. Road, )\n Versova, Mumbai - 400 072. )\n \n\n\n 2. Ravinder Singh Ahluwalia, )\n \n\n\n\n 301-A, Highland Park, Lokhandwala, )\n Andheri (West), Mumbai 400 058. )\n\n 3. M/s. Muktanand Corporation, )\n\n\n\n\n\n A partnership firm having its )\n registered office at Surinder House, )\n Safaid Pool Kurla, Andheri Road, )\n Andehri (East), Mumbai - 400 072. )\n\n\n\n\n\n 4. M/s. Mukat Pipes Limited, )\n A company incorporated under the )\n Companies Act, 1956, having its )\n registered office at Surindra House, )\n Safaid Pool, Kurla, Andheri Road, )\n Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400 072. )\n\n\n\n\n \n 2\n\n\n 5. Mrs. Mandeep A. Pahwa, )\n\n\n\n\n \n residing at 33, Model Town, )\n Ludhiana, Punjab. )\n\n\n\n\n \n 6. Rupinder Singh, )\n Residing at 8-B, Model Towan, )\n Patiala, Punjab 140 001. )\n\n\n\n\n \n 7. Kamal Jain, )\n Having his office at Mukat Pipes Ltd., )\n Patiala Road, Rajpura, )\n Punjab 140 401. ).. Respondents\n\n\n\n\n \n --\n \n Shri R.A. Dada, Senior Advocate, along with Shri Chetan Kapadia \n and Shri I.S. Nankani i/by M/s. Nankani & Associates for the \n Appellant.\n \n Shri Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate along with Ms Saumya \n Srikrishna i/by M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Resondent No.1.\n Shri N.H. Seervai, Senior Advocate, along with Shri Prateek Sakseria \n and Shri Vishal Thaker i/by Ms Anjali Trivedi for Respondent No.2.\n \n\n Shri Simil Purohit for Respondent No.5.\n --\n \n\n\n\n Coram : Swatanter Kumar, C.J. & \n\n\n\n\n\n S.C. Dharmadhikari, J \n\n\n\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 526,
"end": 551,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 942,
"end": 964,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1105,
"end": 1129,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1259,
"end": 1280,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1534,
"end": 1553,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1947,
"end": 1963,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2253,
"end": 2267,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2481,
"end": 2491,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2822,
"end": 2831,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2869,
"end": 2884,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2904,
"end": 2918,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3024,
"end": 3043,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3087,
"end": 3110,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3170,
"end": 3182,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3217,
"end": 3233,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3249,
"end": 3262,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3272,
"end": 3286,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3326,
"end": 3339,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3428,
"end": 3443,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3497,
"end": 3515,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 19.06.2008\n\nCoram: \n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran \nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.N.Basha\n\nCriminal Appeal No.429 of 2007\n\n\nVelmurugan\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\nvs.\n\nState, Rep. by Inspector \nof Police, Alangayam Police \nStation, Vellore District. \n(Cr.No.255/2005).\t\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\n\tAppeal against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District dated 8.3.2007 made in S.C.No.179 of 2006.\n\n\t\tFor Appellant\t:\tMr.S.Gowri Shankar\n\n\t\tFor Respondent :\tMr.N.R.Elango\n\t\t\t\t\t\tAdditional Public Prosecutor\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 113,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 154,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 199,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 231,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 524,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 548,
"end": 558,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nParimisetti Seetharamamma\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, Hyderabad\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 37,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 94,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAshok Kumar Yadav And Ors. Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Haryana And Ors. Etc. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 84,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Fa No. 14/13 & Anr.\n 1\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court At Bombay\n Appellate Side, Bench At Aurangabad\n\n\n\n\n \n First Appeal No. 14 Of 2013\n\n United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n Through it's Divisional Manager,\n Ahmednagar Divisional Office,\n\n\n\n\n \n Kisan Kranti Building, Ahmednagar,\n Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n\n 1. Meena Balkrushna Khandagale,\n \n Age 39 years, Occu. Nil,\n\n 2. Sarita Balkrushna Khandagale,\n \n Age 16 years, Occu. Education,\n\n 3. Chaitali Balkrushna Khandagale,\n Age 16 years, Occu. Education,\n \n\n No. 1 N.G. of R. 2 & 3\n Res. No. 1 to 3 R/o. Vakil Colony,\n \n\n\n\n Near Nehru Garden, At & Tal.\n Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.\n\n 4. Gopinath Thakaji Khandagale,\n\n\n\n\n\n Age 72 years, Occu. Nil\n (Deleted)\n\n 5. Vijay Tukaram Kharat,\n Age 32 years, Occu. Nil,\n R/o. Unchakhadak (Kd),\n\n\n\n\n\n Tal. Akola, Dist. Ahmednagar.\n\n 6. Namdeo Nivrutti Kharat,\n Age Major, Occu. Mauti Owner,\n R/o. Unchakhadak (Kd),\n Tal. Akola, Dist. Ahmednagar.\n\n 7. Anusaya Gopinath Khandagale,\n Age 68 years, Occu. Nil,\n R/o. Vakil Colony,\n\n\n\n\n \n Fa No. 14/13 & Anr.\n 2\n\n\n\n\n \n Near Nehru Garden, At & Tal.\n Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.\n (Abated)\n\n\n\n\n \n 8. Harshada @ Keti Jagdish Yadav,\n Age Major, Occu. Nil,\n R/o. Pimplad, Dist. Nashik. ....Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. A.G. Gatne, Advocate for appellant.\n Mr. P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for respondent No. 6.\n\n\n\n\n \n With\n First Appeal No. 502 Of 2014\n \n Namdeo s/o. Nivrutti Kharat,\n Age 55 years, Occu. Agriculture,\n \n R/o. Unchakhadak (Kd.),\n Tq. Akole, District Ahmednagar ....Appellant.\n\n Versus\n \n\n 1. Meena Balkrushna Khandagale,\n Age 45 years, Occu. Nil,\n \n\n\n\n 2. Sarita Balkrushna Khandagale,\n Age 25 years, Occu. Education,\n\n\n\n\n\n 3. Chaitali Balkrushna Khandagale,\n Age 22 years, Occu. Education,\n\n Res. No. 1 to 3 R/o. Vakil Colony,\n Near Nehru Garden, At & Tal.\n Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.\n\n\n\n\n\n 4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n A/p. Upon Hotel Karam,\n Behind S.T. Stand, Sangamner,\n Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.\n\n 5. Gopinath Thakaji Khandagale,\n Age 78 years, Occu. Nil\n (Deleted)\n\n\n\n\n \n Fa No. 14/13 & Anr.\n 3\n\n\n\n\n \n 6. Anusaya Gopinath Khandagale,\n Age 68 years, Occu. Nil,\n R/o. Vakil Colony,\n\n\n\n\n \n Near Nehru Garden, At & Tal.\n Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.\n (Abated)\n\n 7. Harshada @ Keti Jagdish Yadav,\n\n\n\n\n \n R/o. Pimplad, Dist. Nashik.\n\n 8. Vijay Tukaram Kharat,\n Age 38 years, Occu. Nil,\n\n\n\n\n \n R/o. Unchakhadak (Kd),\n Tal. Akola, Dist. Ahmednagar. ....Respondents.\n \n Mr. P.B. Shirsath, Advocate for appellant.\n Mr. Mr. A.G. Gatne, Advocate for respondent No. 4.\n \n Coram : T.V. Nalawade, J.\n Reserved On : 04/03/2016\n Pronounced On : 09/03/2016\n \n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 173,
"end": 193,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 408,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 570,
"end": 635,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 769,
"end": 796,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 882,
"end": 910,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1001,
"end": 1031,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1280,
"end": 1307,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1391,
"end": 1411,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1553,
"end": 1575,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1717,
"end": 1744,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2210,
"end": 2239,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2409,
"end": 2419,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2454,
"end": 2467,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2695,
"end": 2701,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2965,
"end": 2992,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3054,
"end": 3082,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3148,
"end": 3178,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3380,
"end": 3411,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3556,
"end": 3583,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3890,
"end": 3917,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 4177,
"end": 4206,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 4326,
"end": 4346,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 4590,
"end": 4603,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4642,
"end": 4652,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4767,
"end": 4780,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Wp No. 14557/2017\n 1\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n\n W.P. No. 14557/2017\n\nRajesh Kumar Miglani .....Petitioners\n& Another\n Versus\nState of Madhya Pradesh\n& others .....Respondents\n\n==================================================\nCoram:\n Db: Hon'ble Shri Justice Hemant Gupta, Chief Justice\n Hon'ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.\n==================================================\n Shri R.N. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners.\n Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Additional Advocate General for the\nrespondents/State.\n==================================================\nWhether Approved for Reporting: Yes\n==================================================\nLaw Laid Down:\n The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being the Central Legislation does\nnot contemplate grant of fitness certificate and it is left to be framed by\nthe State Government, therefore, the issue of fitness certificate and\npayment of tax falls within the legislative competence of the State in\nterms of Section 65(2)(d) of the Act of 1988 and under Section 3 of the\nM.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991. Thus, Sub-Rule (2) of\nRule 48 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 contemplating\nrequirement of no dues certificate for grant of fitness certificate, cannot\nbe said to be beyond the legislative competence of the State\nGovernment.\n There is a presumption that the official acts are performed\nregularly in terms of Sub-section (e) of Section 114 of the Evidence\nAct and so is the presumption of correctness of information available\non the website. Hence, the web portal of the Department should have\nentire data of tax paid of each of the vehicle. Further, the aggrieved\nperson should be given an option of submitting online request to\nreconcile such payment. The State Government to make such\namendment in the software.\nSignificant Paragraph Nos. 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17\n==================================================\n Wp-14557-2017\n 2\n\n\nReserved on: 20/09/2017\nDelivered on: 03/10/2017\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 98,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 167,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 294,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 457,
"end": 469,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 519,
"end": 537,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 604,
"end": 617,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 660,
"end": 676,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n R\n In The High Court Of Karnataka\n Circuit Bench At Dharwad\n\n\n Dated This The 18Th Day Of July 2012\n Before\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy\n\n\n Criminal Petition No.10343/2012\n\n\nBetween:\n\n\nPrashant S/o Mahabelshwar Daivadnya,\nAge : 32 Years, Occ : Business,\nR/o.Anand Nagar, 2nd Cross,\nSaphalya Building, Vadagoan,\nBelgaum. .Petitioner\n\n\n(By Sri G.A.Holeyannavar, Advocate)\nAnd:\n\n\n1. The State of Karnataka\n R/P State Public Prosecutor\n P.I Shahapur Police Station, Belgaum.\n 2\n\n\n\n2. Usha W/o Prashant Daivadnya,\n Age : 26 Years, Occ : Household,\n R/o.Anand Nagar, 2nd Cross,\n Saphalya Building, Vadagoan, Belgaum. . . .Respondent\n\n\n(By Sri Vinayak.S.Kulkarni, Government Pleader for Respondent-1,\nRespondent 2-Served)\n\n\n This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of\nCriminal Procedure, 1973 to quash the proceedings in\nS.C.No.452/2011 (i.e Annexure-A) on the file of the V-\nAddl.Dist.&Sessions Judge, Belgaum, registered on the basis of Fir\nunder Shahapur Police Station, Belgaum, in Crime No.61/2011, for\nthe offences Punishable under section 498-1, 504, 307 of Ipc\n This petition coming on for Admission this day, the court\ndelivered the following:\n\n\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 98,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 235,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 305,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 492,
"end": 508,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 538,
"end": 556,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 683,
"end": 687,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 860,
"end": 878,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S.B.Civil First Appeal No. 127/2012 - Ravindra Kumar & Anr. vs. M/s Shrinath Complex\n Judgment dt: 31/5/2012\n\n\n\n 1/38\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At\n Jodhpur\n Judgment\n\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 52,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 84,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 372,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 sa159.13.odt\n\n\n\n\n \n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay,\n\n Nagpur Bench, Nagpur\n\n\n\n\n \n Second Appeal No.159 of 2013\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. Smt. Savita Bhagwantrao Patil,\n Aged about 40 years, \n Occupation : Household work,\n\n 2. Shri Chaitanya Bhagwantrao Patil,\n \n Aged about 18 years, Occupation :\n Student.\n \n Both R/o Saraswati Nagar, \n \n\n Amravati, Tahsil and\n District Amravati. ..... Appellants\n \n\n\n\n (Ori.Plaintiffs)\n\n :: Versus ::\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. Shyam Pukhraj Asopa,\n Aged about 44 years,\n Occupation Business,\n R/o Bachharaj Plots, Chitra \n Chowk, Amravati.\n\n\n\n\n\n 2. The Manager/Managing Director,\n Abhinandan Co-operative Bank Ltd.,\n Prabhat Chowk, Amravati. ..... Respondents\n Ori.Defendants)\n\n\n\n\n \n 2 sa159.13.odt\n\n =================================\n Shri S.S.Khedkar, Counsel for Appellants.\n\n\n\n\n \n None for Respondent No.1.\n Shri J.B.Kasat, Counsel for Respondent No.2.\n ==================================\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram : A. P. Bhangale, J.\n Date : April 24, 2014.\n\n\n\n\n \n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 238,
"end": 318,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 524,
"end": 548,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 633,
"end": 660,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1072,
"end": 1091,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1238,
"end": 1342,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1699,
"end": 1710,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1893,
"end": 1902,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2098,
"end": 2112,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 WP1937.10.doc\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Writ Petition No.1937 Of 2010\n\n\n\n\n \n Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta, )\n Age: years, Occ.-Permanent Trustee, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Social Worker, R/o, 37, Usha Kiran, )\n 18th Floor, Carmichael Road, )\n Mumbai 400 026. ) ..Petitioner.\n\n V/s.\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. State of Maharashtra ig )\n )\n 2. Addl.Commissioner of Police, )\n Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai. ) ..Respondents.\n \n With\n \n\n\n Criminal Application No.308 Of 2010\n In\n \n\n\n\n Criminal Writ Petition No.1937 Of 2010\n\n 1. Dr.Narendra D. Trivedi. )\n\n\n\n\n\n 2. Dr.Sanjay P. Kapadia. )\n 3. Mr.Rosario Pachecho )\n 4. Mr. Mulky A. Kamath )\n 5. Mr. Lawrence Pareira )\n 6. Mr. Charanjitsingh Rekhi )\n\n\n\n\n\n 7. Mr.Rajendra Khairnar. )\n all adult, Indian inhabitants, having )\n their office at Lilavati Hospital & )\n Research Centre, A-791, Bandra )\n Reclamation, Bandra(West) )\n Mumbai 400 050. )..Applicants/interveners.\n\n\n\n\n \n 2 WP1937.10.doc\n\n And\n\n\n\n\n \n Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta, )\n Age: years, Occ.-Permanent Trustee, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Social Worker, R/o, 37, Usha Kiran, )\n 18th Floor, Carmichael Road, )\n Mumbai 400 026. ) ..Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n \n V/s.\n\n 1. State of Maharashtra )\n )\n 2. Addl.Commissioner of Police, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai. ) ..Respondents.\n \n Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate with Pranava Badheka & Pranav\n Sampat i/b. Thakore Janiwala & Associates for the petitioner.\n \n Mr. Amit Desai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kunal Vajani & Pranaya Goyal i/b.\n Wadia Gandy for interveners.\n\n Mr. K.V.Saste, App for State.\n \n \n\n\n\n Coram: A.M.Khanwilkar &\n A.P.Bhangale, Jj.\n Date : November 26, 2010. \n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 95,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 378,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 845,
"end": 914,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1211,
"end": 1230,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1266,
"end": 1283,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1316,
"end": 1332,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1367,
"end": 1382,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1417,
"end": 1433,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1467,
"end": 1487,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1521,
"end": 1538,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2083,
"end": 2101,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2469,
"end": 2489,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2551,
"end": 2584,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2744,
"end": 2761,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2910,
"end": 2921,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2944,
"end": 2956,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3020,
"end": 3029,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Patna High Court Ma No.85 of 2013 1\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Miscellaneous Appeal No.85 of 2013\n ===========================================================\n 1. The Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Muzaffapur Represented Through Its Chief Regional Manager And Its Constituted Attorney, Regional Officer, National Insurance Co. Ltd. 4Th Floor, Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Marg, P.S. Sachivalaya, District Patna. \n\n O.P. No.2/ Appellant/s Versus\n 1. Sunaina Devi, W/O Late Shiv Dayal Sah Resident Of Village + P.O. Radhi, P.S. Jale, District Darbhanga, Presently C/O Sri Lal Prasad A.E. Balughat Road, No. 3, P. S. And District Muzaffarpur. \n\n 2. Lal Babu Sah, S/O Late Shiv Dayal Sah Resident Of Village + P.O. Radhi, P.S. Jale, District Darbhanga, Presently C/O Sri Lal Prasad A.E. Balughat Road, No. 3, P. S. And District Muzaffarpur. \n\n 3. Rajesh Kumar Sah, S/O Late Shiv Dayal Sah Resident Of Village + P.O. Radhi, P.S. Jale, District Darbhanga, Presently C/O Sri Lal Prasad A.E. Balughat Road, No. 3, P. S. And District Muzaffarpur. \n\n Claimant/ Respondent 1st Set\n 4. Vidisha Shahi, D/O Late Hemant Shahi, Resident Of Boring Road, Near A. N. College, S. K. Puri, Patna. \n\n O.P. No.1/ Respondent/S 2nd Set =========================================================== Appearance :\n For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Vikram-Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar-Advocate Mr. Dhananjay Kumar-Advocate for Claimant Mr. Randhir Kr. Singh-Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey-Advocate for Owner =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi Cav Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 145,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 323,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 563,
"end": 575,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 760,
"end": 772,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 957,
"end": 973,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1188,
"end": 1201,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1425,
"end": 1447,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1484,
"end": 1496,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1510,
"end": 1525,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1552,
"end": 1569,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1583,
"end": 1602,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1712,
"end": 1732,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature\n At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Suit No.2124 Of 2007\n\n Music Choice India Private Limited ...Plaintiff\n Vs.\n\n\n\n\n \n Phonographic Performance Limited ...Defendant\n\n Mr.J.Dwarkadas with Mr. Himansu Kane for Plaintiff \n Mr.Amit Jamsandekar with Dr. V. Tulzapurkar i/b. Bilawal &\n\n\n\n\n \n Co., for Defendant \n ig With \n Suit No.2283 Of 2007\n \n Music Choice India Private Limited ...Plaintiff\n Vs.\n Super Cassettes Industries Limited ...Defendant\n \n\n\n Mr.J.Dwarkadas with Mr. H.W.Kane for Plaintiff \n \n\n\n\n Mr. A. Bookwala with Mr. Rupesh N.Gaonkar for Defendant \n\n Coram: Smt.Roshan Dalvi, J.\n Dated: 22Nd January, 2009\n\n\n\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 349,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 479,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 515,
"end": 526,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 536,
"end": 548,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 571,
"end": 587,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 598,
"end": 612,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 807,
"end": 841,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 887,
"end": 921,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 969,
"end": 980,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 990,
"end": 998,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1035,
"end": 1051,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1056,
"end": 1072,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1131,
"end": 1143,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1)\n Criminal Reference No.05/2015\n Criminal Appeal No. 2303/2015\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur\n\nDivision Bench (1)Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K. Seth\n (2)Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Mahajan\n\n Criminal Reference No. 05/2015\n In Reference received from\n the First Additional Sessions\n Judge, Maihar, District Satna\n M.P. under Section 366 of the\n Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death\n sentence.\n\n Versus\n Sachin Kumar Singhraha,\n S/o Shri Sajjan Prasad Singhraha,\n Aged-33 years, R/o Ward No.1,\n Dasaipur, Machali Paalan Vibhaag,\n Police Station Maihar,\n District-Satna (M.P.)\n Accused.\n\n Criminal Appeal No.2203/2015\n Sachin Kumar Singhraha,\n S/o Shri Sajjan Prasad Singhraha,\n Aged-33 years, R/o Ward No.1,\n Dasaipur,Machali Paalan Vibhaag,\n Police Station-Maihar,\n District-Satna (M.P.)\n Accused-Appellant.\n Versus\n State of M.P. through P.S.\n Maihar,, District Satna (M.P.)\n Respondent.\n.....................................................................................\nFor Prosecution : Shri Ajay Shukla, learned Govt.\n Advocate.\nFor accused-appellant : Shri Mrigendra Singh learned Senior\n counsel with Shri Vikas Mahawar\n learned counsel.\n.....................................................................................\n (2)\n Criminal Reference No.05/2015\n Criminal Appeal No. 2303/2015\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 181,
"end": 221,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 271,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 327,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 632,
"end": 654,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 986,
"end": 1008,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1328,
"end": 1341,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1593,
"end": 1604,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1691,
"end": 1706,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1772,
"end": 1785,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honble Dr. Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao \n\nCivil Revision Petition No.1590 of 2016 \n\n30-12-2016 \n\nBhavanam Siva Reddy and 2 others Petitioners \n\nBhavanam Hanumantha Reddy and another .Respondents \n\nCounsel for the petitioners:Sri P. Sridhar Reddy\n\nCounsel for the respondents:Smt. Marella Radha \n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred\n1. Air-1979-Sc-1225 \n2. 1993-All.Cr.R-14\n3. Air-1967-Ap-338 \n4. Air-1976-Sc-69 \n5. Air-1990-Sc-1243=Crlj-1269 \n6. Air-1977-Sc-364 at 366 \n7. Air-1973-Sc-1346 \n8. Air-1992(Sc)Crlj-3454 \n9. Air-1967-Sc-1326=Crlj-1197 \n10. Air-1965-Sc-881=(2)Crlj-8 \n11. Air-1975-Sc-290 at 305 \n12. AIR-1981-Allahabad-62 \n13. Air-1936-Pc-15 \n14. Air-1962-Ap-178 at 186 \n15. Air-1960-Ap-359 at 361 \n16. Air-1973-Sc-2200=Crlj-1187=(2)Scc-86 \n17. Air-1980-Sc-531 at 535 \n18. Air-1979-Sc-1979=Crlj-1386 \n19. 1985-Mlj-(Crl)384 at 389 \n20. Air-1976-Sc-69=(1)Scc-542 \n21. Air-1978-Sc-1183=Crlj-1107=(3)Scc-279 \n22. 1987(1)Klt-391 at 397(Kerala)\n23. 1975-Crlj-1277 \n24. 1975-Mplj-197 \n25. AIR-1923-Madras-178 \n26. AIR-1931-Calcutta-440 at 442\n27. AIR-1936-Bombay-151 \n28. 1988-Klt-798 \n29. Air-2001-Sc-2677 \n30. 2016 (2) Alt 248 (Fb)\n31. 2008 (3) Alt 409 (Db) \n32. Air 1960 Ap 359 \n33. (1979) 2 Scc 158 \n34. Air 1967 Sc 1326 \n35. (1980) 1 Scc 704 \n36. 1994 Supp. (2) Scc 619 \n\nHonble Dr. Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao \nCivil Revision Petition No.1590 of 2016 \nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 126,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 183,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 266,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 314,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1519,
"end": 1538,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao \n\nM.A.C.M.A.No.1834 of 2012 \n\n16-06-2014 \n\nThe Oriental Insurance Com Ltd...APPELLANT \n\nG.Nagaraju and another ...Respondents #G.Nagaraju..APPELLANT $Ch.Laxman Rao and another ..Respondents !Counsel for the Appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.2833 of 2013 and for respondents in M.A.C.M.A.No.1834 of 2012: Sri N.Ashok Kumar ^Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in M.A.C.M.A.No.2833 of 2013 and for the appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1834 of 2012: Sri E.Venugopal Reddy. \n Head Note: \n? Cases referred Air 1958 S.C.881 2 Air 1997 S.C. 432 3 (1996) 4 S.C.C. 255 4 (1997) 7 S.C.C. 638 5 Air 2009 S.C. 2599 6 2013 (139) Flr 911 = (2013) Iii Llj 163 P&H 7 Laws (Kar)-2012-1-33 = 2012 Klt 106 8 2012 Acj 233 9 2012 (6) Scc 421 10 2014 (2) Scc 735 11 (2013) 9 Scc 54 The Honble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1834 of 2012 and 2833 of 2013 Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 128,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 159,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 202,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 228,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 378,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 497,
"end": 514,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 840,
"end": 860,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated:-05-10-2009\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.Venkataraman\n\nW.P.Nos.10277 to 10279 of 2009\nand M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009\n\nV.Nandakumar\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t in W.P.No.10277 of 2009\n\nV.Raji\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t in W.P.No.10278 of 2009\n\nV.Vinayagam\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t in W.P.No.10279 of 2009\n\nVersus\n\n1. Union of India\nrep.by its Secretary\nMinistry of Road Transport and Highways\nNew Delhi\n\n2. The Project Director\nNational Highways Authority of India\nNo.8, 29th Cross Street, Indira Nagaar\nAdyar, Chennai 20\n\n3. The Special District Revenue Officer\n(Land Acquisition)\nNational Highways Project\nKancheepuram and Thiruvallur District\nKancheepuram.\n\n4. The Special Tahsildar\n(Land Acqusition)\nNational Highways Project\nPoonamallee\nChennai 56.\t\t\t ... Respondents\n\tPrayer: Writ Petition in W.P.No.10277 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first and third respondent relating to the notification under Section 3A (1) of The National Highways Act 1956 in So No.1541(E) dated 13.9.2007 and under Section 3D (1) of the National Highways Act 1956 in So No.353 (E) dated 18.2.2008 respectively pertaining to Survey Nos.14/3A2 part and 14/4A1 measuring an extent of 1150 Sq.mts at No.71, Vanagaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District and quash the same. \n\t Writ Petition in W.P.No.10278 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first and third respondent relating to the notification under Section 3A (1) of The National Highways Act 1956 in So No.1541(E) dated 13.9.2007 and under Section 3D (1) of the National Highways Act 1956 in So No.353 (E) dated 18.2.2008 respectively pertaining to Survey No.14/4B2 measuring an extent of 550 Sq.mts at No.71, Vanagaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District and quash the same. \n\t Writ Petition in W.P.No.10279 of 2009 filed under Article 226 of the Constitutions of India for the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the first and third respondent relating to the notification under Section 3A (1) of The National Highways Act 1956 in So No.1541(E) dated 13.9.2007 and under Section 3D (1) of the National Highways Act 1956 in So No.353 (E) dated 18.2.2008 respectively pertaining to Survey Nos.86/1A2 part and 14/4C2 measuring an extent of 800 Sq.mts at No.71, Vanagaram Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallur District and quash the same. \n \t For Petitioner :- Mr.David Tyagaraj\n For Respondents :- Mr. P.Wilson\n\t\t\t Additional Advocate General (R1&R2)\n\t\t\t\t\t Mrs.Lita Srinivasan, \n\t\t\t\t\t Govt.Advocate (R3&R4)\n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 110,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 191,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 254,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 323,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 405,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 486,
"end": 596,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 605,
"end": 734,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 744,
"end": 829,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2707,
"end": 2721,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2759,
"end": 2767,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2834,
"end": 2850,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 9925 of 2009(I)\n\n\n1. Abdul Majeed Kalathil,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The District Collector,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Sub Inspector Of Police,\n\n3. The Superintendent Of Police,\n\n4. The State Of Kerala,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Babu S. Nair\n\n For Respondent : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T.Ravikumar\n\n Dated :27/07/2009\n\n O R D E R\n K. Balakrishnan Nair & C.T. Ravikumar, Jj.\n\n ----------------------------------------------------------\n W.P.(C)Nos. 9925, 556, 5531, 5535, 6230, 6234, 6615, 6648,\n 6950, 7343, 8472, 8501, 8528, 9583, 10279, 10280, 10282,\n 10288, 10289, 10435, 10479, 10492, 10502, 10590, 10628,\n 10631, 10688, 10689, 10692, 10693, 10694, 10695, 10696,\n 10697, 10807, 10846, 10870, 10891, 10937, 11001, 11004,\n 11014, 11022, 11051, 11071, 11083, 11084, 11086, 11094,\n 11095, 11096, 11118, 11125, 11126, 11141, 11150, 11157,\n 11159, 11203, 11207, 11210, 11211, 11215, 11218, 11219,\n 11220, 11221, 11223, 11226, 11233, 11330, 11403, 11406,\n 11407, 11408, 11414, 11415, 11422, 11423, 11444, 11456,\n 11457, 11458, 11459, 11460, 11462, 11463, 11482, 11498,\n 11614, 11616, 11643, 11734, 11786, 11813, 11814, 11819,\n 11894, 11927, 11962, 12011, 12041, 12096, 12130, 12157,\n 12213, 12236, 12242, 12255, 12257, 12258, 12262, 12264,\n 12275, 12276, 12277, 12282, 12288, 12289, 12295, 12324,\n 12326, 12327, 12334, 12353, 12363, 12371, 12375, 12379,\n 12381, 12382, 12383, 12388, 12407, 12408, 12444, 12471,\n 12472, 12514, 12515, 12540, 12550, 12668, 12722, 12734,\n 12737, 12855, 12904, 12951, 13051, 13052, 13080, 13224,\n 13226, 13227, 13228, 13266, 13267, 13412, 13546, 13574,\n 14369, 14479, 14501, 14524, 14528, 17543, 17568, 17658,\n 17690, 17691, 17752 and 17754 of 2009.\n ------------------------------\n\n Dated this, the 27th day of July, 2009\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 94,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 190,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 267,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 326,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 378,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 453,
"end": 472,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 497,
"end": 510,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 548,
"end": 568,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 571,
"end": 585,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon\n\n Monday, The 21St Day Of May 2012/31St Vaisakha 1934\n\n OP.No. 27396 of 2001 (J)\n ------------------------\n\nPetitioner :\n------------\n\n Chakiat Agencies (P) Ltd.,\n Willingdon Island, Cochin - 3,\n Represented By Its Director M.Jairam,\n Aged 71 Years, Son Of Chakiat Narayana Menon\n\n By Advs.Sri.M.Pathrose Matthai (Sr.)\n Sri.K.P.Sreekumar\n\nRespondent(S):\n--------------\n\n 1. State Of Kerala, Represented By Its\n Secretary To Government, Taxes B Department,\n Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram\n\n 2. Transport Commissioner, Trivandrum\n\n 3. Jt. Regional Transport Officer, Mattancherry.\n\n 4. Cochin Port Trust, Cochin - 3,\n Represented By Its Chairman, Board Of Trustees.\n\n 5. Tahsildar, Cochin\n\n R1 To R3 & R5 By Spl.Govt.Pleader (Taxes) Dr.Sebastian Champapilly\n\n R4 By Advs. Sri.A.K.Jayasankar Nambiar\n Smt.Priya Mahesh\n Smt.Priya Manjooran\n Sri.E.K.Nandakumar\n\n This Original Petition Having Been Finally Heard On\n22-03-2012, Along With O.P.No.28929/2001, The Court On 21-05-2012\nDelivered The Following:\n\n\nRkm\n\f\n -2-\n\nOP.No. 27396 of 2001 (J)\n------------------------\n\n Appendix\n\nPetitioner'S Exhibits :\n\n\nExt.P1 : Plan Of The Chassis\n\nExt.P2 : Copy Of The Certificate Dt. 30.06.1986 Issued By The\n Traffic Manager Of The Cochin Port Trust.\n\nExt.P3 : Copy Of The Certificate Dt.30.06.1986 Issued By The\n Traffic Manager Of The Cochin Port Trust.\n\nExt.P4 : Copy Of The Letter Dt.22.11.1985 Issued By The Third\n Respondent To The Petitioner.\n\nExt.P5 : Copy Of The Order Dt.26.05.1986.\n\nExt.P6 : Copy Of The Notice Issued By The Third Respondent To\n The Petitioner To Remit An Amount Of Rs.2,15,35,500/-\n\nExt.P7 : Copy Of The Reply Sent By The Petitioner On\n 01.08.2001.\n\nExt.P8 : Copy Of The Notice Issued By The Third Respondent On\n 10.08.2001.\n\nExt.P9 : Copy Of The Objection Filed By The Petitioner On\n 20.08.2001.\n\nEXT.P10(a) : Copy Of The Demand In Form No.7 Demanding Vehicle Tax\n For The Period January 1979 To 30.11.1994 As Well As\n Additional Tax And Surcharge.\n\nEXT.P10(b) : Copy Of The Notice Under Section 34 Of The Revenue\n Recovery Act.\n\nExt.P11 : Copy Of The Affidavit Filed By The Petitioner\n Dt.24.09.2001.\n\nExt.P12 : Copy Of The Order Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Dated\n 27.09.2002.\n\nExt.P13 : Copy Of The Representation Submitted By Petitioner\n Before The Jt.R.T.O., Dated 25.10.2002.\n\nExt.P14 : Copy Of The Communication Sent By Petitioner To\n Jt.R.T.O. Dated 04.02.2003.\n\nExt.P15 : Copy Of The Proceedings Of The Jt.Regional Transport\n Officer, Mattancherry Dt.04.12.2002.\n -3-\n\f\n -3-\n\nOP.No. 27396 of 2001 (J)\n------------------------\n\nExt.P16 : Copy Of The Appeal Sent By Petitioner Before\n Dy.Transport Commissioner Dt.21.02.2003.\n\nExt.P17 : Copy Of The Proceedings Of The\n Dy.Transportcommissioner Dated 16.07.2003.\n\nExt.P18 : Copy Of The Petition Submitted Before The Transport\n Commissioner Dt.06.12.2003.\n\nExt.P19 : Copy Of The Proceedings Of The Transport Commissioner,\n Thiruvananthapuram Dated 03.02.2005.\n\nExt.P20 : Copy Of The Circular Issued By Cochin Port Tyrust\n Publishing The Rates By The Tariff Authority Of Major\n Port Trust.\n\nExt.P21 : Copy Of The Representation Made By The Petitioner\n Before The 3Rd Respondent.\n\n\nRespondent'S Exhibits : Nil\n\n\n /True Copy/\n\n\n Pa To Judge\n\n\nRkm\n\f\n\n\n \"C.R\"\n\n\n\n P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.\n ..............................................................................\n O.P.Nos.27396 Of 2001 & 28929 Of 2001\n .........................................................................\n Dated this the 21st May, 2012\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 143,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 399,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 512,
"end": 530,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 558,
"end": 571,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 613,
"end": 628,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 754,
"end": 788,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 803,
"end": 844,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 855,
"end": 884,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 953,
"end": 970,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1022,
"end": 1043,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1066,
"end": 1088,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1110,
"end": 1122,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1144,
"end": 1159,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1181,
"end": 1195,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4435,
"end": 4457,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:-\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan\n &\n The Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran\n\n Friday, The 15Th Day Of June 2012/25Th Jyaishta 1934S\n\n O.T.Rev.No.30 of 2012\n -------------------------------------------\n\n [Against The Order In T.A.Vat.No.352/2009 Dated 28.11.2011\n Of The Kerala Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam].\n (Assessment Year 2008-09)\n ------------------\n\nRevision Petitioner:-\n-----------------------------------\n\n M/S.U.K.Monu Timbers,\n Kottacherry,\n Kanhangad,\n Kasaragod District.\n\n By Advs.Sri.Harisankar V. Menon\n Smt.Meera V.Menon\n Sri.Mahesh V.Menon.\n\n\nRespondent:-\n------------------------\n\n State Of Kerala.\n\n By Government Pleader Sri.Bobby John.\n\n\n This Other Tax Revision (Vat) Having Been Finally Heard On\n15-06-2012, The Court On The Same Day Passed The Following:-\n\f\n\n\n \"C.R.\"\n\n Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan &\n K.Vinod Chandran, Jj.\n ----------------------------------------\n O.T.Rev.No.30 of 2012\n ---------------------------------------\n Dated this, the 15th day of June, 2012\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 162,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 281,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 826,
"end": 924,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 951,
"end": 970,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1001,
"end": 1014,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1045,
"end": 1059,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1114,
"end": 1129,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1170,
"end": 1180,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1411,
"end": 1437,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1465,
"end": 1481,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\nDated: 06.08.2010\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.Rajeswaran\n\n\t C.R.P.(Pd) Nos.1398 and 1399 of 2008\nand \nM.P.Nos.1 + 1 of 2008\n\n\t\t \t\t\t \t \n1 Sornam\n2 M.Dhanasekar\t\n3 V.Selvaraj\n4 S.Franklin Jebaraj\n5 S.Francis Raj\n6 S.Clara\n7 M.Malarvizhi\t\t\t\t\t\t ... Petitioners in \n\t\t\t\t C.R.P.(Pd) Nos.1398 of 2008\n\n1 M.Kiliammal\n2 M.Kanagaraj\n3 M.Gajendran\n4 M.Ramesh\n5 M.Visalakshi\n6 Mohana\t\t\t\t\t\t\t ... Petitioners in \n\t\t\t\t C.R.P.(Pd) Nos.1399 of 2008\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nVs\n\nA.Venugopal\t\t\t\t ... Respondent in C.R.P.(Pd) Nos.1398 of 2008 1 A.Venugopal 2 M.Jagadeesan ... Respondent in C.R.P.(Pd) Nos.1399 of 2008 Prayer In C.R.P.(Pd) Nos.1398 of 2008 This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.2263 of 2007 in O.S.No.143 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, dated 01.02.2008. \n\nPrayer In C.R.P.(Pd) Nos.1399 of 2008 This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.2264 of 2007 in O.S.No.144 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpattu, dated 01.02.2008. \n\n\t\tFor Petitioners\t : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam \n\t\t\t\t\t\t Senior counsel for\n\t\t\t\t\t M/s.Jagadish\n\t\t\t\t\t \n\t\tFor respondents : Mr.M.Muthukumaraswamy\n\t\t\t\t\t\tSenior counsel for\n\t\t\t\t\t\tM/s.A.Palaniappan\n\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t \n\t\t \t\tC O M M O N O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 202,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 217,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 231,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 252,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 268,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 278,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 293,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 388,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 402,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 405,
"end": 416,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 419,
"end": 427,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 430,
"end": 442,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 445,
"end": 451,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 546,
"end": 557,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 627,
"end": 638,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 641,
"end": 653,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1276,
"end": 1289,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1335,
"end": 1343,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1388,
"end": 1406,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1442,
"end": 1455,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": ": 1 :\n\n In The Court Of Shri Sidharth Sharma : Additional Distirct & \n Sessions Judge\u00ad04 : South District : Saket Courts : New Delhi\n\n\n\nSuit No.153/2014\nIn the matter of :\n\nSh. Swaraj Kumar Thapar,\nS/o Late Sh. Ram Lal Thapar,\nR/o C\u00ad5, Hauz Khas,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110016. .......Plaintiff\n\n\n Versus\n\n1 Smt. Kamla Sehgal,\n (Since deceased through LR's)\n\n i. Mrs. Mamta soni\n I - A, Dda Flats, Ber Sarai (Opp. Jnu),\n New Delhi.\n ii. Sh. Ajay Sehgal,\n E\u00ad60, Sector55, Noida (U.P.)\n iii. Mrs. Deepa Tandon,\n F\u00ad93, Ist floor, Rajouri Garden,\n New Delhi - 110027.\n iv. Mrs. Nishi Narang,\n G\u00ad21, Rajouri Garden,\n New Delhi - 110 027.\n\n\n\n2 Mrs. Urmila Suri,\n W/o Sh. Satpal Suri,\n R/o 383, Yojna Vihar, Delhi - 110092.\n\n\n\n\nSh. Swaraj Kumar Thapar Vs. Smt. Kamla Sehgal and others Contd....1 of 45\n : 2 :\n\n3 Mr. Neeraj Bhel,\n S/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar Behl,\n R/o K\u00ad95, South City - I,\n Gurgaon - 122001.\n (Haryana)\n\n4 Sh. Dheeraj Bhel,\n S/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar Bhel,\n R/o K\u00ad95, South City - I,\n Gurgaon - 122001.\n (Haryana) ........Defendants\n\n\n\n\nDate of institution of the suit : 13.07.2012\nDate reserved for judgment : 13.05.2014\nDate of pronouncement of judgment : 29.05.2014\n\n Suit for declaration\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 50,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 142,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 207,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 381,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 447,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 529,
"end": 540,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 594,
"end": 606,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 692,
"end": 704,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 784,
"end": 795,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 882,
"end": 901,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 913,
"end": 925,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1101,
"end": 1112,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1242,
"end": 1254,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable The Chief Justice Mr.Ashok Bhushan\n &\n The Honourable Mr.Justice A.M.Shaffique\n\n Wednesday, The 5Th Day Of August 2015/14Th Sravana, 1937\n\n CRP.No. 590 of 2010 ( )\n ------------------------\n\n Against The Order/Judgment In Tlb L- 4755/1978 of Taluk Land Board,\n Kanayannur Dated 30-06-2009\n\nCivil Revision Petitioner(S):\n--------------------------------------------\n\n State Of Kerala, Rep.By Secretary,\n Land Board, Thiruvananthapuram.\n\n By Adv. Spl.Government Pleader Smt.Susheela Bhat (Revenue)\n\nRespondent(S):\n----------------------------\n\n 1. Fr.Xavier Karuvallil\n S/O.Joseph Karuvallil, Karuvallil House\n Ezhupunna P.O., Cherthala.\n\n 2. Innocent @ Ignatious Karuvallil,\n Ezhupunna Muri, Neendakara, Kuthiyathodu Village\n Cherthala Taluk.\n\n 3. Mary, W/O.Innocent Karuvallil,\n Ezhupunna Muri, Cherthala Taluk.\n\n 4. Innocent Peter, Kundarapilly,\n Vyttila, Poonithura Village.\n\n By Adv. Sri.K.Jagadeeschandran Nair\n By Adv. Sri.P.R.Ajithkumar\n R4 By Adv. Sri.B.Ramachandran\n R1 To R3 By Sri.R.Venkitaramani\n\n This Civil Revision Petition Having Been Finally Heard On\n22/06/2015, The Court On 05-08-2015 Passed The Following:\n\f\nCrp No.590/10\n\n\n Appendix\n\n\nPetitioner'S Exhibits\n\nAnnexure P1: Order Dt 24.5.05 In Crp 1979/99.\n\nAnnexure P2: The Judgment Dt 13.8.2000 In Wpc\nNo.14325/08.\n\nAnnexure P3: Orders Dt 13.8.1987 In Crp 1470/1982.\n\nAnnexure P4: Order Dt 29.12.1980 Of Tlb, Kanayannur.\n\nRespondents' Exhibits\n\n\nAnnexure R1(a): True Copy Of The Order Dt 2.5.1978.\n\nAnnexure R1(b): True Copy Of The Letter Dt 10.9.1978.\n\nAnnexure R1(c): True Copy Of The Order Dt 7.4.1980.\n\nAnnexure R1(d): True Copy Of The Order Dt 29.12.1980.\n\nAnnexure R1(e): True Copy Of The Order Dt 2.11.1981.\n\nAnnexure R1(f): True Copy Of The Order Dt 13.8.1987.\n\nAnnexure R1(g): True Copy Of The Judgment Dt\n10.1.1989 In Op No.142/1989.\n\nAnnexure R1(h): True Copy Of The Order Dt 21.6.1999.\n\nAnnexure R1(J): True Copy Of The Statement Of Objects\nAnd Reasons.\n\n\n //True Copy//\n\n\n Ps to Judge\nRp\n\f\n\n\n Ashok Bhushan, C.J.\n &\n A.M. Shaffique, J.\n ================\n C.R.P.No. 590 of 2010\n =================\n\n Dated this, the 5th day of August, 2015\n\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 167,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 291,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 732,
"end": 747,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 859,
"end": 872,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 943,
"end": 960,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1064,
"end": 1095,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1199,
"end": 1203,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1287,
"end": 1301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1383,
"end": 1406,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1431,
"end": 1445,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1473,
"end": 1487,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1516,
"end": 1531,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2653,
"end": 2666,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2728,
"end": 2742,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8698 of 2017\n===========================================================\n1. Bihar Pradesh Mukhiya Mahasangh, Ist Floor Bhagwati Vila, behind Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Punai chak, Patna through the President Sri Ashok Kumar Siongh Son of late Ramakant Singh Resident of Village and P.O. Nawada, P.S. Jalalpur, District- Saran at Chapra. \n\n .... .... Petitioner Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna\n3. The Law Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n4. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n .... .... Respondents with =========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9382 of 2017 ===========================================================\n1. Darbhanga Zila Mukhiya Sangh Through The Co Ordinator Surendra Yadav Son of Late Muneshwar Yadav, Resident of Village and P.O. Dhanauli, P.S. Baheri, District-Darbhanga, Presently Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj, Dhanaui, Block- Baheri, District-Darbhanga. \n\n .... .... Petitioner Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of BIhar, Patna. \n\n2. The Chief Secretary, Government of BIhar, Patna. \n\n3. The Law Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n4. The Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n .... .... Respondents with =========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9299 of 2017 ===========================================================\n1. Bihar Pradesh Mukhiya Mahasangh, Ist Floor Bhagwati Vila, behind Bishweshwaraiya Bhawan, Punai chak, Patna thro ugh the President Sri Ashok Kumar Siongh Son of late Ramakant Singh Resident of Village and P.O. Nawada, P.S. Jalalpur, District- Saran at Chapra. \n\n .... .... Petitioner Versus\n1. The State of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna Patna High Court Cwjc No.8698 of 2017 dt.21-11-2017\n\n 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n 3. The Law Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n 4. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :\n (In Cwjc No.8698 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Binod Kanth, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate Ms. Anita Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General (In Cwjc No.9382 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kanth, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate Ms. Anita Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi- Aag6 (In Cwjc No.9299 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kanth, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate Ms. Anita Kumari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General =========================================================== Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice and Honourable Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 275,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 465,
"end": 479,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 546,
"end": 589,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 597,
"end": 638,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 649,
"end": 723,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 924,
"end": 952,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1217,
"end": 1231,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1298,
"end": 1341,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1352,
"end": 1393,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1404,
"end": 1478,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1679,
"end": 1785,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1976,
"end": 1990,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2108,
"end": 2151,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2163,
"end": 2204,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2216,
"end": 2280,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2433,
"end": 2444,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2463,
"end": 2477,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2492,
"end": 2504,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2542,
"end": 2555,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2627,
"end": 2638,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2657,
"end": 2671,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2686,
"end": 2698,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2736,
"end": 2757,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2816,
"end": 2827,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2846,
"end": 2860,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2875,
"end": 2887,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2925,
"end": 2938,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3080,
"end": 3099,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Page 1 of 18 \n\n\n\n In The Court Of Ms.SUNENA Sharma \n Addl. Distt Judge - 04 (Se)\n Saket Courts Complex: New Delhi \n\nRca No. : 27/2014\nUnique Case Id No.02406C0325742014\n\n Date of Institution : 26.11.2014\n Arguments concluded : 05.03.2015\n Date of decision : 05.03.2015\n\nShyla Shanker \nw/o late R Sudarshan \nR/o 304, Rachna Sahil Apartments\nSubhash Nagar, South Ambazari Road, \nNagpur - 440022 \n ..............Appellant\n V E R S U S \n\n1. Juni @ Panmaya Tamang \n w/o late Sh Kunal Bose \n r/o J\u00ad1930, C R Park, \n New Delhi \n\n2. Zuber Hashmi\n having office at Chamber No.615,\n Lawyers Chamber Block, \n Saket Court Complex, Saket\n New Delhi. \n(ex parte vide order dated 22.01.2015) ............... Respondents\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 131,
"end": 144,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 265,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 713,
"end": 726,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1085,
"end": 1106,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1191,
"end": 1203,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1255 of 2008()\n\n\n1. Biju Purushothaman\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The State Of Kerala, Represented By Its\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Madathil Marakkar Haji,S/O.Kunhi Moideen\n\n3. The Superintendent Of Police,\n\n4. The Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.M.Ajay\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Ramkumar\n\n Dated :20/06/2008\n\n O R D E R\n Cr\n\n V. Ramkumar, J.\n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n Crl.R.P. No. 1255 of 2008\n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n Dated this the 20th day of June 2008\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 96,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 188,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 279,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 330,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 374,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 414,
"end": 420,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 498,
"end": 508,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 628,
"end": 639,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honourable Sri Justice G.Krishna Mohan Reddy \n\nCriminal Petition No.777 of 2010 \n\n30.11.2012 \n\nSoma Rama Chandram, S/o.Late Venkatachalam And others \n\nThe State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, A.P. High\nCourt, Hyderabad And others \n\nCounsel for the Petitioners: Mr.M.Damodar Reddy \n\nCounsel for the Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor\n\nCounsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. P.Venkanna \n\nHead Note: \n\n?Cases referred:\n1) Fao (Os) No.547/2011, dated 27.4.2012 \n2) Air 2003 Sc 3450 \n3) (1983) 4 Ssc 417 \n4) (2009) 2 Ssc 164 \n5) (2000) 6 Ssc 259 \n6) (2010) 7 Ssc 263 \n7) (2004) 12 Scc 673 \n8) (2008) 1 Scc 341 \n9) (1993) 1 Mlj 274\n10) (1977) 1 Scc 508 \n11) Fao (Os) No.547/2011 \n12) (2010) 6 Scc 303 \n13) 1991 Supp (1) Scc 271 : Air 1991 Sc 1346 \n14) (2012) 5 Scc 370 : 2012 (3) Scale 550 \n15) 2010 (4) Alt 441\n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 48,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 133,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 203,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 330,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 427,
"end": 437,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "R\n -: 1 :-\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka, Bangalore\n Dated This The 18Th Day Of June, 2012\n Present\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Vikramajit Sen, Chief Justice\n And\n The Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice B.V.Nagarathna\n\n W.A.Nos.1944-1946/2011 (La-Bda) C/W\n W.A.Nos.444-447/2012 (La-Res).\n\nW.A.Nos.1944-1946/2011\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Sri.M.K.Thyagaraja Gupta,\n S/O Late Krishnaiah Setty,\n Aged About 70 Years.\n\n2. Smt.T.Uma,\n D/O M.K.Thyagaraja Gupta,\n Aged About 42 Years.\n\n3. Smt.T.Ramaa,\n D/O.M.K.Thyagaraja Gupta,\n Aged About 36 Years,\n Reptd. By Gpa Holder\n Sri.M.K.Thyagaraja Gupta,\n Appellant No.1\n\n All Are R/At No.2/283,\n Rama Iyengar Road, V.V.Puram,\n Bangalore-560 004 ... Appellants\n\n(B Sri: P.Husman For M/S Hegde Associates)\n -: 2 :-\n\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. The State Of Karnataka,\n By Its Secretary,\n Department Of Revenue,\n Vikas Soudha, Bangalore.\n\n2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,\n Bangalore Sub-Division,\n Bangalore.\n\n3. Bangalore Development Authority,\n By Its Commissioner,\n Kumara Krupa Road,\n Bangalore.\n\n4. Karnataka House Building\n Co-Operative Society Also Known\n As Karnataka Gruha Nirmana\n Sahakara Sangha,\n By Its Secretary,\n Rajanna Building, Peenya,\n Bangalore-560 058. ... Respondents\n\n(By Sri: B.Veerappa, Ga For R1 & R2, Sri.B.V.Shankara\nNarayana Rao, For R3, Sri.T.S.Amar Kumar For\nLawyers Inc. For R4)\n\n *****\n\n These Writ Appeals Are Filed U/S 4 Of The\nKarnataka High Court Act Praying To Set Aside The\nOrder Passed In The Writ Petition No.10843/2008(La-\nBda) Dated 23/06/2010.\n -: 3 :-\n\n\n\nW.A.Nos.444 - 447/2012\n\nBetween:\n\nKarnataka Gruha Nirmana\nSahakara Sangha Ltd.,\nA Society Registered Under The\nProvisions Of The Karnataka\nCo-Operative Societies Act\nHaving Its Office At Rajanna\nBuilding, Peenya,\nBangalore-560 058. ... Appellant\n\n(By Sri: T.S.Amar Kumar, Adv. For M/s. Lawyers Inc.)\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. The State Of Karnataka,\n Rep. By Its Secretary,\n Department Of Revenue,\n M.S.Building,\n Dr. Ambedkar Road,\n Bangalore-560 001.\n\n2. The Special Deputy Commissioner,\n Bangalore District,\n Bangalore.\n\n3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,\n Podium Block,\n Vishweshwaraiah Towers,\n Bangalore-560 001.\n\n4. Kempaiah,\n S/O Byrappa,\n Aged About 69 Years,\n R/At No.341,\n -: 4 :-\n\n\n\n Nelakadaranahalli Village,\n Bangalore North Taluk.\n\n5. N.Arasappa,\n S/O Late Nanjundaiah,\n Aged About 70 Years,\n R/At No.66, Nelakadaranahalli Village,\n Bangalore North Taluk.\n\n6. Hanumaiah,\n S/O Late Chikkahanumaiah,\n Aged About 89 Years,\n R/At Nelakadaranahalli Village,\n Nagasandra Post, Bangalore-560 073\n\n7. Chandra,\n S/O Late Venkatappa,\n Aged About 46 Years,\n R/At Shivapura, Peenya Post,\n Bangalore-560 073. ... Respondents\n\n(By Sri: B.Veerappa, Aga For R1-3, Sri.A.S.Mahesh,\nAdv. For R4, Sri.Prakash.T.Hebbar, Adv. For R5,\nSri.Vinod Prasad, Adv. For R6 & R7)\n\n *****\n\n These Writ Appeals Are Filed U/S 4 Of The\nKarnataka High Court Act Praying To Set Aside The\nOrder Passed In The Writ Petition No.9412/2007\n(La-Res) Dated 22/02/2011.\n\n\n\n These Appeals Being Reserved And Coming On\nFor Pronouncement Of Judgment This Day,\nNagarathna J., Delivered The Following:\n -: 5 :-\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 198,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 289,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 419,
"end": 439,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 514,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 583,
"end": 590,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 851,
"end": 859,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 938,
"end": 956,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1049,
"end": 1126,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1134,
"end": 1165,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1239,
"end": 1353,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1469,
"end": 1479,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1501,
"end": 1513,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1540,
"end": 1554,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1856,
"end": 1900,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2099,
"end": 2113,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2160,
"end": 2178,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2313,
"end": 2381,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2393,
"end": 2497,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2505,
"end": 2513,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2682,
"end": 2692,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2830,
"end": 2839,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2986,
"end": 2993,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3148,
"end": 3158,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3178,
"end": 3188,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3207,
"end": 3223,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3242,
"end": 3254,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3355,
"end": 3375,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 3588,
"end": 3601,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Additional Sessions \n Judge\u00ad02, South District, Saket Court, Delhi.\n\nSession Case No. 18/2014.\n\nIn the matter of :\n\nState \n\nVersus\n\nMahadev @ Chintu,\nS/o Sh. Jaidev,\nR/o H. No.6/209 & 210, \nDakshinpuri, Delhi.\n\nFir No. : 178/2014.\nPolice Station : Ambedkar Nagar.\nUnder section. : 397/506(Ii) Ipc & 25 of the Arms Act.\n\nDate of assignment : 04.07.2014. \nReserved for order on : 26.08.2014.\nDate of decision : 30.08.2014.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 117,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 172,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 199,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\nDated: 03.08.2012\nCoram\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice S.Nagamuthu\nCRL.O.P.No.10481 Of 2012\nand\nM.P.No.1 of 2012\n\n1. Alli Rani Joseph Mathew\n2. Dr.P.Anandha Geetha\n3. Anu Velentina Krishnan @ Tina\n4. P.Amarnath\t\t\t\t\t \t .. Petitioners\n\n.. Vs ..\nP.Arun Kumar \t\t\t\t \t\t.. Respondent \n\nPrayer:- Criminal Original Petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in C.C.No.50/2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore and quash the same.\n\n\t\tFor Petitioners\t :\tMr.A.Raghunathan,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSenior Counsel\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfor M.Mohammed Rafi\n\n\t\tFor Respondent \t: \tMr.C.D.Johnson\n- - - - -\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 100,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 175,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 198,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 231,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 245,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 297,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 584,
"end": 597,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 632,
"end": 647,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 675,
"end": 686,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Letters Patent Appeal No.1942 of 2016\n In\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15316 of 2016\n===========================================================\nM/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited, a Company incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 12, Waterloo Street, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700069, through its Authorized Signatory Kamlesh Gouaraw, Son of Shri Surendra Singh, Resident of D/139, Keshri Nagar, P.O. Rajeev Nagar, P.S. Rajeev Nagar, District Patna. \n\n .... .... Appellant Versus\n1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Mines & Geology, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n3. The State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Bihar, Patna through its Chairman. \n\n4. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad. \n\n5. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram. \n\n6. The Senior Deputy Collector-cum- Mineral Development officer, Aurangabad. \n\n7. The Assistant Director, Mines & Geology, Rohtas, Sasaram. \n\n .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :\n For the Appellant : Mr. Y. V. Giri, Senior Advocate Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate For the Respondent-State: Mr. K.K.Jha, Aag-8 For the Respondent Mines Deptt.: Mr. D. K. Sinha, Senior Advocate Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate =========================================================== Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice and Honourable Dr. Justice Ravi Ranjan Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 305,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 662,
"end": 676,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 779,
"end": 857,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 868,
"end": 933,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 965,
"end": 996,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1007,
"end": 1043,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1054,
"end": 1122,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1133,
"end": 1185,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1310,
"end": 1320,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1342,
"end": 1357,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1398,
"end": 1405,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1450,
"end": 1461,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1483,
"end": 1498,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1632,
"end": 1643,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Page 1 of 12 \n\n\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Sunena Sharma \n Addl. Distt Judge - 04 (Se)\n Saket Courts Complex: New Delhi \n\nRca No.02/2014\nUnique Case Id No.02406C0015642014\n\n Date of Institution : 22.01.2014\n Arguments concluded : 26.11.2014\n Date of decision : 26.11.2014\n\nPresident, Okhla Industries (Regd)\n1, Dsidc Complex, \nOkhla Industrial Area Phase - I, \nNew Delhi \n .............. Appellant \n\n V E R S U S \n\nApra Auto (India) Pvt Ltd\nRegd Office at K\u00ad80, Hauz Khas Enclave, \nNew Delhi\nAlso At \nF\u00ad85, Okhla Industrial Area Phase - I, \nOkhla, New Delhi - 110020. \n .............. Respondent \n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 140,
"end": 153,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 290,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 765,
"end": 862,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1130,
"end": 1281,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The Court Of Dr. Archana Sinha\n Addl. District & Sessions Judge\n (Central) 03, Thc, Delhi\n\n Date of institution : 28.11.2005\n Judgment reserved on : 05.02.2015 \n Judgment delivered on : 10.02.2015\n\n\nSuit No.146/2012 Unique Case Id No.02401C1076772005\n(Old No. 171/2005) \n\nSmt. Veera Devi, W/o Dr. Raj Kumar,\nR/o. H. No. F\u00ad223, Central Bank Street,\nLado Sarai, New, Delhi - 110030 ....Plaintiff\n\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n\nSh. Rohit Sharma, S/o Sh. S. B. Sharma,\nR/o H. No.D\u00ad166, Freedom Fighter Enclave, \nNeb Sarai, New Delhi ....Defendant\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 56,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 158,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 519,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 720,
"end": 732,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Date of decision: 7th August, 2012\n+ Mac.App. 335/2009\n\n Gulam Nabi Bhat ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Adv. with\n Mr. Manish Maini, Adv.\n versus\n\n Md. Arman Ali & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for R-3.\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice G.P.Mittal\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 183,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 287,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 344,
"end": 356,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 400,
"end": 413,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 486,
"end": 497,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 556,
"end": 566,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Surender Klumar vs The State\n Cr No.51/13\n\n\n In The Court Of Shri Vijay Kumar Dahiya\n Additional Sessions Judge\n Dwarka Courts : Delhi\n\nIn the matter of :\u00ad\n\nSurender Kumar s/o Sh. Bansi Lal\nR/o H.No. 87A, Gali No.5,\nHarijan Basti, Nasirpur, \nNew Delhi. ... Revisionist\n\n Versus\n\n1. State\n Government of Nct of Delhi,\n New Delhi\u00ad110001.\n2. Dinesh Kumar s/o Sawal Ram\n3. Pradeep Kumar s/o Sawal Ram\n4. Bharat s/o Sawal Ram\n5. Vinod Kumar s/o Sawal Ram\n6. Sawal Ram s/o Gatthi Ram\nAll R/o A86, Gali No.5, Harijan Basti, \nNasirpur, New Delhi.\n\n7. Sunil Kumar s/o Suresh Chand\n B\u00ad98, Gali No.8, Harijan Basti,\n Nasirpur, New Delhi.. ... Respondents\n\n Cr No.51/13\n Date of Institution: 28.02.2013\n Reserved for order on:22.11.2013\n Judgment announced on:19.12.2013 ( allowed)\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 168,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 299,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 481,
"end": 518,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 546,
"end": 558,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 576,
"end": 589,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 607,
"end": 627,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 631,
"end": 642,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 660,
"end": 669,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 750,
"end": 761,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh\n ASJ/Special Judge : Ndps : Rohini Courts : Delhi\n\n In the matter of :\n Sc No. 40/12\n State Vs. Sonu Naik @ Sonu\n Fir no. 87/12\n Ps Crime Branch\n U/s 21 Ndps Act\n\n State\n Versus\n Sonu Naik\n S/o Sh. Heera Lal\n R/o H.No. T-436,\n Gali no. 15, Neem Wala Chowk,\n Nabi Karim, Delhi.\n\n Date of receipt : 31.05.2012\n Date of arguments : 14.03.2014\n Date of announcement : 28.03.2014\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 55,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 116,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 257,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 282,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 499,
"end": 504,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 540,
"end": 549,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Puneet Pahwa \n Metropolitan Magistrate \u00ad 01 (N.I. Act)\n Patiala House Courts : New Delhi\n\n\n\nSh. Varun Chopra\nE\u00ad41, First Floor,\nGreater Kailash, Part\u00ad1,\nNew Delhi.\n ....................... Complainant\n\n Vs.\n\n\nSh. Manish Tuli,\nProprietor of M/s Chaudhary Associates,\nHotel Eureka Crowne,\n4/70, Krishna Market, Saraswati Marg,\nW.E.A, Karol Bagh, \nNew Delhi. \n ................................Accused\n\n\n\nCase Number. : 1122/1 & 1141/1\n\n\nDate of Institution of Present Case. : 06.07.2005\n\n\nOffence Complained Of. : U/s 138 Ni Act\n\n\n\nCase No. 1122/1 & 1141/1 Page 1 of 33\n Plea of the Accused. : Not Guilty\n\n\nArguments Heard On. : 27.03.2014\n\n\nFinal Order. : Convicted\n\n\nDate of Judgment. : 21.04.2014\n\n\n\n - :: Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 137,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 157,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 375,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12055 of 2015\n===========================================================\nSapna Singh, Wife of Sri Badal Singh, R/o Village- Sitalpur, P.S.- Dariyapur, Muffasil, District- Munger. \n\n .... .... Petitioner Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n2. The Joint Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, P.A.A.G.-1 and Ranjeet Kumar, A.C. to P.A.A.G.-1. \n\n =========================================================== Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice and Honourable Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh Cav Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 177,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 324,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 425,
"end": 498,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 623,
"end": 641,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 679,
"end": 692,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 709,
"end": 722,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 870,
"end": 882,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Miscellaneous Appeal No.182 of 2009\n\n===================================================\n 1. Sabita Kumari @ Sabita Devi wife of late Parasnath Das\n 2. Shiva Shankar Son of Late Parasnath Das\n 3. Richa Bharti @ Rani Kumari, daughter of Late Parasnath Das Appellant No. 2 minor son and Appellant No. 3 minor daughter under guardianship of their natural mother Appellant No. 1 All resident of Mohalla Betwan Bazar, P.S. Kasim Bazar, P.O. and District Munger at present resident of Mohalla Nayagaon Albert Road, near Church, P.O. Jamalpur, P.S. East Colony, Jamalpur, District Munger ..... Claimants ...... Appellants .... \n\n Versus\n\n 1. Pankaj Kumar son of Sri Devnandan Prasad Yadav, resident of village Naulakha, P.S. Safiyabad, District Munger, owner of Tata Maxi 407 Br - 8 - 4256\n 2. Sagar Prasad Singh son of Late Kaleshwar Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla Mohanpur, P.S. Kharagpur, District Munger, Driver of Tata Maxi 407, Br - 8 - 4256\n 3. The Divisional Manager, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office at Khalifa Bagh Chowk, Bhagalpur, Post & District Bhagalpur\n 4. The Branch Manager, The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office at Town Hall Road, Munger, Post & District Munger ..... Opp. Parties .......... Respondents\n\n 5. Rina Kumari , D/o Late Parasnath Das, natural guardian is mother Appellant No. 1, R/M Betwan Bazar, P.s. Kasim Bazar, P.O. & Dist. Munger at present R/M Nayagaon Albert Road near church, P.O. Jamalpur, P.S. East Colony, District Munger ...... Claimant No. 3 .... Respondent . \n\n 2 / 16 =================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : M/S Ratnakar Ambastha &\n Rajendra Prasad Sah, Advocates\n For the Respondent : Mr. Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate\n Nos. 1 and 2\n\n For the Respondent : M/S Sanjay Singh and\n Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocates\n\n =================================================== Coram: Honourable Dr. Justice Ravi Ranjan Cav Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 176,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 221,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 278,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 691,
"end": 703,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 843,
"end": 861,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1008,
"end": 1139,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1146,
"end": 1257,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1305,
"end": 1316,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1689,
"end": 1706,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1739,
"end": 1758,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1808,
"end": 1819,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1927,
"end": 1939,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1974,
"end": 1991,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2087,
"end": 2098,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 30.03.2012\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.Manikumar\n\nC.M.A.No.128 of 2005\n\nChinnappan\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\nvs.\n\n1.K.P.Ramraj\n2.Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n90A, Thuraiyur Road,\nNamakkal 637 002.\t\t\t\t... Respondents \n\t\t\t\t\t\n\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree, dated 31.10.2003 made in M.C.O.P.No.1397 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Court, Ftc.1) Salem.\n\t\t\t\n\t\tFor Appellant \t\t:\tMr.N.S.Sivakumar\n\t\tFor 1st Respondent\t:\tNo appearance\n\t\tFor 2nd Respondent\t: \tMr.S.Arun Kumar\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 141,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 179,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 551,
"end": 564,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 629,
"end": 641,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pnp 1/12 APPL728-11.10.sxw\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Appeal (Lodg.) No.728 Of 2012\n In\n\n\n\n\n \n Notice Of Motion No.471 Of 2012\n And\n Notice Of Motion No.496 Of 2012\n And\n Notice Of Motion No.1564 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n In\n Suit No.1894 Of 2010\n\n Alok Agarwal and others ..Appellants/\n (Orig. Defendants 6 and 7)\n\n\n\n\n \n versus\n Punam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.\n ig ..Respondent No.1/\n and others (Orig. Plaintiff / Society)\n and\n Pratap Issardas Bhatia and others ..Respondents 2 to 7\n (Orig. Defendants 1 to 5)\n \n .....\n Mr. F.E. Devitre, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Menon, Ms. Shamina Taly, Ms.\n Mallika Taly and Mr. Mustafa Kachwala i/b S. Mahomedbhai & Co. for the\n Appellant.\n \n\n\n Mr. K.T. Kukreja with Mr. Mukesh B. Bhagat for the Respondents.\n ......\n \n\n\n\n Coram : Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, and\n A.A.Sayed, Jj.\n 11 October 2012. \n\n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 157,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 920,
"end": 932,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1156,
"end": 1195,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1388,
"end": 1410,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1644,
"end": 1656,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1683,
"end": 1694,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1700,
"end": 1712,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1722,
"end": 1734,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1743,
"end": 1759,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1827,
"end": 1839,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1849,
"end": 1865,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1988,
"end": 2003,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2049,
"end": 2058,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Criminal Appeal (Sj) No.927 of 2012\n Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- -\n ===========================================================\n 1. The State Of Bihar Through Ashwani Kumar, Adl. S.P.Vigilance , Investigation Bureau, Bihar, Patna .... Appellant Versus\n 1. Sushil Kumar Choudhary S/O Late Satyanaryana Chaudhary R/O Vill- Magardahi Ward No.15, Samastipur, P.S.-Towan Samastipur, Distt-Samastipur\n 2. Smt. Anita Chaudhary W/O Shushil Kumar Chaudhary R/O Vill-Magardahi Ward No.15, Samastipur, P.S.-Towan Samastipur, Distt-Samastipur .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :\n For the Appellant : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, L.O. I/C Vigilance For the Respondents : M/S Rabindra Kumar and Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advs. \n\n =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopal Prasad Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 301,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 429,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 555,
"end": 570,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 797,
"end": 813,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 879,
"end": 899,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1000,
"end": 1012,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "ash 1 pil-239,10n-wp-5101.12-\n courtinfrastructure\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n Public Interest Litigation No.239 Of 2009\n\n\n\n\n \n Along With\n Public Interest Litigation No.10 Of 2008\n Along With \n Writ Petition No.5101 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n Pil No.239 Of 2009\n\n\n\n\n \n New Bombay Advocates Welfare Association,\n through its President and Another.\n ig .. Petitioners\n Vs\n State of Maharashtra and Others. .. Respondents\n -\n Pil No.10 Of 2008 Shri Pramod Mahadeo Thakur. .. Petitioner Vs The Secretary, The Law and Judiciary Department and Others. .. Respondents\n -\n Wp No.5101 Of 2012 Ahmednagar City Bar Association. .. Petitioner Vs The Union of India and Others. .. Respondents\n --\n Shri A.A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate, appointed as Amicus Curiae along with Shri Amit B. Borkar for the Petitioners. Shri Makarand Kale i/by M/s. M.P. Vashi & Associates for the Petitioner in Pil No.239 of 2009. \n\n Shri Rahul S. Thakur for the Petitioner in Pil No.10 of 2008. Shri A.B. Vagyani, Government Pleader along with Mrs.M.P. Thakur, Agp for the Respondent No.1 in the Pil No.239 of 2009 and for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7 in Pil No.10 of 2008 and for the Respondent No.5 in Wp No.5101 of 2012. \n\n ash 2 pil-239,10n-wp-5101.12-\n courtinfrastructure\n\n Shri Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner in Wp No.5101 of 2012. Shri A.M. Kulkarni along with Shri Sarthak Diwan and Shri Akshay Kulkarni for the Respondent No.2 in Pil No.239 of 2009. Shri Sanjay Udeshi i/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co for the Respondent No.3 in Pil No.239 of 2009. \n\n Ms. Pinky M. Bhansali i/by M/s. G.S. Hegde & Associates for the Respondent No.5 in Pil No.10 of 2008. \n\n Shri M.S. Karnik for the Respondent No.8 in Pil No.10 of 2008 and for the Respondent No.4 in Wp No.5101 of 2012. \n\n Shri Parag Vyas and Shri D.R. Shah for the Union of India. \n\n --\n Coram : A.S. Oka & \n\n\n\n\n \n Revati Mohite Dere, Jj \n ig Dated : 7Th & 13Th August 2015\n\n\n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 222,
"end": 256,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 790,
"end": 830,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 977,
"end": 997,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1095,
"end": 1116,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1139,
"end": 1182,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1233,
"end": 1264,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1287,
"end": 1301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1339,
"end": 1354,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1416,
"end": 1430,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1457,
"end": 1470,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1481,
"end": 1491,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1555,
"end": 1570,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1617,
"end": 1629,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1665,
"end": 1676,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1972,
"end": 1990,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2038,
"end": 2051,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2068,
"end": 2081,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2091,
"end": 2106,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2159,
"end": 2172,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2256,
"end": 2273,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2362,
"end": 2373,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2478,
"end": 2488,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2498,
"end": 2507,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2588,
"end": 2596,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2698,
"end": 2716,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 10/04/2003\n\nC O R A M\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice P. Shanmugam\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice S.K. Krishnan\n\nHabeas Corpus Petition No.971 of 2001\n\nYogeswari .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n rep. by its Secretary to Government,\n Public (Sc) Department,\n Fort St. George,\n Chennai-9.\n\n2. The District Collector,\n Chengleput District,\n Kancheepuram. .. Respondents\n\nPrayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to\nissue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in relation to the\ndetention order passed under the provisions of Foreigners Act, 1946 made in\nG.O. No.SR.III/3136-4/2000 dated 11.12.2000 on the file of the first\nrespondent herein, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to\nproduce the body of the detenu Anandh @ Anandh @ Geetha Annan, S/o.\nChitrambalam, now detained in the Special Camp for Srilankan Refugees at\nChingleput before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.\n\n!For Petitioner : Mr. B. Kumar, Senior Counsel\n for Mr. R. Loganathan.\n\n^For Respondents : Mr. A. Navaneethakrishnan,\n Addl. Public Prosecutor.\n\n:O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 112,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 159,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 209,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 295,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 465,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1172,
"end": 1181,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1223,
"end": 1237,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1265,
"end": 1287,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh Sunil K. Aggarwal: Addl. District \n Judge (Central) 10: Delhi\n\n\n Suit No. 106/06\n\n\n\nM/s Azureways Cargo Pvt. Ltd.,\n252 H, Kailash Plaza, 2nd Floor,\nSant Nagar, East of Kailash,\nNew Delhi\u00ad 110065 ..... Plaintiff. \n\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n\nSh. Rakesh Juneja,\nProp. of M/s Bagmakers,\nVardhman Tower,\nG\u00ad29, Community Centre,\nVikaspuri, New Delhi\u00ad18 .....Defendant\n\n\n\n\n \n Plaint presented on 31.05.2001\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 99,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 320,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 456,
"end": 469,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.MC.No. 53 of 2009()\n\n\n1. Thonikkadavath Shoukathali\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Tahsildar\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State Of Kerala, Through The\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Sunny Mathew\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\n\n Dated :10/02/2009\n\n O R D E R\n R. Basant, J.\n -------------------------------------------------\n Crl.M.C. Nos.53, 274, 319, 321, 331,\n 349, 376, 434, 460 & 469 of 2009\n -------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 97,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 183,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 247,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 311,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 397,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 458,
"end": 467,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Miscellaneous Appeal No.241 of 2004\n===========================================================\n1. Shakuntala Devi, widow of Late Raja Thakur @ Shiban Dubey. \n\n2. Devendra Dubey, son of Late Raja Thakur @ Shiban Dubey. \n\n3. Birendra Dubey, son of Late Raja Thakur @ Shiban Dubey. \n\n (All are residents of village-Mallikpur, P.S.- Jalley, P.O.- Ratanpur, District- Darbhanga) .... .... Appellant/s Versus\n1. Dashrath Prasad Singh, son of Ram Sewak Rai, resident of village and P.O.-Mainpura, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna. \n\n2. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited, Club Road, Muzaffarpur. \n\n .... .... Respondent/s With Miscellaneous Appeal No. 289 of 2004 =========================================================== The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited Muzaffarpur, through its Deputy Manager and duly constituent Attorney Regional office 6th Floor, State Finance Corporation Building, Frazer Road, Patna Sri Bijay Kumar Sahu. \n\n .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1 Shakuntala Devi, widow of Late Raja Thakur @ Shiban Dubey. 2 Devendra Dubey, son of Late Raja Thakur @ Shiban Dubey. 3 Birendra Dubey, son of Late Raja Thakur @ Shiban Dubey. \n\n (All are residents of village-Mallikpur, P.S.- Jalley, P.O.- Ratanpur, District- Darbhanga)\n4. Dashrath Prasad Singh, son of Ram Sewak Rai, resident of village and P.O.-Mainpura, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :\n(In Ma No. 241 of 2004) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate (In Ma No. 289 of 2004) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Mukesh Prasad Singh, Advocate =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Amaresh Kumar Lal C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 176,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 239,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 300,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 469,
"end": 490,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 599,
"end": 679,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 812,
"end": 879,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1076,
"end": 1091,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1137,
"end": 1151,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1195,
"end": 1209,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1349,
"end": 1370,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1615,
"end": 1634,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1675,
"end": 1692,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1753,
"end": 1770,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1818,
"end": 1837,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1938,
"end": 1955,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\n\nDated : 10/08/2007\n\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice P.D.Dinakaran\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice P.R.Shivakumar\n\n\nW.A.(MD)No.145 of 2007\nW.A.(MD)No.146 of 2007\nand\nM.P(MD)Nos.1+1 and 2+2 of 2007\n\n\nK. Chidambara Manickam,\nNo.2/37, Maravar Mela Street,\nAlanganeri (Post),3\nThachanallur Via,\nTirunelveli. \t\t...\t\tAppellant in\n\t\t\t\t\tboth W.As\n\n\nVs\n\n\nShakeena,\nW/o. P.Shahul Hameed,\nNo.18-A, A9, 4th Main Road,\nMaharaja Nagar,\nTirunelveli - 11.\t...\t\tFirst Respondent\n\t\t\t\t\tin W.A.No.145 of 2007\n\nP.Shahul Hameed,\nS/o. Pakkir Mohideen Rowther,\nNo.18-A, A9, 4th Main Road,\nMaharaja Nagar,\nTirunelveli - 11. \t...\t\tFirst Respondent\n\t\t\t\t\tin W.A.No.146 of 2007\n\nBank of India,\nrep. By its Branch Manager\nPalayamkottai,\nTirunelveli - 627 002.\n\nB. Jagathkumar,\nAuthorised Officer,\nBank of India, Coimbatore Zone,\n324, Oppanakara Street,\nCoimbatore - 1. \t...\t\tRespondents 2 and 3\n\t\t\t\t\tin both W.As\n\nPrayer\n\n\nAppeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orders\nof the learned single Judge dated 09.03.2007 made in W.P(MD)Nos.634 and 635 of\n2006.\n\n!For Appellant\t\t...\tMr. Ar. L. Sundaresan\n\t\t\t Senior Counsel for\n\t\t\t\tM/s. Al. Ganthimathi\n\n^For Respondents\t...\tMr. R.S.Ramanathan for R-1\n \t\t\t\tMr. F.B.Benjamin George for \t\t\n\nR-2 and R-3\n\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 161,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 269,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 394,
"end": 402,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 538,
"end": 553,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 699,
"end": 712,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 780,
"end": 794,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1125,
"end": 1142,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1182,
"end": 1197,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1224,
"end": 1238,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1256,
"end": 1275,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1) Cri.R.A. No. 118 / 2012\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay,\n Aurangabad Bench, At Aurangabad.\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Revision Application No. 118 of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. Vinayakrao s/o. Balawantrao Mane,\n Age : 70 years,\n\n\n\n\n \n Occupation : Lawyer.\n\n 2. Sanjay s/o. Vinayakrao Mane,\n Age : 41 years,\n\n\n\n\n \n Occupation : Agriculture.\n \n 3. Sau. Shakuntala w/o. Vinayakrao Mane,\n Age : 60 years,\n Occupation : Household.\n \n All R/o. Sane Guruji Nagar, Omerga,\n Taluka : Omerga,\n District : Osmanabad. .. Applicants.\n \n\n\n versus\n \n\n\n\n The State of Maharashtra,\n Through the Incharge of\n Police Station at Omerga,\n\n\n\n\n\n District : Osmanabad. .. Respondent.\n\n .......................\n\n Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate, for the applicants.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. B.J. Sonwane, Additional Public Prosecutor,\n for the respondent, assisted by Mr. U.B. Bondar,\n Advocate, for the original complainant.\n\n ........................\n\n\n\n\n \n (2) Cri.R.A. No. 118 / 2012\n\n\n Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J.\n\n\n\n\n \n Date of reserving the\n judgment : 24th September 2012.\n\n\n\n\n \n Date of pronouncing the\n judgment : 4th October 2012.\n\n\n\n\n \n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 150,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 387,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 535,
"end": 541,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 701,
"end": 716,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1009,
"end": 1033,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1257,
"end": 1268,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1325,
"end": 1337,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1421,
"end": 1432,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1742,
"end": 1760,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "cria120.00\n 1\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay \n\n Bench At Aurangabad\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No.120 Of 2000\n\n\n\n\n \n Shaikh Mahemood Sk. Osman,\n Age-33 years, Occu:Brick Kiln,\n R/o-Kagzipura, Tq-Khultabad,\n\n\n\n\n \n Dist-Aurangabad.\n ...Appellant\n (Orig. Accused No.1) \n \n Versus \n \n 1) The State of Maharashtra. \n ...Respondent\n\n ...\n \n\n Shri.H.F. Pawar Advocate for Appellant.\n Smt. S.G. Chincholkar, A.G.P. for Respondent. \n \n\n\n\n ... \n\n\n Coram: A.I.S. Cheema, J.\n\n\n\n\n\n Date Of Reserving Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 176,
"end": 254,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 418,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 733,
"end": 753,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1034,
"end": 1040,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n W. P. (C) No. 07 of 2012\n\n\n\n\nThe High Court Of Sikkim At Gangtok\n (Civil Extra Ordinary Jurisdiction)\n\n\n Dated : 29.08.2013\n\n\n\n Coram\n\n Hon'Ble The Chief Justice\n Mr. Justice Pius C. Kuriakose\n\n\n W.P. (C) No. 7 of 2012\n\n 1. Mr. Thupten Kalden Bhutia,\n S/o Late Chewang Rinzing Bhutia,\n R/o Near Triveni Hotel,\n P.O. & P.S. Gyalzing,\n West Sikkim.\n\n 2. Ms. Dikeela Kalden,\n D/o Thupten Kalden Bhutia,\n R/o Near Triveni Hotel,\n P.O. & P.S. Gyalzing,\n West Sikkim. ..... Petitioners.\n\n - versus -\n\n 1. State of Sikkim,\n through\n the Chief Secretary,\n Government of Sikkim,\n Tashiling Secretariat,\n Gangtok.\n\n 2. The Secretary,\n Land Revenue and Disaster\n Management Department,\n Government of Sikkim,\n Gangtok.\n\n 3. The Secretary,\n Power & Energy Department,\n Government of Sikkim,\n Gangtok.\n 2\n\n W. P. (C) No. 07 of 2012\n\n\n\n\n 4. The District Collector,\n Office of the District Collectorate,\n West District,\n Gyalzing.\n\n 5. The Managing Director,\n Sikkim Power Development Corporation,\n Gangtok,\n East Sikkim.\n\n 6. The Union of India,\n through:\n The Secretary,\n Ministry of Forest & Environment,\n Government of India,\n Paryavaran Bhawan,\n C.G.O. Complex, Lodi Road,\n New Delhi.\n\n 7. The Director,\n M/s. Shiga Energy Pvt. Limited,\n Rabdenling, Annex-II\n Adjoining Royal Plaza,\n Upper Syari,\n Gangtok, East Sikkim. ..... Respondents.\n\n\nFor Petitioners : M/s. Bhaskar Raj. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate\n with T. R. Barfungpa, Yangchen D. Gyatso\n Bhutia, Yadev Sharma and Karma Tshering\n Bhutia, Advocates.\n\n\n\nFor Respondents : M/s. J. B. Pradhan, Addl. Advocate General\n with S. K. Chettri, Asstt. Govt. Advocate for\n Respondents No. 1 to 5.\n\n\n Mr. Karma Thinlay, Central Govt. Advocate\n for Respondent No. 6.\n\n\n M/s. A. Moulik, Sr. Advocate with Manish\n Kr. Jain, K. D. Bhutia, P. Kharka and Ranjit\n Prasad, Advocates for Respondent No. 7.\n 3\n\n W. P. (C) No. 07 of 2012\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 117,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 289,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 366,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 530,
"end": 544,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 766,
"end": 781,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 949,
"end": 1090,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1110,
"end": 1216,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1386,
"end": 1548,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1581,
"end": 1739,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1773,
"end": 1787,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2146,
"end": 2213,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2461,
"end": 2481,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2528,
"end": 2543,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2545,
"end": 2597,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2599,
"end": 2611,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2616,
"end": 2664,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2707,
"end": 2725,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2782,
"end": 2795,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2907,
"end": 2920,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3028,
"end": 3037,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3057,
"end": 3099,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3101,
"end": 3113,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3115,
"end": 3124,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3129,
"end": 3169,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. P.S.Teji : Addl. Sessions Judge :\n New Delhi.\n\n\nSc No. 58/06 Fir No. 146/06\n Ps: Badarpur.\n U/S. 364-A/34 Ipc.\nState\n\n Versus\n\n\n1. Udhal Singh s/o Sh. Toonia\nR/o Village Lal Gadhi\nPs Sikandarao, District Hathrash,\nUp.\n\n\n2. Vinod @ Sahib Singh s/o\nSh. Banwari Lal R/o Gali No.8,\nDipawali Enclave, behind Molarband\nSchool, Faridabad, Haryana.\n\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 287,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 387,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad, Lucknow Bench\n \n \n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tReserved on: 24.08.2012.\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\t Delivered on: 07.09.2012.\n \n \t\t A.F.R.\n \n \t High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad,\n \n \t Lucknow Bench, Lucknow\n \n\n \n \t F.A.F.O. no. 588 of 2003\n \n The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Branch Kannauj,\n \n through Branch Manager, presently through Deputy Manager,\n \n Legal Cell. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,\n \n 94-M.G. Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow\n \n \t ------Appellant/Insurer\n \n -: Versus:-\n \n1. Smt.Savitri Singh, widow of late Ashok Kumar Singh,\n \n2. Km. Anju Singh, aged about 17 years, D/O late Ashok Kumar Singh, \n \n3. Vineet Singh, aged about 12 years, S/O late Ashok Kumar Singh, \n \n4. Km. Renu Singh, aged about 9 years, D/O late Ashok Kumar Singh, \n \n5. Km. Khushu Singh, aged about 6 years, D/O late Ashok Kumar Singh, \n \n\t\tAll the resident of village & Post Kenaura, Distt..- Sultanpur.\n \n\n \n6. Rasheed Ahmed, S/O Hazi Noor Mohammed,\n \n R/O village Kakrahi Bazar, Kasba Dibiyapur, District Oraiyya.\n \n \t\t\t\t\t----------- Respondents / Opposite parties.\n \nPetitioner's Counsel :- Anand Mohan\n \nRespondents' Counsel :- S.N. Srivastava,Mohammad Saeed-Ii\n \n\n \nHon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J.\n \nHon'ble Visnhu Chandra Gupta,J.\n \n\n \n\n \n(Delivered by Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta)\n \n\t\n \n\t\t\t\tJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 264,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 371,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 656,
"end": 669,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 714,
"end": 724,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 781,
"end": 793,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 854,
"end": 864,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 924,
"end": 936,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1063,
"end": 1076,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1251,
"end": 1262,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1289,
"end": 1304,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1305,
"end": 1322,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1336,
"end": 1353,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1367,
"end": 1387,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1421,
"end": 1441,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Munish Markan, Senior Civil Judge \nCum Rent Controller ( South East), District Courts, \nSaket, New Delhi\n\n\nE No: 18/13\n\nUnique I/D No.02406C0148152013\n\nJarnail Singh \nSon of Shri Gurbachan Singh \nR/o L\u00ad63, 3rd Floor \nKalkaji, New Delhi \n Versus\n\n\nSh. Gian Singh\nShop No. 2\u00adB, Guru Nanak Market\nLajpat Nagar, New Delhi\n\nDate of institution of suit : 01.07.2013\nDate on which Judgment reserved : 25.11.2014\nDate on which judgment pronounced : 28.11.2014\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 138,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 199,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 316,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 03.07.2012\n\t\t\t\t\t\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice G.Rajasuria\n\nC.R.P.(NPD).No.4888 of 2011\nand\nM.P.No.1 of 2011\n\n1. Durairaj\n2. Thimmulu @ Thirumalai\n3. Dhanalakshmi @ Lakshmi\n4. Vellaiyammal\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioners\n\n\nvs.\n1. Venugopal\n2. S.Senthil Kumar\t\t\t\t\t\t ... Respondents\n\n(R2 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 13.03.2012)\n\n\tCivil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 22.07.2011 passed in Cma No.2 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Perambalur.\n\n\t\tFor Petitioners\t : Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan\n\t\t\t\t\t for Mr.S.Mohan\n\t\tFor Respondents : Mr.R.Subramanian for R1\n\t\t\t\t\t Mr.S.D.Balaji for R2.\t\t\n\n\t\t\t\t\tOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 112,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 175,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 200,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 226,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 242,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 284,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 303,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 611,
"end": 630,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 648,
"end": 655,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 681,
"end": 694,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 714,
"end": 724,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Nagpur Bench, Nagpur\n\n\n\n\n \n First Appeal No. 188/1993\n\n\n\n\n \n Dr. Jawaharlal Mannalal Bagadiya,\n aged about 40 years,\n Medical Practitioner,\n Resident of Ratanlal Plots,\n\n\n\n\n \n Akola, Tq. & Distt. Akola, Appellant\n\n ...versus...\n\n\n\n\n \n 1) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,\n through Divisional Controller,\n \n Amravati,\n \n 2) Rahamatullakhan Ibrahimkhan,\n aged about 52 years, near Vitthal\n Tekdi, Amravati, Tq. & Distt.\n \n\n Amravati. Respondents\n \n\n\n\n ======================================\n Shri B.N.Mohta, Adv. for the appellant. \n\n Shri V.G.Wankhede, Adv. Respondents ================================= Coram : S.R.Dongaonkar, J Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 292,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 564,
"end": 608,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 713,
"end": 740,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 934,
"end": 943,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 977,
"end": 989,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1050,
"end": 1064,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High\u00a0Court\u00a0Of\u00a0Madhya\u00a0Pradeesh\u00a0\u00a0Jabalpur\n\n (Writ\u00a0Petition\u00a0No.20346/2011)\n\n Savitri\u00a0Patel\n\n Vs.\n\n Bank\u00a0of\u00a0Baroda\u00a0and\u00a0others\n\n\n\nPresent\u00a0:\u00a0 Honourable\u00a0Shri\u00a0Justice\u00a0Ajit\u00a0Singh\n\n\u00a0 Honourable\u00a0Shri\u00a0Justice\u00a0Sanjay\u00a0Yadav\u00a0\n\n\n Petitioner\u00a0in\u00a0person\n\nCounsel\u00a0for\u00a0respondent\u00a0Bank \u00a0 Shri\u00a0Praveen\u00a0Chaturvedi,\u00a0AdvocateCounsel for Auction Purchaser Shri Sanjay Sanyal, Advocate O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 150,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 244,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 304,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 346,
"end": 358,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 489,
"end": 507,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 565,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 19/04/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Sathasivam \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar \n\n\nCrl.A.No.803 of 2002\nand \nCrl.A.No.863 of 2002\nand \n871 of 2001\nand \nCrl.R.C.No.285/2002 \nand \nCrl.M.P.No. 9069 of 2005\nin Crl.R.C.\nSr No. 46945 of 2005 \n\n\nCrl.Appeal No.803 of 2001\n\n1. Alagarsamy (A-1)\n2. Jothi (A4)\n3. Andichami (A-7)\n4. Renganathan (A-9) \n5. Sakkaraimurthy (A-13)\n6. Rajendran (A-15)\n7. Ramar (A-40)\n ... Appellants/ Accused\n Nos.1, 4, 7, 9, 1\n 3, 15 and 40.\n\n-Vs-\n\nState by\nDeputy Superintendent of Police,\nDistrict Crime Branch, Madurai.\n\n ... Respondent/Complainant.\n\n\nCriminal Appeal No. 863 of 2001\n\n1. Ponniah\n2. Manikandan \n3. Markandan \n4. Rasam @ Ayyavu \n5. Alaghu\n6. Chockanathan \n7. Chinna Odugan @ Chinna Ulunthan. \n\n ... Appellants/ Accused Nos.3, 5, 11, 12, 14, 20 and 22.\n\nVs \n\nState represented by\nDeputy Superintendent of Police,\nDistrict Crime Branch, Madurai.\n\n ... Respondent/Complainant.\n\n\nCriminal Appeal No. 871 of 2001\n\n1. Manoharan \n2. Sekar\n3. Selvam \n ... Appellants/Accused Nos.8,\n 18 and 21.\n\n\n Vs.\nState, by\nDeputy Superintendent of Police,\nDistrict Crime Branch, Madurai.\n\n ... Respondent/Complainant.\n\n\n\nCrl.R.C.No. 285 of 2001\n\n1. M. Kumar \n2. Periyavar\n3. Mayavar \n .. Petitioners/P.Ws. 2, 5 and 9.\n\n Vs.\n\n1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,\n District Crime Branch,\n Madurai District. .. Respondent/Complainant.\n\n2. Duraipandi .. A-2\n3. Manivasagam .. A-6\n4. Dinakaran .. A-10\n5. Karanthamalai .. A-16\n6. Baskaran .. A-17\n7. Tamilan .. A-19\n8. Ambalam .. A-23\n9. Sethu .. A-24\n10. Kalanjiam .. A-25\n11. Mani .. A-26\n12. Sevagaperumal .. A-27 \n13. Elavarasan .. A-28\n14. Asokan .. A-29\n15. Ganesan .. A-30\n16. Bharathidasan .. A-31\n17. Kathirvel .. A-32\n18. Thangamani .. A-33\n19. Pandi .. A-34\n20. Pugazhendhi .. A-35\n21. Nagesh .. A-36\n22. Maduraiveeran .. A-37\n23. Kannan .. A-38\n24. Selvam .. A-39 ... Respondents/Accused.\n\n\n Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal\nProcedure against the conviction and sentence imposed on the\naccused/respective appellants by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem,\nin his Judgment dated 26.07.2001, made in Sessions Case No.10 of 2001. \nCriminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the\nCode of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the learned\nPrincipal Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.10 of 2001 , dated 26-7-2001, in so\nfar as it relates to the acquittal of respondents 2 to 24/Accused from the\ncharges for offences under Sections 12 0-B, 148, 341, 506 (ii), 302 read with\n34 read with 149 Ipc and Section 302 read with Section 3 (2) (v) of the\nScheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,\nread with 149 read with 34 Ipc.\n\n!Mr. B. Sriramulu, Senior counsel for Mrs.P.V.\nRajeswari:- For Appellants in C.A.803/2001.\n\nMr. S. Ashok Kumar, Senior counsel for Mr. A.\nSashidharan:- For appellants in C.A.No.863/2001.\n\nMr. S. Ashok Kumar, Senior counsel for Mr. K.\nJegannathan:- For Appellants-1 and\n2 in C.A.No.871/2001 and for Respondents 2 to 20, 22 to 24\nin Cr.R.C. No. 285/2002.\n\nMr. M. Balasubramanian:- For Appellant-3 in C.A.\nNo. 871/2001.\n\nMr. V. Gopinath, Senior counsel, assisted by Mr.\nV. Suresh for Mr. P. Rathinam :- For petitioner\nin Crl.R.C.No.285/2002.\n\nMr.P.Rathinam \u0016 Counsel for petrs. in Crl.M.P.\nNos.9069 of 2005. \n\n^Mr. N.R. Chandran, Advocate General, assisted by\nMr. P. Venkatasubramanian for Mr. V.M.R.\nRajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor:- For\nRespondent/State. \n\n:Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 118,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 171,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 377,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 387,
"end": 392,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 410,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 431,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 442,
"end": 456,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 476,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 487,
"end": 492,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 646,
"end": 651,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 811,
"end": 818,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 822,
"end": 832,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 837,
"end": 846,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 851,
"end": 865,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 872,
"end": 878,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 882,
"end": 894,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 899,
"end": 930,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1014,
"end": 1019,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1194,
"end": 1203,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1208,
"end": 1213,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1217,
"end": 1223,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1350,
"end": 1355,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1509,
"end": 1517,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1522,
"end": 1531,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1535,
"end": 1542,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1637,
"end": 1716,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1751,
"end": 1761,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1776,
"end": 1787,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1801,
"end": 1810,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1827,
"end": 1840,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1853,
"end": 1861,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1879,
"end": 1886,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1905,
"end": 1912,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1931,
"end": 1936,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1958,
"end": 1967,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1984,
"end": 1988,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2010,
"end": 2023,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2037,
"end": 2047,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2063,
"end": 2069,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2089,
"end": 2096,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2115,
"end": 2128,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2141,
"end": 2150,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2167,
"end": 2177,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2193,
"end": 2198,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2219,
"end": 2230,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2245,
"end": 2251,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2271,
"end": 2284,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2297,
"end": 2303,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2323,
"end": 2329,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3280,
"end": 3293,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3318,
"end": 3322,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3323,
"end": 3334,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3373,
"end": 3388,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3414,
"end": 3430,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3472,
"end": 3487,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3513,
"end": 3529,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3645,
"end": 3666,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3712,
"end": 3724,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3758,
"end": 3768,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3778,
"end": 3790,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3837,
"end": 3847,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3908,
"end": 3922,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3959,
"end": 3981,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3991,
"end": 4007,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Id No.02401C5758482004\n\n\n In The Court Of Shri Pankaj Gupta : Addl. District \n Judge (Central\u00ad07) : Tis Hazari Court : Delhi\n\n\n Civil Suit No.226/2012 \n\n\nM/s. Industrial Constructions,\nThrough Sh. P N Mishra (Partner)\nD\u00ad170, Okhla Industrial Area, \nPhase\u00adI, New Delhi.\nThrough Sh. Samir Roy (Attorney) ............ Plaintiff\n\n\n\nVersus\n\n\nBses Rajdhani Power Ltd. \nThrough Its Ceo,\nService to be effected through \nits Corporate Legl & Enorcement Cell,\nOpposite Ahuja Park,\nAndrews Ganj, \nNew Delhi. ............ Defendant \n\n\nDate of Institution : 24.12.2003\nDate when the case reserved for order : 07.02.2014\nDate of Order : 07.02.2014\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 139,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 223,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 330,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 394,
"end": 418,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWA.No. 833 of 2008()\n\n\n1. C.Krishnakumar,Councillor, Corportion\n ... Petitioner\n2. C,Vijayan,\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The State Of Kerala Represented By The\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Scrutiny Committee For Verification\n\n3. The Director, Kirtads, Directorate Of\n\n4. Edavacode Asokan, Chinnaveedu\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Sri.R.T.Pradeep\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.H.L.Dattu\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Basheer\n\n Dated :05/08/2008\n\n O R D E R\n H.L. Dattu, C.J. & A.K. Basheer, J.\n\n -------------------------------------\n W.A.No.833 of 2008\n ------------------------------------\n Dated this, the 5th day of August, 2008\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 82,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 156,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 211,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 318,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 357,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 394,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 452,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 497,
"end": 508,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 543,
"end": 552,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 588,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 636,
"end": 646,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 655,
"end": 667,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": ":1:\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 14th Day Of August 2012\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana\n\n Criminal Appeal No.2347/2005 (C)\n\n\nBetween:\n\nImran @ Karadi Imran\nS/O Kharadi Rashid\nAged About 25 Years\nResiding At Chelugudda\nThippareddy Extension,\nChitradurga. ... Appellant\n\n (By Sri B.M.Siddappa, Adv.)\n\nAnd\n\nThe State Of Karnataka,\nBy State Public Prosecutor,\nHigh Courts Building,\nBangalore. ... Respondent\n\n (By Sri K.Rajesh Rai, Hcgp)\n\n\n This Criminal Appeal Is Filed Under\nSection 374 Cr.P.C. By The Advocate For Te\nAppellant Against The Judgment Dated\n11.8.2005 Passed By The Addl. S.J.,\nFtc,Chitradurga In S.C.No.10/2005, Convicting\nThe Appellant-Accused No.1 For The Offence\nP/U/S 326 Ipc And Sentencing Him To Undergo\nR.I. For 2 \u00bd Years (2 Years Six Months) And To\nPay Fine Of Rs.1,000/- And In Default Undergo\n3 Months R.I.\n :2:\n\n\n This Criminal Appeal Coming For Hearing\nOn This Day, The Court Delivered The\nFollowing:-\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 175,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 253,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 405,
"end": 417,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 453,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 572,
"end": 584,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Election Petition No.7 of 2009\n\nIn the matter of an application under Section 81 of the Representation of the\n People Act, 1951 read with Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India\n ===========================================================\nGhanshyam Lal Jamuar, son of late Ram Lakhan Lal Jamuar, resident of Harnahatola, Umardaraj Lane, Lodikatra, P.O. Patna City, P.S. Chowk Patna City, district Patna- 800008 ...... ....... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. Satrughan Sinha, son of late Bhuneshwari Pd. Sinha, resident of House No. 102 D. Block Kadamkuan, P.O. Kadamkuan, P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna-800003. \n\n2. Mr. Vijay Kumar, son of late Kishori Lal, son of not known, resident of Station Road, Guizarbagh, P.O. Mina Bazar(Gulzarbagh) P.S. Alarnganj, Patna-800007. \n\n3. Shekhar Suman, son of Sri Suman Sekhar Bhusan Prasad, resident of 26, Oberai Scot Garden, Shastrinagar, 1st Lane Apna Ghar, Road/West, Pin code 400053 district Mumbai-53. \n\n4. On Mausami, son of Sri Sahjat Hasan Masumi, resident of Qrt. No. W 113, Mithapur Khagaul Road, Patna, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Jakkanpur, Dist. Patna\n5. Dr. Diwakar Tejswi, son of Sri Kiran Kishor Saran, resident of M.l.G. 161 Lohiya Nagar, P.O. Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna 800020\n6. Ram Narayan Rai, son of Sri Han Charan Rai, resident of mohalla Dhirachak P.O. Anishabad, P.S. Anishabad, Patna 800002. \n\n7. Hasan Faizi Azami, son of Sri Hasan Manjoor Hashmi, resident of Hasmi Mahal, Hashmi Gali, mohalla Khanmirza, P.S. Sultanganj/Alamganj, P.O. Mahendru, Patna 800006. \n\n8. Anjani Kumar, son of late Tarkeshwar Prasad, resident of House No.39 Loco Colony Nagarparishad Khagaul. Circle Danapur, P.S. Khagaul, P.O. Khagaul, distt. Patna 801105. \n\n9. Kumar Rajiv, son of Smt. Rani Tara, resident of Deshprem Abhiyan Mein Humsafar Banei, Behind of Vikaram Hotel, Exhibition Road, P.O. Exhibition Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Patna 800001. \n\n10. Deepak Kumar Singh, son of late Chandraket Narayan Singh, resident of Buddha Colony, G.P.O., P.S. Budha Colony, district Patna\n11. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, son of Sri Ajab Lal Sharma, resident of Salempur, P.O. Salempur, P.S. Katrasgarh, Distt. Dhanbad(Jharkhand). \n\n12. Promod Kr. Gupta, son of Sri Ramji Sah, resident of mohalla Bakarganj Bajaja, Muharampur Chauraha, P.O. Bankipur, P.S. Pirbahore, Patna 800004. \n\n13. Rambhajan Singh Nishad, son of late Chamru Mahto, resident of Ramkrishna Colony, Sandalpur, P.O. Mahendru, P.S. Bahadurpur, Distt. Patna\n14. Vidhan Chandra Rana, son of Sri Rajendra Nath Das, resident of Chandmari Road, Gali No.4, Lohiya Nagar, P.O. Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, Patna 20. \n\n15.Sanjay Verma, son of late Bishambhar Nath Verma, resident of J.P. Nagar, Bagnali, P.O. Hazipur, P.S. Hazipur Town, district Vaishali. \n\n16. Hemant Kumar Singh son of Sri Satyadev Prasad Singh, resident of 405, Swarup Complex, Bazar Samiti Road, P.O. Bazar Samiti, P.S. Bahadurpur, Patna- 16. \n\n .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :\n Patna High Court E.P. No.7 of 2009 dt.06-11-2012 For the Petitioner/s: Mr. S. Azeem, Advocate For the Respondent/s: M/s S.N.P. Sharma, Sr. Adv., Manik Vedsen, Amrendra Kr. Singh, Subhash Chandra Bose, Advocates =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice V.N. Sinha C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 335,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 525,
"end": 540,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 679,
"end": 690,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 836,
"end": 849,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1012,
"end": 1022,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1162,
"end": 1176,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1296,
"end": 1311,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1421,
"end": 1438,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1590,
"end": 1602,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1764,
"end": 1775,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1954,
"end": 1972,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2085,
"end": 2104,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2221,
"end": 2237,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2371,
"end": 2393,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2512,
"end": 2531,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2662,
"end": 2677,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2805,
"end": 2823,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3132,
"end": 3140,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3177,
"end": 3190,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3202,
"end": 3214,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3216,
"end": 3234,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3236,
"end": 3256,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3358,
"end": 3368,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Chattisgarh Bilaspur \n\n MCrC No 5024 of 2000 \n\n Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd and another \n ...Petitioners\n\n Versus\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh now Cg and another \n ...Respondents\n\n! Shri Surendra Singh Sr Advocate with Shri Ps Koshy counsel for the petitioners\n\n^ Shri Rakesh Jha Dy Govt Advocate for the State respondent No 1 Shri Bp Sharma and Shri Vivek Chopda counsel for respondent \n\n Coram: Honble Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava J \n\n Dated: 17/11/2011\n\n: Judgement \n\n\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 35,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 113,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 247,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 353,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 376,
"end": 384,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 421,
"end": 431,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 484,
"end": 494,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 504,
"end": 516,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 562,
"end": 588,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n Cr. Appeal. No.37/1994\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n Before : Tarun Kumar Kaushal, J.\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 37 Of 1994\n\nAppellants : 1. Gendalal S/o Amar Singh,\n Aged 62 years, Labourer,\n R/o Lodhi Mohalla,\n Sehore(MP).\n\n 2. Ramesh S/o Patiram Rathore,\n Aged 54 years, Service,\n R/o Ganj Bajaria, Sehore(MP).\n\n 3. Gendalal S/o Dalchand Rathore,\n Aged 44 years, Labourer,\n R/o Rathore Mohalla, Ganj,\n Sehore(MP).\n\n 4. Raju S/o Ramlal Rathore,\n Aged 42 years, Tailoring Shop,\n R/o Rathore Mohalla, Ganj,\n Sehore(MP).\n\n 5. Nandiram, S/o Ramlal,\n Aged 46 years, Salesman,\n R/o Rathore Mohalla, Ganj,\n Sehore(MP).\n\n 6. Mahesh S/o Patiram,\n Aged 52 years, Service,\n R/o Ganj, Sehore(MP).\n\n 7. Jagdish S/o Biharilal,\n Aged 70 years,\n Agriculturist,\n R/o Ganj, Sehore(MP).\n\n 8. Rajesh, S/o Chatarsingh Rathore,\n Aged 44 years, Labourer,\n R/o Rathore Mohalla, Ganj,\n Sehore(MP).\n\n 9. Mohan S/o Mishrilal Rathore,\n Aged 47 years Labourer,\n R/o Rathore Mohalla, Ganj,\n Sehore(MP).\n\n 10. Shantilal S/o Kishanlal Rathore,\n Aged 42 years, Service,\n R/o Rathore Mohalla, Ganj,\n Sehore(MP).\n 2\n Cr. Appeal. No.37/1994\n\n 11. Satish S/o Jagdish Rathore,\n Aged 50 years, Service,\n R/o Rathore Mohalla, Ganj,\n Sehore(MP).\n\n 12. Ramesh S/o Nandlal Rathore,\n Aged 25 years, Labourer,\n R/o Ganj, Sehore(MP).\n\n Versus\nRespondent: The State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n\n******************************************************************\nFor Appellant : Shri S.C. Datt, Senior Advocate with\n Shri Vivek Saxena, Advocate.\n\nFor Respondent : Shri Pushpraj Singh, P.L.\n******************************************************************\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 123,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 165,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 248,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 424,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 573,
"end": 581,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 765,
"end": 769,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 957,
"end": 965,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1140,
"end": 1146,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1279,
"end": 1286,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1451,
"end": 1457,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1645,
"end": 1650,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1834,
"end": 1843,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2156,
"end": 2162,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2380,
"end": 2386,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2612,
"end": 2635,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2740,
"end": 2749,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2807,
"end": 2819,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2867,
"end": 2881,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Dr. Archana Sinha\n Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Central\u00ad03) \n Tis Hazari Court / Delhi\n\nSuit No. : 290/2014 Unique Case Id No. 02401C0496102014\n\nSh. Amit Mudgal .......Plaintiff\n\nVs. \n\nInventa Cleantec Pvt. Ltd. ........ Defendant \n\n\n\n30.05.2015\n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 49,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 145,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 221,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 321,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n O. O. C. J.\n\n\n\n\n \n Income Tax Appeal No.2186 Of 2009\n\n The Commissioner of Income Tax-6 ..Appellant.\n Vs.\n\n\n\n\n \n M/s. Dresser Rand India Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent.\n ....\n Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant.\n Mr. F. V. Irani with Mr. A.K. Jasani for the Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n \n ....\n ig \n Coram : Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud &\n J.P. Devadhar, Jj.\n 8th April, 2010. \n\n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 336,
"end": 398,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 490,
"end": 523,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 615,
"end": 627,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 655,
"end": 666,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 676,
"end": 687,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 896,
"end": 911,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 956,
"end": 969,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Keralaat Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon\n &\n The Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran\n\n Friday, The 8Th Day Of April 2016/19Th Chaithra, 1938\n\n MACA.No. 2021 of 2015 ()\n -------------------------\n\n Against The Award In Opmv 1346/2006 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ,\n Pathanamthittadated 02-02-2015\n\nAppellant/2Nd Respondent:\n--------------------------------------------\n\n The Branch Manager,\n The New Indiaassurance Company Ltd, Branch Office,\n Changayil Buildings, Pathanamthitta,\n Represented By Its Manager, Regional Office,\n M.G.Road, Ernakulam.\n\n By Adv. Sri.Lal George\n\nRespondents/Claimant And 1St Respondent:\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n 1. Vinod.C.S., Aged 28 Years,\n Champakasseril House, Vechoochira P.O.,\n Chethackal Village, Ranny Taluk,\n Pathanamthittadistrict - 689 672.\n\n 2. V.P.Shaiju\n 19/2165, Pipe Lane Road,\n Palluruthy P.O., Kochi - 683 542.\n\n\n R2 By Adv. Sri.Mohan Idicullaabraham\n R2 By Adv. Sri.T.A.George Joseph\n R1 By Adv. Sri.T.K.Koshy\n R1 By Adv. Sri.Sabu I.Koshy\n\n This Motor Accident Claims Appeal Having Been Finally Heard On\n15.2.2016, The Court On 8.4.2016 Delivered The Following:\n\f\n\n\n \"Cr\"\n\n P.R.Ramachandra Menon & Anil K.Narendran, Jj.\n ---------------------------------------------------------------\n M.A.C.A.No.2021 of 2015\n ---------------------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 8th day of April, 2016\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 169,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 298,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 752,
"end": 1008,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1044,
"end": 1054,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1196,
"end": 1206,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1415,
"end": 1425,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1565,
"end": 1586,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1623,
"end": 1640,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1677,
"end": 1686,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1723,
"end": 1735,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1948,
"end": 1969,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1972,
"end": 1988,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n\n\n Single Bench: J.K. Maheshwari, J.\n\n Civil Revision No.377 Of 2009\n\n Haji Abdul Aziz Ansari\n\n vs\n\n M.P. Wakf Board, Bhopal and another\n\n\nShri S.P. Tripathi, Advocate for petitioner.\nShri R.B. Patel, Advocate for respondent No.1.\nShri Ishtiyaque. Hussain, Advocate for respondent No.2.\n\n Civil Revision No.393 Of 2009\n\n Mubarak Ansari\n\n vs\n\n Haji Abdul Aziz Ansari and another\n\n\nShri Ishtiyaque Hussain , Advocate for petitioner.\nShri S.P. Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No.1.\nShri R.B. Patel, Advocate for respondent No.2.\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 218,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 309,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 342,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 384,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 421,
"end": 440,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 559,
"end": 573,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 643,
"end": 665,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 685,
"end": 703,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 736,
"end": 749,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 786,
"end": 796,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 25Th Day Of March, 2013\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar\n\n M.F.A.No.7527/2008 C/W\n M.F.A. No.7528/2008 (Mv)\n M.F.A. Crob. No.145/2009\n\nM.F.A. No. 7527/2008:\n\nBetween:\n\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nBranch Office,\nGandhi Bazaar Main Road,\nGandhi Bazaar, Bangalore\nNow represented by its\nRegional Office,\nShubharam Complex,\nNo.144, M.G.Road,\nBangalore-560 001. ... Appellant\n\n(By Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy, Advocate)\n\n\nAnd\n\n1. Smt. Narayanamma,\n W/o H.Ramappa,\n Aged about 38 years,\n R/o 2nd Cross, 1st Main,\n Gandhinagar, Kolar City.\n\n2. K.Ramachandra,\n S/o Krishnappa,\n C/o Shri Vivekananda High\n School, Nangali\n Mulbagal Taluk,\n 2\n\n\n Kolar District. ... Respondents\n\n(By Sri.M.R.Shalamala Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for R-2\n Sri.C.N.Raghavendra, Advocate for R-1 for M/s Suguna\n Reddy)\n\n Mfa filed U/S 173(1) of Mv Act against the judgment\nand award dated 03.10.2007 passed in Mvc No.7177/2005\non the file of Xvi Additional Judge, Member, Mact,\nBangalore, Scch-14, awarding a compensation of\nRs.1,48,420/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of\npetition till realisation.\n\n\nM.F.A. No.7528/2008:\n\nBetween:\n\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nBranch Office,\nGandhi Bazaar Main Road,\nGandhi Bazaar, Bangalore\nNow represented by its\nRegional Office,\nShubharam Complex,\nNo.144, M.G.Road,\nBangalore-560 001.\n ... Appellant\n(By Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy, Advocate)\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Sri.Ashwathnarayana,\n S/o Late K.Seenappa,\n Aged about 37 years,\n C/o Parusharamappa,\n No.363, 2nd Main, 1st Cross,\n Gandhinagar,\n Kolar City & District.\n 3\n\n\n2. K.Ramachandra,\n S/o Krishnappa,\n C/o Shri Vivekananda High\n School, Nangali\n Mulbagal Taluk,\n Kolar District.\n ... Respondents\n\n(By Sri.M.R.Shalamala Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for\n M/s Sn Associates; Notice to R-1 held sufficient)\n\n Mfa filed U/S 173(1) of Mv Act against the judgment\nand award dated 03.10.2007 passed in Mvc No.7178/2005\non the file of Xvi Additional Judge, Member, Mact,\nBangalore, Scch-14, awarding a compensation of\nRs.60,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition\ntill realisation.\n\n\nM.F.A. Crob.145/2009:\n\nBetween:\n\nSmt.Narayanamma,\nW/o H.Ramappa,\nAged about 39 years,\nR/at IInd Cross,\n1st Main, Gandhi Nagar,\nKolar City. ... Cross Objector\n\n(By Sri.C.N.Raghavendra, Advocate for M/s Suguna Reddy)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Sri.K.Ramachandra,\n S/o Krishnappa,\n Major in age,\n R/at C/o. Vivekananda High School,\n Nangali, Mulbagal Taluq,\n Kolar District.\n 4\n\n\n2. The Branch Manager,\n National Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n Branch Office,\n Gandhi Bazaar Main Road,\n Gandhi Bazaar,\n Bangalore-02 ... Respondents\n\n\n Mfa Crob in Mfa No.7529/2008 filed U/o 41 Rule 22\nof Cpc against the judgment and award dated 3.10.2007\npassed in Mvc No.7177/2005 on the file of the Xvi Addl.\nJudge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Mact, MEtropolitian\nArea, Bangalore (SCCH.No.14), partly allowing the claim\npetition for compensation and seeking enhancement of\ncompensation.\n\n\n These Appeals and Mfa. Crob are coming on for\nAdmission this day, the Court delivered the following:-\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 173,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 515,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 563,
"end": 580,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 610,
"end": 621,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 740,
"end": 753,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 963,
"end": 976,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 977,
"end": 992,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1019,
"end": 1034,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1061,
"end": 1077,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1437,
"end": 1530,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1702,
"end": 1719,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1750,
"end": 1765,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1980,
"end": 1993,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2193,
"end": 2206,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2207,
"end": 2222,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2651,
"end": 2662,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2813,
"end": 2828,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2879,
"end": 2892,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3080,
"end": 3247,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "ash 1 pil-36.11(OS)\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Public Interest Litigation No.36 Of 2011\n with\n Notice Of Motion (L) No.160 Of 2013\n With\n Chamber Summons No.109 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n Animals and Birds Charitable Trust\n and Others. .. Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n \n Vs\n Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai\n \n and Others. .. Respondents\n -\n \n Chamber Summons No.109 Of 2012\n In \n Public Interest Litigation No.36 Of 2011\n \n\n\n Animals and Birds Charitable Trust\n \n\n\n\n and Others. .. Petitioners\n Vs\n Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai\n and Others. .. Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n and\n People for the Ethical Treatment of \n Animals (India), an Animal Activist Ngo. .. Applicants/\n Interveners\n -\n\n\n\n\n\n Notice Of Motion (L) No.160 Of 2013\n In\n Public Interest Litigation No.36 Of 2011\n\n\n Ashwashakti Co-op.Society (Proposed),\n Through Mr. Subodh Thakkar. .. Applicant/\n (Org. Respondent No.8)\n\n\n\n\n \n ash 2 pil-36.11(OS)\n\n In the matter of -\n\n\n\n\n \n Animals and Birds Charitable Trust\n and Others. .. Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n \n Vs\n Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai\n and Others. .. Respondents\n --\n\n\n\n\n \n Shri Feroz J. Bharucha, along with Shri Mayur Bhojwani and Shri Hasan \n Farooqui i/by Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co for the Petitioner \n Shri Birendra Saraf, Senior Counsel along with Ms. K.R. Punjabi for \n Respondent No.1 Bmc.\n\n\n\n\n \n Shri Milind More, Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.2 \n and 3. \n Shri Gulana A. Mistry along with Ms. Monil Punjabi i/by Apex Law \n Partners for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5. \n Shri P.I. Ramchandanani for the Respondent No.6.\n \n Shri Rajiv Singh along with Shri Yuvraj K. Singh, Manini Bharati and \n Shri Vividh S. Tandon i/by Solomon & Co for the Respondent No.8.\n Shri J.P. Sen, Senior Counsel along with Shri Mihir Mody and Shri \n Rushin Kapadia i/by M/s. K. Ashar & Co for the Respondent No.9.\n \n\n Shri Shiraz Rustomjee, Senior Counsel and Ms. Shreya Parikh for \n Intervenor (People for Animals).\n \n\n\n\n --\n\n\n Coram : A.S. Oka & A.K. Menon, Jj \n\n\n\n\n\n Date On Which Submissions Were Heard : 16Th February 2015\n\n Date On Which Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 141,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 630,
"end": 664,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 800,
"end": 839,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1136,
"end": 1170,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1275,
"end": 1314,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2234,
"end": 2268,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2440,
"end": 2479,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2655,
"end": 2672,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2690,
"end": 2704,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2714,
"end": 2719,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2740,
"end": 2760,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2798,
"end": 2814,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2858,
"end": 2872,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2965,
"end": 2976,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3069,
"end": 3089,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3113,
"end": 3128,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3207,
"end": 3225,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3287,
"end": 3298,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3315,
"end": 3330,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3332,
"end": 3346,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3362,
"end": 3378,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3434,
"end": 3444,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3489,
"end": 3501,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3521,
"end": 3535,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3605,
"end": 3623,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3658,
"end": 3673,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3805,
"end": 3813,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3816,
"end": 3826,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated: 08/01/2013\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.JUSTICE M.Venugopal\n\nCriminal Revision Case (Md) No.482 of 2012\nAnd\nM.P.(Md) No.1 of 2012\n\n1.K.Rajendran\n2.Parvgathy Ammal\t\t\t... Petitioners\n\t \t \t\t\t\t \t\nVs\n\n1.Ambikavathy\n\n2.The Inspector of Police,\n Valliyoor Police Station,\n Tirunelveli District. \t\t ... Respondents\n\n\t\nPrayer\n\nCriminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of\nCr.P.C. to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the Judicial\nMagistrate, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District in D.V.O.P.No.29 of 2012 vide his\norder dated 21.09.2012 and set aside the same.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Anand\n^For Respondent ... Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram\n\t\t\t\tfor R1\n\t\t Mr.P.Kandasamy, G.A. (Crl. Side)\n\t\t\t\tfor R2\n\n:Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 109,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 194,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 212,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 262,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 344,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 678,
"end": 685,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 710,
"end": 730,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 752,
"end": 763,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n\n Before Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay Yadav\n\n Civil Revision No.421/2013.\n\n Zafar Ali Khan (Mutawali) and another\n versus\n Arif Aquil and others\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri P.N. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners.\n Shri Imtiaz Husain, learned counsel for respondent no.1.\n Shri S.A. Khan, learned counsel for respondent no.2.\n Shri Sudesh Verma, learned Government Advocate for\nrespondents no.14-State of M.P.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 91,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 185,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 297,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 439,
"end": 449,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 503,
"end": 516,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 570,
"end": 579,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 633,
"end": 645,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n + Rfa No.648/2006\n\n% Reserve on : 4th May, 2012\n Date of decision : 18th May, 2012\n\n Hardip Kaur ..... Appellant\n Through : Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv.\n\n versus\n\n Kailash & Anr. ..... Respondents\n Through : Ms. Ekta Kalra Sikri, Adv.\n\nCoram :-\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 240,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 337,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 384,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 471,
"end": 487,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 528,
"end": 538,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated: 22/02/2010\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice D.Hariparanthaman\n\nC.M.A(MD)No.745 of 2009\nand\nC.M.P.No. 17270 of 2003\n\n\nIcici Lambard General Insurance Company\nLimited,]\nrepresented through its Branch Manager,\nhaving his office at\nSecond Floor, No.16,\nNorth Veli Street,\nMadurai.\t\t\t\t ... Appellants/Second respondent\n\nVs\n\n1.M.Rakkathal\n\n2.M.Lakshmi\n\n3.M.Rakku\n\n4.M.Thavamani\n\n5.M.Maruthu\t\t ... Respondents/Petitioners\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nPrayer\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles\nAct, 1988, praying to set aside the fair and decretal order made in\nM.C.O.P.No.231 of 2006, dated 15.11.2008, on the file of the Motor Accident\nClaims Tribunal(District Judge), Sivagangai.\n\n!For Appellant ... Mr.S.Srinivasaraghavan\n^For Respondents ... Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen\n 1 to 5\nFor Respondent-6 ... Mr.V.Kannan\n\n\t\t * * *\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 218,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 388,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 390,
"end": 401,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 403,
"end": 412,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 414,
"end": 427,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 440,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 798,
"end": 817,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 844,
"end": 865,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 903,
"end": 911,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Fa.1731.10\n\n\n ndm\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n First Appeal No. 1731 Of 2010\n\n\n\n\n \n The New India Assurance Company Limited. ... Appellant\n Versus\n\n\n\n\n \n Sitaram Devidayal Jaiswal and others. ... Respondents\n \n -----\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. D.S.Joshi for the Appellant.\n Mr. T.J.Mendon for Respondent No.1.\n ig -----\n \n \n Coram : A.S.Oka, J.\n\n Date On Which Submissions Are Heard : 20 October, 2011.\n th\n \n\n\n Date On Which Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 125,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 402,
"end": 441,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 563,
"end": 588,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 775,
"end": 784,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 818,
"end": 828,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1017,
"end": 1024,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 apeal206.08 \n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Nagpur Bench, Nagpur\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No. 206 Of 2008\n\n\n Laxman Bapurao Ghaiwane (wrongly \n typed in judgment as \"Dhayawane\")\n\n\n\n\n \n aged about 67 years, Resident of Bhim\n Nagar, Pulgaon, Tahsil Deoli, District :\n Wardha.\n\n\n\n\n \n ....Appellant.\n\n .....Versus.....\n \n The State of Maharashtra,\n \n through Police Station Officer,\n Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil\n Deoli, District : Wardha. \n .... Respondent.\n \n \n\n\n __________________________________________________________________\n Mr.Adwait S. Manohar, Advocate for Appellant.\n \n\n\n\n Mr.A.S.Sonare, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-State.\n __________________________________________________________________\n\n Coram : P.V. Hardas & M.L. Tahaliyani, Jj.\n Dated : August 06, 2012. \n\n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 92,
"end": 271,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 429,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 878,
"end": 898,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1214,
"end": 1231,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1271,
"end": 1281,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1446,
"end": 1457,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1460,
"end": 1475,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": ":1:\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka\n Dharwad Bench\n\n On The 31St Day Of July, 2017\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice K.Somashekar\n\n Mfa No.25312 Of 2011 (Mv)\n\nBetween\n\nThe Divisional Controller\nNekrtc, Bellary Division\nBellary\n ....Appellant\n(By Sri S.C.Bhuti, Adv.)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. N.Chiranjivi S/o Nataraj\n Age: 22 years, Occ: Mestri\n R/o 5th Link road, 5th Cross\n Devinagar, Bellary\n\n2. T.P. Prabhakar, Major,\n R/o: 49, Jagannath Temple Street,\n Near Radio Park, Cowl Bazar, Bellary\n Owner of the bus bearing no. Ka 34/4388\n\n3. The Divisional Manager\n M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n Bellary\n\n4. Seena @ Srinivas S/o Venkanna\n Major, Driver of the bus bearing\n No. Ka 17/7174\n :2:\n\n\n\n R/o Devinagar, 3rd Cross, Bellary\n\n5. Venkanna Rangappa S/o Venkanna\n Major, Driver of the bus bearing\n No. Ka 34/4388 Bellary division\n Bellary\n\n6. N. Srinivas S/o Narayana\n Age: 26 years, Owner of the auto bearing\n No. Ka 17/7174, R/o 2nd Cross,\n Devinagar, Bellary\n .....Respondents\n\n(By Sri B.C.Jnanayya, Adv. for R-1;\nSmt. Aruna R. Deshpande, Adv. for R3;\nR2, R4, R5 & R6 dispensed with)\n\n This appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of Mv\nAct, 1988, against the judgment and award dated\n23.06.2010 passed in Mvc No.866/2006 on the file of\nthe Member Mact-Ix, Bellary awarding compensation\nof Rs.46,420/- with future interest at the rate of 6%\np.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.\n\n This appeal coming on for Admission this day,\nthe court delivered the following:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 199,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 309,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 379,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 413,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 530,
"end": 544,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 697,
"end": 770,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 779,
"end": 795,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 952,
"end": 969,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1081,
"end": 1092,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1279,
"end": 1291,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1312,
"end": 1330,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 6562 of 2002\n\nPetitioner:\nState Of Haryana & Ors. \t\t \n\nRespondent:\nCharanjit Singh & Ors., Etc. Etc. \t\t \n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 68,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 131,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 5636 of 2006\n\nPetitioner:\nParkash Singh Badal and Anr\n\nRespondent:\nState of Punjab and Ors\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 71,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 108,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1502 Of 2005\n\n\n\n\n State of Rajasthan ... \n\n Appellant\n\n\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nShera Ram @ Vishnu Dutta ... \n\nRespondent\n\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 104,
"end": 126,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 252,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 396,
"end": 420,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Calcutta\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nB. N.Bhattacharjee & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 57,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 95,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1020 Of 2010\n [Arising out of Slp (Crl.) No. 407 of 2006]\n\nRangappa ... Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSri Mohan ... Respondent\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 206,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 304,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax,West Bengal\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCalcutta Agency Ltd.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 50,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 90,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh Ajay Kumar Jain, Presiding Officer: \nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal: South East District/Saket \n Courts Complex/New Delhi\n\n\nSuit no. 238/13 \nFir No. 204/13 \nPs. H.N.Din \nNarender Singh & Ors Vs Lalji & Ors \n\n\n Fatal Case \n\n\n 1. Sh. Narinder Singh S/o Sh. Harnam Singh \n (father of deceased)\n 2. Smt. Sawinder Kaur W/o Sh. Narinder Singh \n (mother of deceased)\n 3. Kumari Gurjeet Kaur D/o Sh. Narinder Singh \n (Sister of deceased) \n\n\n All are R/o \u00adHouse no. 561, Sector\u00ad28, Faridabad, Haryana \n\n\n .............Petitioners/claimants\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n 1. Sh. Lalji S/o Late Sh. Kalku (driver)\n R/o House no. 224\u00adC, G\u00adBlock, Lal Kaun, New Delhi \n\n\n 2. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh. Bishamber Das (owner)\n R/o House no. J\u00ad1/78, 2nd Floor, Khirki Extension, \n Malviya Nagar, New Delhi \n\n\n also at Village Pali, District Faridabad, Haryana \n\n\n 3. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Limited \n\nSuit No\u00ad238/13 , Narender Singh & Ors Vs Lalji &Ors , page no. 1 /20 \n Pitampura , New Delhi. \n\n\n Corporate office\u00ad6th Floor, Leela Business Park, \n Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai\n\n\n also registered office at Ramon House, H.T.Parekh Marg, \n 169, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai\u00ad400020\n\n\n ......................Respondents\nDate of Institution : 02.09.2013 \nDate of reserving judgment/order : 18.09.2014 \nDate of Pronouncement : 18.09.2014\n \nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 154,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 217,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 232,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 324,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 402,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 464,
"end": 483,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 795,
"end": 800,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 902,
"end": 915,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1113,
"end": 1156,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1176,
"end": 1190,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1200,
"end": 1205,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBadridas Daga\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Commissioner Of Income-Tax\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 75,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 485 of 2007()\n\n\n1. P.V. Joseph, Purackal House,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Represented By\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Biju Joseph, Puthenparampil,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Philip T.Varghese\n\n For Respondent : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.Hema\n\n Dated :03/09/2010\n\n O R D E R\n C.R.\n\n\n K. Hema, J.\n\n -------------------------------------------------\n Crl.Appeal No.485 of 2007\n -------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 3rd September, 2010\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 82,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 187,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 263,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 336,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 412,
"end": 418,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 556,
"end": 563,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 18568 of 2008(I)\n\n\n1. M/S.Essar Telecom Infracture (P) Ltd.,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. C.I. Of Police, Thaliparamba\n ... Respondent\n\n2. S.I. Of Police\n\n3. Sri.Lakshmanan, Chaithram House\n\n4. Sri.Joibin Lakshmanan, S/O.Lakshman,\n\n5. Sri.Ramachandran.K.P., Kunhipurayuil\n\n7. Thaliparambu Municipality, Municipal\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Santhosh Mathew\n\n For Respondent :Sri.M.Sasindran\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :21/10/2008\n\n O R D E R\n K.Balakrishnan Nair &\n\n M.C.Hari Rani, Jj.\n\n -----------------------------------------\n\n W.P.(C) Nos. 26169/2007 &\n 6960, 7450, 7476, 10424, 10435,\n 12904, 18568, 22490, 27780 &\n 30600 Of 2008\n\n -----------------------------------------\n\n Dated 21st October, 2008.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 111,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 213,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 276,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 295,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 338,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 379,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 424,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 489,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 528,
"end": 539,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 565,
"end": 584,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 610,
"end": 623,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 680,
"end": 699,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 731,
"end": 744,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Karnataka At Eangalore\nDated This THEc>L\"DAY Of rig Isroa Ri/I , 2Ov.I~Iqi'I._V\nPresent A'\"R*'\n\nThe Honble Mr. Justice V.Gopala \n\nAnd , ._\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mrs. JUSTICE,B.fJ.I\u00a7fA'f}.AI?AT4H'1\\\u00a7A_V!\n\nWrit Appeal No.882 To 885\"Qf\"--2Oo9\u00bb{-Taresii'; \nBetween: A I A I \n\nM/ S Antrix Corporation Ilte \n\nRep By Its Accountsvqiwicieir, _ A .\n\nSr1 M M Sathyanaraty.A_Na,'--_ \" \nAged About .40 'Y_EAfRS_, A.Nt4Riksh' Bhavan,\nNew Bel Rc%Ad;;-13Angai.Orei560123\":\n\n... Appellant\n\n(By Sri:\"V_ SRID'HA'I\u00a7m$\u00a7';\u00ab--._$RI.G Shivadas,\nSri.:-Iarish R, Advi) Ti\n\n Eeeee \n\n f Ltiie Iassistant Commissioner\n\n O'E\"COI4IqiERcIAL Taxes\n (Ev1\\EFC{_R;CEMENT)~7, South Zone,\n Bangalore - 560 047.\n\n Tiie Commissioner Of Commercial\n\n_ Itaxes In Karnataka,\nI Vanijya Therige Karyalaya, I Main,\nGandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009\n\n5?\nfa\u00bb\n\n\n\n _ A following:\n\n3 The State Of' Karnataka,\nRep By Its Finance Secretary,\nVidhana Soudha,\nBangalore 560 001\n\n4 The Union Of India, E-\nRep By Its Finance Secre'I'Ary,_--~--~.. A\nMinistry Of' Finance, ~ A \nDepartment Of Revenue, ,3\nNew Delhi , \n\n(By Sri: Ashok HARAQIAHAI;}';,t.,\",_:I'\\_]fI\u00a5I_OCATE-~GE3NERAL,\nSr1 T P Srinivas, --Sr\u00a7Vy\"~-Hariprasad, Cgsc\nFor R4) \n\nWrit Appeal /,STr,a;rr.oI? The Karnataka\nHigh Court PR'A_YINGj-- ,1'oj'sET Aside The\n\nOrder RAs,.g{:p;,DAA::\u00a7\u00a7,1i1 Writavpetition No2647 To\n2650 /09 DATEDjo_5~,I,o3g2oo9.\n\nTh\ufb01aappealsa2h:avI'rI,gAbeen heard and reserved for\norders, this day, I-Na'\"garathna J, pronounced the\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 148,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 313,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 383,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 508,
"end": 544,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 867,
"end": 886,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 959,
"end": 973,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1105,
"end": 1127,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nLachman Utamchand Kiriplani\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMeena alias Mota\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 39,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 75,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nKerala State Electricity Board\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nIndian Aluminium Co.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 42,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 82,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of The Madras High Court\n\n\nDated : 24/03/2006\n\n\nCoram:\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.Jyothimani\n\n\nW.P.Nos.966 of 2005\nW.P.Nos.967 to 969,876 to 879 of 2005\nand\nW.P.No.643 of 2006\nand\nW.P.M.P.Nos.906 to 909 and 830 to 833 of 2005\nand\nW.P.M.P.NoS.254 to 259 and 709 & 710 of 2006\n\n\n\nR.Tirupathy\t\t\t..\tPetitioner in W.P.No.966 of 2005\n\nD.Uthirasigamani\t\t..\tPetitioner in W.P.No.967 of 2005\n\nK.Nirmala\t\t\t..\tPetitioner in W.P.No.968 of 2005\n\nR.Duraipandiyan\t\t\t..\tPetitioner in W.P.No.969 of 2005\n\nM.Asankani\t\t\t..\tPetitioner in W.P.No.876 of 2005\n\nP.Kumaravel\t\t\t..\tPetitioner in W.P.No.877 of 2005\n\nM.Nehru\t\t\t\t..\tPetitioner in W.P.No.878 of 2005\n\nP.Muthiah\t\t\t..\tPetitioner in W.P.No.879 of 2005\n\nT.Chidambaram\t\t\t..\tPetitioner in W.P.No.643 of 2006\n\n\nVs.\n\t\n\n1.The District Collector,\n Madurai District,\n Collectorate,\n Madurai - 2. \t\t\t...\t1st Respondents in all the writ petitions2.The Block Development Officer, Madurai East Panchayat Union, Sokkikulam, Madurai-2. ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.No.966 to 969 2005\n\n3.The Executive Officer/President, Illamanur Village Panchayat, Illamanur Village, Madurai - 625 107. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.966 of 2005\n\n4.The Executive Officer/President, Thirumoogur Village Panchayat, Thirumoogur Village, Madurai - 625 107. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.967 of 2005\n\n5.The Executive Officer/President, Arumbanur Village Panchayat, Arumbanur Village, Madurai District. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.968 of 2005\n\n6.The Executive Officer/President, Melamadai Village Panchayat, Melamadi Village, Madurai District. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.969 of 2005\n\n7.The Block Development Officer (Panchayats) Tirupanrankundram Panchayat Union, Tiruparankundram. ... 2nd Respondent in W.P.Nos.876 to879 of 2005 and W.P.No.643 of 2006\n\n8.The Executive Officer / President, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Village Panchayat, Nagamalai Pudukkottai Village, Madurai - 625 019. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.876 of 2005\n\n9.The Executive Officer/President, Kodimangalam Village Panchayat, Kodimangalam Village, Melakkal Road, Madurai. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.877 of 2005\n\n10.The Executive Officer/President Karadipatti Village Panchayat, Karadipatti Village, Nagamalai Pudhukottai, Madurai 21. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.878 of 2005\n\n11.The Executive Officer, Vadapalanji Village Panchayat, Vadapalanji Village, Madurai- 625 021. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.879 of 2005\n\n12.The Executive Officer/President, Nilaiyoor 1st Bit Village Panchayat, Thirupparankundram, Madurai District. ... 3rd Respondent in W.P.No.643 of 2006 Prayer in 966 to 979 of 2005: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent pertaining to his proceedings bearing file No.1/2004-2005 dated 09.02.2005, 08.02.2005 and quash the same. \n\nPrayer in 876 to 879 of 2005: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the 3rd respondent pertaining to his proceedings bearing file No.1/2004-2005 dated 01.02.2005 and quash the same. \n\nPrayer in 643 of 2006: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in connection with the impugned charge memo dated 03.02.2005 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same, consequently, direct the 1st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant. \n\n!For Petitioners \t...\tMr.R.Viduthalai,\n\t\t\t\tSenior Counsel\n\n^For Respondents\t...\tMrs.Ambujam Selvarani,\n\t\t\t\tSpecial Government Pleader.\n\n\n:Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 49,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 118,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 315,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 371,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 410,
"end": 419,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 459,
"end": 474,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 514,
"end": 524,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 564,
"end": 575,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 615,
"end": 622,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 663,
"end": 672,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 712,
"end": 725,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 779,
"end": 844,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 904,
"end": 982,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1036,
"end": 1130,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1180,
"end": 1268,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1328,
"end": 1421,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1471,
"end": 1563,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1613,
"end": 1703,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1783,
"end": 1903,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1953,
"end": 2058,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2109,
"end": 2219,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2273,
"end": 2360,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2411,
"end": 2513,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3601,
"end": 3613,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3660,
"end": 3677,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSundaram Finance Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Kerala And Another\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 68,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2003\n\n\n\n1\n\n\n2 Dharam Pal & Ors. \u2026 Appellants\n\n\n Vs.\n\n\n\n 2 State Of Haryana & Anr. \u2026\n Respondents\n\n\n With\n\n Criminal Appeal Nos. 865 of 2004, 1334 of 2005 and 537 of 2006\n\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 197,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 317,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Reserved on: 11th March, 2011\n Date of Decision: 2nd May, 2011\n+ Crl. A. 09/1998\n\n Pradeep @ Sanjay & Anr. ...Appellants\n Through: Mr. K.K. Sud, Senior Advocate with\n Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate\n\n Versus\n State (Nct Of Delhi) ...Respondent\n Through: Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, App for the State.\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice G.P.Mittal\n\n 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be\n allowed to see the Order? Yes\n 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n 3. Whether the Order should be reported\n in the Digest? Yes\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 258,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 358,
"end": 366,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 439,
"end": 453,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 517,
"end": 537,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 610,
"end": 625,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 690,
"end": 706,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 735,
"end": 745,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Anand Prakash Tamta & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Safi & Ors.\n Balwant Singh & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Safi & Ors.\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. K S Mohi : Presiding Officer : Mact\n South District : Saket Courts : New Delhi\n\nPetition No. : 309/13\n\nUnique case Id : 02406C0177692013\n\n 1. Anand Prakash Tamta\n S/o Late Vishan Lal ..... Father\n\n 2. Indra Devi\n W/o Anand Prakash Tamta ..... Mother\n\n 3. Harsh Kumar\n S/o Sh. Anand Prakash Tamta ..... Brother\n All R/o H. No. B\u00ad72, B\u00adBlock,\n Madhu Vihar, Delhi\n (Petitioner no.3 is minor and being represented\n through his father/natural guardian)\n\nPetition No. : 310/13\n\nUnique case Id : 02406C0177742013\n\n 1. Balwant Singh\n S/o Sh. Hayat Singh ..... Father\n\n 2. Shobha Devi\n W/o Balwant Singh ..... Mother\n Both R/o H. No.10, Mirchoda,\n Tehsil. \u00ad Pauri, Distt. Pauri,\n Uttarakhand - 246279 \n ..... Petitioners\n Versus \n\n\nPetition No. : 309/13 and 310/13 Page No. 1 of 27\n Anand Prakash Tamta & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Safi & Ors.\n Balwant Singh & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Safi & Ors.\n\n\n 1. Mohd. Safi\n S/o Sh. Jabbar Khan\n R/o V. Alipur Tigra\n Th : F.P. Jhirka (Mewat)\n Haryana ..... Driver\n\n 2. Majid Khan\n S/o Sh. Rehmat Khan\n R/o Vill. Manesar, Gurgaon\n Also at :\n 167\u00adWajid Kavas Ganv,\n Nimit, Tehsil - Tijara,\n Alwar, Rajasthan - 301 001 ..... Owner\n\n\n 3. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Through its Manager\n E\u00ad52, 2nd Floor, Chittranjan Marg,\n Jaipur - 302 001 ..... Insurer\n ..... Respondents\n\n\n\n Date of Institution : 11.07.2013\n\n Date of reserving of judgment/order : 09.07.2014\n\n Date of pronouncement : 09.07.2014\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 19,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 41,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 123,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 145,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 194,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 372,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 448,
"end": 458,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 534,
"end": 545,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 854,
"end": 867,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 943,
"end": 954,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1442,
"end": 1461,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1473,
"end": 1483,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1549,
"end": 1562,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1574,
"end": 1584,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1602,
"end": 1612,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1772,
"end": 1782,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1996,
"end": 2039,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nTransfer Case (civil) 92-95 of 2002\n\nPetitioner:\nMardia Chemicals Ltd. Etc. Etc.\n\nRespondent:\nU.O.I. & Ors. Etc. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 90,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 111,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1) Cr.Appeal No.1816/2001\n\n\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur\n\n Division Bench:Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena\n Hon'Ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1816/2001\n\nAppellant: Ravindra Kumar Ganvir S/o Bhanudas Ganvir, aged\n 38 years the then City Superintendent of Police,\n Bhopal R/o M.I.G. 74/17 Nehru Nagar, Bhilai (M.P.)\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nRespondent: State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Appellant : Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Adv. \n\nFor the State : Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate.\n\nDate of hearing : 13/05/2010\nDate of judgment: 21/05/2010\n\n (J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 108,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 169,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 224,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 332,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 592,
"end": 615,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 732,
"end": 740,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 768,
"end": 782,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 820,
"end": 835,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka\n Dharwad Bench\n\n Dated This The 14Th Day Of June, 2016\n\n Before:\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice G. Narendar\n\n\n\n M.F.A. No.21703/2011 [Wc]\n\n\nBetween:\n\nThe New India Assurance Company Limited,\nBy Its Divisional Manager,\nDivisional Office,\nClub Road, Belgaum,\nRep. By Assistant Manager,\nRegional Office,\nT.P. Hub, Ii Floor,\nSrinath Complex,\nNew Cotton Market,\nHubli-580 029. ... Appellant/S\n\n[By Sri. G.N.Raichur, Adv.]\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Sri. Maruti,\n S/O. Nagappa Girgavi,\n Age: 33 Years,\n Occ: Nil,\n R/O. Bada Village, Tq: Hukkeri,\n Dist: Belgaum.\n 2\n\n\n\n\n2. Sri. Yellappa Mallappa Magadum,\n Age: Major,\n Occ: Not Given,\n R/O. Badakundri Village,\n Tq: Hukkeri,\n Dist: Belgaum. ... Respondent/S\n\n [Sri. B.M.Patil, Adv. For R1.\n R2 Is Served & Unrepresented.]\n\n\n ***\n\n\n This Mfa is filed u/Sec. 30(1) of the Workmen's\nCompensation Act, 1923 against the Judgment and Order\ndated 19.01.2011 passed in Kapaka/Sr-42/2010 on the\nfile of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's\nCompensation, Sub-Division-I, Belgaum, awarding\ncompensation of Rs.1,69,394-00 with interest at the rate\nof 7.5% p.a. from 15.04.2010 till 19.01.2011 and with\ninterest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 19.01.2011 till its\ndeposit.\n\n\n This Mfa having been heard and reserved for\nJudgment, this day the Court pronounced the following:\n\n\n\nDate of reserving the Judgment : 06.06.2016\n\nDate of pronouncing the Judgment : 14.06.2016\n 3\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 80,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 201,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 298,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 525,
"end": 536,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 560,
"end": 566,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 719,
"end": 744,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 889,
"end": 898,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court Of Additional Sessions Judge:\n Speical Judge (Ndps): West / Delhi \n Presided By : Ms. Pinki\n In The Matter Of\n Sessions Case No. 31/N/12 & Sessions Case No. 62/07\n Fir No. 107/06\n P.S. Narcotics Branch\n U/S 21/25 Ndps Act & 174A Ipc\n\n State\n Versus\n\n Raj Kumar @ Raju,\n S/O Sh. Baldev Raj,\n R/O H.No. F\u00ad157, J.J. Colony, \n Khyala, Delhi Accused\n\nDate Of Institution : 13.09.2012 / 26.03.2007\nDate Of Reserving The Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 92,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 141,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 279,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 391,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. Of 2010\n (Arising out of Slp(C) No.10145 of 2010)\n\n\nUnited Bank of India ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nSatyawati Tondon and others ...Respondents\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 262,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 375,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWA.No. 3005 of 2007()\n\n\n1. Ismayil, S/O.Eni,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Deputy Tahsildar,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Sub Inspector Of Police,\n\n3. District Collector,\n\n4. State Of Kerala, Represented By\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Babu S. Nair\n\n For Respondent :Addl.Advocate General\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.J.Chelameswar\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon\n\n Dated :14/03/2011\n\n O R D E R\n J. Chelameswar, Cj &\n P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.\n\n ............................................................................................\n\n W. A. Nos. 3005 Of 2007, 201, 300, 1628\n\n of 2008 & 648 & 1128 of 2009 & 998, 999,\n\n 1004, 1488, 1493, 1584, 1911 & 1945 of 2010\n\n &\n\n W.P. (C) Nos. 4847 Of 2008\n\n ........................................................................\n\n Dated this the 14th March, 2011\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 76,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 175,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 248,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 272,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 293,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 360,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 464,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 489,
"end": 510,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 591,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 623,
"end": 645,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRaj Kumar Karwal\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India And Ors.Withkirpal Mohan Virmaniv.State And A\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 28,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 62,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 96,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 7539 of 1999\n\nPetitioner:\nCanara Bank and Ors.\n\nRespondent:\nShri Debasis Das and Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 63,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 102,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nK.Venkataramiah\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nA. Seetharama Reddy & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 68,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh. G. N. Pandey,Additional District Judge (Ne) Karkardooma Courts Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. G. N. Pandey \n Additional District Judge\u00ad02, (Ne)\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\n Rca No. 94/14 \n Unique Id No. : 02402C0189272014 \n\n In the matter of:\n\n Sh. Harcharan Singh \n S/o Sh. Mashicharan, \n R/o 442\u00adB, Niti Khand\u00adIII,\n Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U. P. .............. Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n Sh. Omveer Singh\n S/o Sh. Ramswaroop \n R/o Village & Post Dujana \n Gautambudh Nagar, U. P. .............. RespondentDate of Institution : 02.07.2014 Date of Arguments : 11.02.2015 Date of Judgment : 11.02.2015 Decision : Appeal dismissed with costs. \n\n Rca No. 94/14 1/18 Harcharan Singh V/s Omveer Singh Sh. G. N. Pandey,Additional District Judge (Ne) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. \n\n J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 72,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 133,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 427,
"end": 442,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 659,
"end": 671,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 983,
"end": 998,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1003,
"end": 1015,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1020,
"end": 1032,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1902 Of 2011\n\n (Arising out of Slp (Crl.) No.2586 of 2007)\n\n\n\n\nR.Vijayan ... Appellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nBaby & Anr. ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 132,
"end": 154,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 344,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 430,
"end": 434,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": ":1:\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Devender Kumar Jangala:\n Addl. District Judge:West:Tis Hazari:Delhi\n Rca No : 2/14\n\n\nSh. Shiv Narain,\nS/o Late Sh. Kundan Lal,\nR/o A\u00ad1/280, Paschim Vihar,\nNew Delhi. .............Appellant\n\nVersus\n\n\n\n 1. Smt. Veena Khanagwal,\n W/o Sh. Raj Narain,\n R/o Gh\u00ad14/497, Paschim Vihar,\n New Delhi.\n 2. Sh. Raj Narain,\n S/o Late Kundan Lal\n R/o Gh\u00ad14/497, Paschim Vihar,\n New Delhi.\n 3. Delhi Development Authority,\n Through its Vice Chairman,\n I.N.A. Vikas Sadan, \n New Delhi.\n .............Respondents\n\nDate of filing the appeal : 20.07.2011\nDate of arguments : 10.05.2014\nDate of order : 07.07.2014\n\n\nRca No: 2/14 Shiv Narain Vs. Veena Khanagwal\n :2:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 59,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 182,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 354,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 441,
"end": 451,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 534,
"end": 561,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 891,
"end": 902,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 907,
"end": 922,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n \n Dated : 20-1-2007\n \n Coram\n \n The Honourable Mr.Justice P.Sathasivam\n and\n The Honourable Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar\n \n W.A.No.2133 and 2945 of 2003\n W.A.M.P.No.3004 and 4655 of 2003\n\n\nM.S. Munivenkatappa ... Appellant in W.A.2133/2003\n & Respondent in W.A.2945/2003\n\n Vs.\n\n\n1. State Bank of India,\n rep.by its Chief General Manager,\n Local Head Office,\n 21, Rajaji Salai,\n Chennai - 600 001.\n\n2. The Deputy General Manager,\n State Bank of India,\n Zonal Office, Kurinchi Complex,\n Dr.Nanchappa Road,\n Coimbatore.\n\n3. Branch Manager,\n State Bank of India,\n Hosur Adb,\n Dharmapuri District... Respondents in W.A.2133/2003\n & Appellants in W.A.2945/2003\n\n\n These Writ Appeals have been filed under Clause 15 of\nLetters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge\nin W.P.No.1464 of 2001 dated 28.3.2003.\n\nFor Appellant in W.A.2133/2003: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad for\n& Respondents in W.A.2945/2003 M/s.Row & Reddy\n\nFor Respondents in Wa.2133/2003: Mr.S.Kanniah\n& Appellants in Wa.2945/2003\n \n\n Common Judgment\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 259,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 346,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 472,
"end": 491,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 624,
"end": 643,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 765,
"end": 891,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 899,
"end": 981,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1279,
"end": 1291,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1386,
"end": 1395,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Date of Decision: 10th March, 2014\n\n+ Crl.A. 1345/2011\n\n Mohd. Shahid Khan @ Raja ..... Appellant\n Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n State ..... Respondent\n Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, App\n\n%\n\nCoram:\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice Kailash Gambhir\nHon'Ble Ms. Justice Sunita Gupta\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 178,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 244,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 303,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 418,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 470,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 491,
"end": 503,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 21.02.2007\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice K.N. Basha\n\nCrl.O.P.No.27285 of 2006\nand\nM.P.No.1 of 2006\n\n\nAzalea Veronica\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner \n\n\t\t\t\tVs.\n\n\nState rep. by\nInspector of Police,\nAirport Police Station,\nChennai.\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\n\n \tCriminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to call for the records and quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.81 of 2003 dated 07.06.2003 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.\n\n\t\tFor Petitioner : Mr.V.Krishnamoorthy\n\n\t\tFor respondent \t: Mr.P.Kumaresan,\n\t\t\t\t\t Addl. Public Prosecutor\t\n\n\n\n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 172,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 211,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 541,
"end": 557,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 592,
"end": 603,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n\n Judgment reserved on : 15th March, 2010\n Date of decision: 3rd June, 2010\n\n\n+ W.P.(C) No.7875/2007\n\n\n Balwinder Singh ..... Petitioner\n Through Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate &\n Mr. Jawahar Lal, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n\n Union Of India & Ors. .... Respondents Through Ms. Barkha Babbar, Advocate with Mr. Yadhunath Singh, Deputy Commandant Coram:\n Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Gita Mittal Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi\n\n 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes\n 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes Gita Mittal, J\n\n1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the findings and sentence dated 14th October, 1997 of the Summary Security Force Court (`Ssfc' hereafter) as well as the order dated 26th September, 2007 passed by the Director General of the Border Security Force, respondent no.2 herein, upholding the same. \n\n2. The petitioner was enrolled as a constable with the Border Security Force Court on or about 26th/27th December, 1988. In the year 1996, the petitioner was posted at the Station Headquarters, Bsf Siliguri and was attached to the 137 th Battalion of the Bsf. While so serving with the 137th Battalion, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 12th April, 1996 issued by the commandant of the battalion under Rule 53(2) of the Border Security Force Act, 1969 (Bsf Act, 1969 hereafter) making the following allegations against the petitioner:-\n\n \"Charge No.1 Bsf Act Section-40 An Act Prejudicial To Good Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 247,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 337,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 388,
"end": 399,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 448,
"end": 462,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 514,
"end": 527,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 547,
"end": 562,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 610,
"end": 621,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 642,
"end": 654,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 844,
"end": 855,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 1976 of 1998\n\nPetitioner:\nBinny Ltd. & Anr.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRespondent:\nV. Sadasivan & Ors.\t\t\t\t\t \n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 62,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 102,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nNirmaljit Singh Hoon\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of West Bengal And Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 76,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Arun Bhardwaj\n Presiding Officer: Motor Accident Claims\n Tribunal-Ii, Dwarka Courts: New Delhi\n\n\nMact No. 337/12\n\nIn The Matter Of : -\n\n 1. Shri Maan Singh, (Father)\n S/o Shri Najer Singh\n\n 2. Smt. Ranjeet Kaur,(Mother)\n W/o Shri Maan Singh\n\n Both Residence:\n\n New T Block R/Z-2,\n Part-II, Uttam Nagar,\n New Delhi.\n ... Claimants\n\n Versus\n\n\n 1. Shri Anil Jain, (Owner)\n S/o Shri Jay Mohan Jain,\n R/o D-26, East Uttam Nagar,\n New Delhi.\n\n 2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (Insurer)\n F-14, United India Life Building,\n Connaught Place,\n New Delhi - 110 001.\n ... RespondentsFiled on : 18.07.2012\nHeard on : 01.03.2014\nDecided on : 01.03.2014\n\n\n \n -:J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 123,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 186,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 256,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 503,
"end": 512,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 619,
"end": 646,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nVadivelu Thevar\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of MADRAS(with connected appeal)\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 71,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nGursahai Saigal\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nLaxmi Engineering Works\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nP.S.G. Industrial Institute\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 82,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-1-\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka\n Circuit Bench At Dharwad\n\n Dated This The 22 N D Day Of March 2013\n\n Present\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice B.V.Pinto\n And\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice H.S.Kempanna\n\n Criminal Appeal No.2641/2011\n C/W.\n Criminal Appeal No.2647/2011\n\nIn Crl.A.No.2641/2011\n\nBetween:\n\nSmt. Pratibha,\nW/o Bhimu Damannavar,\nAge: 22 years, Occ: Housewife,\nR/o. Halatti, Tq: Chikodi,\nDist: Belgaum. ...Appellant\n\n(By Shri. Anand L.Sandrimani, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\nThe State of Karnataka,\nRepresented by\nState Public Prosecutor. ...Respondent\n\n(By Shri. V.M.Banakar, Addl. Spp)\n\n This criminal appeal is filed under section\n374(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the\njudgment dated 21.03.2011 passed by the Fast\n -2-\n\n\nTrack Court-I, Chikodi, in Sessions Case\nNo.142/2010, insofar as it relates to conviction\nand sentence for the offences punishable under\nSections 148, 352, 342, 324, 302 read with\nSection 149 of Ipc in respect of accused No.8\n\n - - - - - - - -\n\nIn Crl.A.No.2647/2011\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Bhimu Shankar Damannavar,\n Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture,\n R/o: Halatti, Tq: Chikkodi,\n Dist: Belgaum.\n\n2. Shankar Ammakka Damannavar,\n Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,\n R/o: Halatti, Tq: Chikkodi,\n Dist: Belgaum.\n\n3. Smt. Sumitra Shashikant Kamble,\n Age: 45 years, Occ: Household work,\n R/o: Halatti, Tq: Chikkodi,\n Dist: Belgaum.\n\n4. Kumari Roopa,\n D/o Shashikant Kamble,\n Occ: Student,\n R/o: Halatti, Tq: Chikkodi,\n Dist: Belgaum.\n\n5. Mala, D/o Shankar Damannavar,\n Age: 27 years, Occ: Household work,\n R/o: Halatti, Tq: Chikkodi,\n Dist: Belgaum.\n -3-\n\n\n6. Smt. Ratnawwa Shankar Damannavar,\n Occ: Household work, R/o: Halatti,\n Tq: Chikkodi, Dist: Belgaum. ...Appellants\n\n(By Shri. Chandrashekar Chakallabbi, Advocate)\n\nA N D:\n\nState of Karnataka,\n(Through Chikkodi Police)\nrepresented by\nState Public Prosecutor,\nDharwad. ...Respondent\n\n(By Shri V.M.Banakar, Addl. Spp)\n\n\n This criminal appeal is filed under section\n374(2) ofCr.P.C. seeking that the judgment of\nconviction and order of sentence passed by the\nFast TrackCourt-I, Chikkodi and thereby\nsentencing accused No.1, 2, 4 to 8 undergo\nimprisonment forlife and topay fine ofRs.2,000/-\neach for theoffences under Section 302 of Ipc and\nfor offences under Section 148 sentence to\nundergo imprisonment for 1 year each and\nsetenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for\n1 year eachfor the offences under Section 342 and\nshall undergo imprisonment for 2 years and to pay\nfine of Rs.500/- each for the offence under\nSection 452 it is further order that in case of\ndefault of payument of fine amount, accused shall\ngo imprisonment for 1 month for Rs.2,000/- and\n15 days for 1,000/- and 7 days for Rs.500/- be\nset aside by allowing the appeal.\n\n These criminal appeals coming on for further\nhearing this day, H.S.Kempanna, J., delivered the\nfollowing judgment.\n -4-\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 78,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 191,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 258,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 409,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 570,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 593,
"end": 611,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 689,
"end": 700,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1188,
"end": 1212,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1303,
"end": 1329,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1425,
"end": 1450,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1544,
"end": 1556,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1654,
"end": 1658,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1807,
"end": 1834,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1937,
"end": 1962,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1983,
"end": 2001,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2129,
"end": 2140,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3063,
"end": 3075,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nGeneral Manager, Kerala S.R.T.C\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSusamma Thomas\n\nDate Of Judgment06/01/1993\n\nBench:\nVenkatachalliah, M.N. (J)\nBench:\nVenkatachalliah, M.N. (J)\nRay, G.N. (J)\n\nCitation:\n 1994 Air 1631\t\t 1994 Scc (2) 176\n Jt 1993 Supl.\t 573\t 1993 Scale (4)643\n\n\nAct:\n\n\n\nHeadnote:\n\n\n\nJudgment:\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 135,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 168,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 182,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Ravinder Dudeja: Additional\n Sessions Judge; Ftc : E Court: Shahdara:\n Karkardooma Court: Delhi.\n\n\n Sessions Case No. 54/13\n Fir No. 26/13\n U/S: 302 Ipc\n P.S: Shahdara\nState Versus Raju\n S/o Sh. Rasool Ahmad\n R/o 1/733, Rehman Building\n Shahdara, Delhi.\n\nDate of Institution : 13.05.2013\nDate of Arguments : 05.11.2014\nDate of Judgment : 12.11.2014\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 137,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 426,
"end": 431,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 460,
"end": 464,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nBharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Another\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 89,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nU.P. State Road Transport Corporation And Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nTrilok Chandra & Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 49,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 94,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRaja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax Bihar And Orissa\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 109,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRenusagar Power Co. Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nGeneral Electric Co.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 37,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appealate Jurisdiction\n Civil Appeal No. 3626 Of 2005\n\n\n\nMedley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ........... Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nThe Commissioner of Central Excise\n& Customs, Daman ..............Respondent\n\n With\n\n\n Civil Appeal Nos.1354-1355 Of 2010\n\n\n\nMedley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. .............. Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nThe Commissioner of Central Excise, Gujarat ..............Respondent\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 186,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 321,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 473,
"end": 500,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 591,
"end": 630,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction \n Writ Petition No. 2237 Of 2008\n\n\n\n\n \n \n 1. Shiv Adhar Yadav, )\n aged about 39 years, Indian )\n Inhabitant, residing at Room No.2, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Sampatpal Chawl No.2, )\n Krishna Nagar, Marol Naka, )\n Andheri East, Mumbai - 400 059. )\n\n\n\n\n \n 2. Kanhaiya Singh, aged about 37 years, )\n Indian Inhabitant, residing at Room No.3,)\n \n Virandavan Society, Saki Naka, )\n Mumbai - 400 072. )\n \n 3. Amarjeet Singh, aged about 24 years, )\n Indian Inhabitant, residing at )\n Painter Chawl, Navshakti nagar, )\n \n\n Behram Baugh, Jogeshwari West, )\n Mumbai - 400 102. ).. Petitioners\n \n\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. The State of Maharashtra, )\n Through the Government Pleader, )\n Original Side, Bombay High Court, )\n\n\n\n\n\n Mumbai. )\n\n 2. State Transport Authority, )\n Administrative Building, 4th Floor, )\n Bandra East, Mumbai. )\n\n\n\n\n \n 2\n\n\n\n\n 3. Mumbai Taximen' s Union, )\n 1/108, Navjivan Housing Society, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Dr. Bhadkamkar Marg, Mumbai 400 008.)\n\n\n\n\n \n 4. Bombay Environmental Action Group, )\n having address at Flat No.9, )\n St. James Court, Marine Drive, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Mumbai. ).. Respondents\n --\n igALONG With Writ Petition (L) No. 2709 Of 2008 Along With Notice Of Motion No.626 Of 2008 In Writ Petition (L) No.2709 Of 2008 Along With Chamber Summons No.12 Of 2009 In Writ Petition (L) No. 2709 Of 2008 Along With Chamber Summons No. 16 Of 2009 In Writ Petition (L) No.2709 Of 2008\n\n 1. Jalindar T. Gaikwad, ) R/208 Priya Kutir Bldg., 2nd Floor, ) Boman Wadi Alkya Vardhak Hsg. Soc. ) Ltd., Mazgaon, Mumbai - 400 010. )\n\n \n 2. Chandra N. Gowda, ) Shiv Shankar Nagar, Salt Pant Road, ) Room No.430, Wadala (E), ) Mumbai - 400 037. )\n\n 3. Kedar Nath Pandey, ) Bhartia Pan Bhandar, Tardeo Road, ) Bombay - 400 034. )\n\n 4. Mumbai Autorickshaw Taximen' s Union, ) 2/11, Unnat Nagar No.4, M.G. Road, ) Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 062. \n\n ig ).. Petitioners\n\n\n Vs\n \n 1. The State of Maharashtra, )\n \n\n\n 2. State Transport Authority, )\n \n\n\n\n Administrative Building, 4th Floor, )\n Bandra East, Mumbai. )\n\n 3. Mumbai Taximen' s Union, )\n\n\n\n\n\n 1/108, Navjivan Housing Society, )\n Dr. Bhadkamkar Marg, Mumbai 400 008.)\n\n 4. Bombay Environmental Action Group, ) having address at Flat No.9, ) St. James Court, Marine Drive, ) Mumbai. ).. Respondents\n --\n Shri Rahul Karnik for the Petitioners. \n Shri G.S. Hegde along with Shri C.M. Lokesh i/by G.S. Hegde & Associates for the Petitioners in Writ Petition (L) No.2709 of 2008. \n\n Shri D.A. Nalawade, Gp for the State. \n Shri R.S. Pai i/by S. Udeshi & Co. for Respondent No.3. \n\n Shri Shiraz Rustomjee i/by Hariani & Co. for Respondent No.4. \n Shri K.R. Dubey along with Shri K.C. Pandey for Respondent No.4 to 49 in Chamber Summons in Writ Petition (L) No.2709 of 2008. \n\n Shri K.C. Pandey for Respondent No.50 in Chamber Summons. \n\n -- \n Coram : Swatanter Kumar, C.J. & Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 55,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 320,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 715,
"end": 729,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 974,
"end": 988,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1306,
"end": 1326,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1512,
"end": 1537,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1770,
"end": 1794,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2047,
"end": 2080,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2629,
"end": 2648,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2845,
"end": 2861,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2955,
"end": 2972,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3037,
"end": 3073,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3284,
"end": 3304,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3345,
"end": 3370,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3511,
"end": 3535,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3645,
"end": 3678,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3780,
"end": 3792,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3821,
"end": 3831,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3848,
"end": 3859,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3955,
"end": 3968,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3995,
"end": 4003,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4054,
"end": 4070,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4118,
"end": 4128,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4145,
"end": 4156,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4248,
"end": 4259,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4317,
"end": 4332,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 4345,
"end": 4361,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice T. Sunil Chowdary \n\nCriminal Petition No.6481 Of 2010 \n\n15-7-2016 \n\nSmt.Malleshwaramma, D/o.K.Venkataiah ..Petitioner \n\nG.S.Srinivasulu, S/o.Satyanarayana And another ...Respondents \n\nCounsel for Petitioner :Sri C.M.R.Velu\n\nCounsel for Respondent No.1:Ms.G.Sudha \n Counsel for Respondent No.2:Public Prosecutor \n\n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred\n1. Air 1988 Sc 644 \n2. (2005) 3 Scc 636 \n3. 2006(2) Ald (Crl.) 493 (Ap)\n4. (2014) 1 Scc 188 \n5. Keynote address on Legal Education in Social Context delivered\nat National Law University, Jodhpur on October 12, 2005.\n6. Iii (2015) Dmc 705 (Mp)\n7. 1982 Cri.L.J. 1022\n8. (2011) 12 Scc 189 \n9. Mohabhai Ali Khan v Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, (1928-29) 56 Ia 201: \nAir 1929 Pc 135 \n10. (2002) 3 Scc 533 \n11. 1992 Supp (1) Scc 335 \n12. (2009) 3 Scc 78 \n13. (1976) 3 Scc 736 \n14. (2007) 12 Scc 1 \n\nThe Honble Sri Justice T.Sunil Chowdary \nCriminal Petition No.6481 of 2010 \nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 122,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 175,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 267,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 307,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 993,
"end": 1009,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 129 of 2003\n\nPetitioner:\nAjay Mitra\n\nRespondent:\nState of M.P. & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 87,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nNew India Insurance Co. Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSmt. Shanti Misra, Adult\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 40,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'Ble Sri Justice A.Ramalingeswara Rao \n\nC.M.A.No.4385 of 2003 \n\n01-12-2015 \n\nKanamarlapudi Nirmala Devi and others..Appellants \n\nShaik Abdul Razak and another. .Respondents \n\nCounsel for appellants: Sri N.Subba Rao\n\nCounsel for the Respondents : Sri Ravi Shanker Jandhyala\n \nHead Note: \n\n? Citations: \n\n1.2001 (1) Ald 453 (Db) \n2.(1999) 8 Scc 226 \n3.Air 1998 Sc 257 \n4.1992 (2) Alt 155\n5.2004 (2) Alt 8 (Db)\n6.2001 (1) Alt 495 (Db)\n7.2009 (3) Supreme 487 : (2009) 6 Scc 121 : 2009 (3) Ald 83 (Sc) \n8.(2013) 9 Scc 54 \n\n\nThe Hon'Ble Sri Justice A.Ramalingeswara Rao \n\nC.M.A.No.4385 of 2003 \n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 123,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 167,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 237,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 295,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 616,
"end": 636,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of West Bengal\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 66,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nS. G. Jaisinghani\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India And ORS.(With Connected Writ Petition)\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 65,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honble Sri Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu \n\nWrit Petition Nos.6470 of 2006 \n\n23-06-2014 \n\nKondamudi Chandrasekhara Rao..... Petitioner \n\nState Bank of India, Zonal Office, Vijayawada, rep. By its Assistant General\nManager nd others .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner:Sri Challa Ajay Kumar Counsel for respondents : Sri P.Vishnuvardhan Reddy Dr. Y.Padmavathi Head Note: \n?Cases referred:\n1. 1987(4) Scc 691 \n2. Air 1966 Sc 1672 \n3. 1993(1) Scc 71 \n4. 2002(3) Llj 209\n5. Air 1991 Sc 101 \n6. Air 1986 Sc 954 \n7. (1993) 1 Scc 71 \n8. (1995) 2 Scc 326 \n9. 1998(7) Scc 66 \n10. 1997(7) Scc 592 \n11. 1993(3) Scc 259 \n12. Air 1995 Sc 922 \n13. Air 1991 Sc 101 \n14. 1979 (2) Alt 411\n15. 1981 Scc 1253 \n16. 2004(1) Llj 190\n17. 1991(2) Scc 599 \n18. 1992(2) Scc 29 \n19. 1995 Supp. (4) Scc 111 \n20. 2004(1) Llj (Feb) 227\n21. 1992(4) Scc 118 \n22. 2001(1) Llj 596\n23. 2003(3) Llj 904\n24. 1979(2) Llj 80\n25. 1986(2) Llj 624\n26. 2002(3) Llj 229\n27. Air 1966 Sc 1672 \n28. 1979(2) Alt 411 \n29. 2004(1) Llj 190\n30. 2009 12 Scc 49 \n31. 2009 3 Scc 35 \n32. 2006 (1) Scc 667 \n33. 2007 (1) Scc 408 \n34. Air 2007 631. \n\n35. 2008 Air Scw 3996 \n36. 2007 (1) Scc 575 \n37. (2008) 5 Scc 241 \n38. (2007) 11 Scc 92 \n39. (2008) 12 Scc 275 \n40. (2000) 6 Scc 359 \n41. 2007 Air Scw 2265 \n42. 2007 (5) Scc 326 \n43. 2008 Air Scw 1383 \n44. 2008 Air Scw 1594 \n45. 2009 (3) Slr 241 \n46. (2008) 10 Scc 1 \n47. (2007)(11 Scc 92, \n48. Air 1930 Pc 57 (1)\n49. (2003) 4 Scc 161 \n50. (2005) 2 Scc 638 \n51. (2003) 5 Scc 12 \n52. (2003) 5 Scc 372 \n53. (2006) 5 Scc 493 \n54. (2006) 7 Scc 684, \n55. Air 2000 Sc 469 \n56. Air 1992 Sc 789 \n57. Air 1992 Sc 2070 \n58. Air 1997 Sc 3091 \n59. Air 1997 Sc 1628 \n60. (2013) 14 Scc 65 1987(4) Scc 691 Air 1966 Sc 1672 1993(1) Scc 71 2002(3) Llj 209 Air 1991 Sc 101 Air 1986 Sc 954 (1993) 1 Scc 71 (1995) 2 Scc 326 1998(7) Scc 66 1997(7) Scc 592 1993(3) Scc 259 Air 1995 Sc 922 Air 1991 Sc 101 1979 (2) Alt 411 1981 Scc 1253 2004(1) Llj 190 1991(2) Scc 599 1992(2) Scc 29 1995 Supp. (4) Scc 111 2004(1) Llj (Feb) 227 1992(4) Scc 118 2001(1) Llj 596 2003(3) Llj 904 1979(2) Llj 80 1986(2) Llj 624 2002(3) Llj 229 Air 1966 Sc 1672 1979(2) Alt 411 2004(1) Llj 190 2009 12 Scc 49 2009 3 Scc 35 2006 (1) Scc 667 2007 (1) Scc 408 Air 2007 631. \n\n 2008 Air Scw 3996 2007 (1) Scc 575 (2008) 5 Scc 241 (2007) 11 Scc 92 (2008) 12 Scc 275 (2000) 6 Scc 359 2007 Air Scw 2265 2007 (5) Scc 326 2008 Air Scw 1383 2008 Air Scw 1594 2009 (3) Slr 241 (2008) 10 Scc 1 (2007)(11 Scc 92, Air 1930 Pc 57 (1) (2003) 4 Scc 161 (2005) 2 Scc 638 (2003) 5 Scc 12 (2003) 5 Scc 372 (2006) 5 Scc 493 (2006) 7 Scc 684, Air 2000 Sc 469 Air 1992 Sc 789 Air 1992 Sc 2070 Air 1997 Sc 3091 Air 1997 Sc 1628 (2013) 14 Scc 65 Honble Sri Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu Writ Petition Nos.6470 of2006, 9109 of 2007, 7806, 7807, 7808, 12151, 15481, 15486, 15852, 15855, 15868, 15869, 16053, 16470, 17079, 17880, 17881, 17883, 18107, 18108, 18109, 18111, 18324, 18326, 18327, 18328, 20875, 20877, 20878, 20879, 20880, 20883, 20884, 20885, 20887, 20888, 20889, 20890, 20891, 20893, 20894, 20896, 20897, 20898, 20899, 20901, 25785 and 26240 of 2006, 25805, 28502, 28555, 28573, 28578, 28725, 28755, 28897, 28944, 33822, 33823, 33460 and 33835 of 2010 Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 127,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 194,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 312,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 364,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2732,
"end": 2751,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n Civil Appeal No. 5114/2007\n\nCommissioner of Income-tax, New Delhi ... Appellant(s)\n\n versus\n\nM/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondent(s)\n\n with\n\nC.A.No.5152/2005, C.A.No.1775/2006, C.A.No.1782/2006,\nC.A.No.1776/2006, C.A.No.1778/2006, C.A.No.1780/2006,\nC.A.No.1786/2006, C.A.No.1783/2006, C.A.No.1785/2006,\nC.A.No.1787/2006, C.A.No.1789/2006, C.A.No.1791/2006,\nC.A.No.1792/2006, C.A.No.1793/2006, C.A.No.1794/2006,\nC.A.No.1795/2006, C.A.No.1796/2006, C.A.No.1784/2006,\nC.A.No.1920/2006, C.A.No.2187/2006, C.A.No.2211/2006,\nC.A.No.2210/2006, C.A.No.2480/2006, C.A.No.5263/2006,\nC.A.No.5646/2006, C.A.No.107/2007, C.A.No. 347/2007,\nC.A.No.161/2007, C.A.No.159/2007, C.A.No.156/2007,\nC.A.No.352/2007, C.A.No.428/2007, C.A.No.434/2007,\nC.A.No.342/2007, C.A.No.344/2007, C.A.No.343/2007,\nC.A.No.345/2007, C.A.No.346/2007, C.A.No.349/2007,\nC.A.No. 816/2007, C.A.No.1348/2007, C.A.No.1357/2007,\nC.A.No.1345/2007, C.A.No.1355/2007, C.A.No.1352/2007,\nC.A.No.1351/2007, C.A.No.1354/2007, C.A.No.1346/2007,\nC.A.No.1343/2007, C.A.No. 2295/2007, C.A.No.2293/2007,\nC.A.No.1634/2007, C.A.No.1956/2007, C.A.No.1948/2007,\nC.A.No.1943/2007, C.A.No.1939/2007, C.A.No.1961/2007,\nC.A.No. 2121/2007, C.A.No.2294/2007, C.A.No.2292/2007,\nC.A.No. 4173/2007, C.A.No.4516/2007, C.A.No.4517/2007,\nC.A.No.3212/2007, C.A.No.3124/2007, C.A.No.3126/2007,\nC.A.No. 5110 - 5111/2007, C.A.No. 264/2008,\nC.A.No. 293/2008, C.A.No. 292/2008, C.A.No.4477/2007,\nC.A.No.4082/2007, C.A.No.1037/2008, C.A.No.3523/2007,\nC.A.No.1462/2008, C.A.No.5288/2007, C.A.No.5295/2007,\nC.A.No.5986/2007, C.A.No.5742/2007, C.A.No.5749/2007,\nC.A.No.3587/2008, C.A.No.3616/2007, C.A.No.1769/2006,\nC.A.No. 1890/2009 @ SLP(C)No.21443/2006,\n\n 1\n\fC.A. No. 1891/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 3768/2007,\nC.A. No. 1892/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 3769/2007,\nC.A. No. 1893/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 3770/2007,\nC.A. No. 1894/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 3771/2007,\nC.A. No. 1895/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 3946/2007,\nC.A. No. 1896/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 3947/2007,\nC.A. No. 1897/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 5536/2007,\nC.A. No. 1898/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 5646/2007,\nC.A. No. 1899/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 7021/2007,\nC.A. No. 1900/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 9641/2007,\nC.A. No. 1901 /2009 @ SLP(C)No. 9637/2007,\nC.A. No. 1902/[email\u00a0protected] SLP(C)No. 1953/2009\nC.A. No. 1903/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 2621/2009,\nC.A. No. 1906/2009 @ Slp (C)No. 8879/2008,\nC.A. No. 1907/2009 @ SLP(C)No.28553/2008,\nC.A. No. 1904/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 7307/2009 (CC.No. 17118),\nC.A. No. 1905/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 7308/2009 (CC.No.17308),\nC.A. No. 1908/2009 @ SLP(C)No. 7310/2009 (Cc No. 1584).\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 29,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 179,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 280,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n Writ Petition (Pil) No.2408/2015\n Writ Petition (Pil) No.2411/2015\n Writ Petition (Pil) No.2472/2015\n 25.01.2016\n In view of the detailed common order passed today by\n this Court in Writ Petition (Pil) No.2213/2015\n (Saurabh Mishra s/o Ramkishor Mishra Versus The\n State of Madhya Pradesh & another), no public interest\n at all is involved and this writ petition is dismissed.\n A copy of the common order be retained in this petition\n also.\n\n\n (P.K. Jaiswal) (D.K. Paliwal)\n Judge Judge\n\nPithawe Rc\n 2\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Bench At Indore\n D.B.: Hon'ble Shri P.K. Jaiswal\n Hon'ble Shri D.K. Paliwal, Jj.\n Writ Petition (Pil) No.2213/2015\n\n Saurabh Mishra s/o Ramkishor Mishra\n Versus\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & another\n Writ Petition (Pil) No.2408/2015\n\n Subodh Mishra s/o Vijay Shankar Mishra\n Versus\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & another\n Writ Petition (Pil) No.2411/2015\n\n Gaurav Panchal s/o Gokul Panchal\n Versus\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others\n Writ Petition (Pil) No.2472/2015\n\n Rajendra Kumar s/o Babulal Sanghvi\n Versus\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & another\n\n *****\nShri N.K. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner in\nWrit Petition (Pil) No.2213/2015.\nShri C.K. Raikwar, learned counsel for the petitioner in\nWrit Petition No.2408/2015.\nShri Amit Kumar Panchal, learned counsel for the\npetitioner in Writ Petition (Pil) No.2411/2015.\nShri Pradeep Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the\npetitioner in Writ Petition (Pil) No.2472/2015.\nShri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate General with\nShri C.S. Ujjainiya, learned Panel Lawyer for the\nrespondent / State.\n *****\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 345,
"end": 359,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 405,
"end": 428,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 643,
"end": 655,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 691,
"end": 703,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 779,
"end": 789,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 825,
"end": 871,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 899,
"end": 911,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 939,
"end": 951,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1011,
"end": 1025,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1090,
"end": 1113,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1177,
"end": 1190,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1260,
"end": 1283,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1350,
"end": 1364,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1427,
"end": 1450,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1515,
"end": 1529,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1593,
"end": 1616,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1664,
"end": 1679,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1758,
"end": 1770,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1843,
"end": 1861,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1940,
"end": 1959,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2038,
"end": 2048,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2096,
"end": 2110,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDate: 4.12.2008.\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice M.Jeyapaul\n\nCrl.O.P.No.21711 and 35339 of 2007\nand M.P.Nos.1, and 2 of 2007\n\nCrl.O.P.No.21711 of 2007\n\n1. P.S.Chellamuthu\n2. C.Sumathi\n3. Samiyathal\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPetitioners \n\n\tvs. \t\n\n1. The State by \n Deputy Superintendent of Police,\n Economic Offence Wing-II,\n Coimbatore. \n\n2. Abilash Auto Finance Matrum\n \tSubaswathi Investment \n\tMuthaleetalargal Sangam,\n No.14/3, V.C.S.Nagar, \n G.N.Mills Post,\n Coimbatore 641 029.\n rep by its President K.Natarajan\t\tRespondents\n\nCrl.O.P.No.35339 of 2007\n\n1. J.Solochana\n2. R.Saroja\t\t\t\t\t\t\tPetitioners\n\n\tvs.\n\nState of Tamil Nadu rep by\nInspector of Police,\nDistrict Crime Branch,\nThiruvannamalai.\t\t\t\t\t\tRespondent \n\t\n\tCriminal Original Petitions filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for direction as stated therein. \n\n\tFor petitioners in\n\tCrl.O.P.No.21711/07\t : Mr.V.Ayyadurai\n\n\tFor petitioners in\n\tCrl.O.P.No.35339/07\t : Mr.U.M.Ravichandran\n\n\tFor R1\t\t\t : (1) Mr.N.R.Elango, Addl.P.P.\n\t\t\t\t\t (2) Mr.R.Muniappa Raj\n\t\t\t\t\t\t Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)\n\n\tFor R2\t\t\t : Mr.V.Bharathidasan\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 101,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 212,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 225,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 239,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 280,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 397,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 596,
"end": 607,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 611,
"end": 619,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 645,
"end": 664,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 895,
"end": 906,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 955,
"end": 971,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 993,
"end": 1003,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1030,
"end": 1044,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1097,
"end": 1112,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nPooran Mal Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nDirector Of Inspection (Investigation) Of Income-Tax Mayur\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 108,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Devendra Kumar Sharma\n Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Spl. Acts) Central\n Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi\n Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. vs Avtar Singh (through Lr)\n U/s 630 of Companies Act, 1956\n Cc No.1660/3\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 153,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 198,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 213,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 04.10.2011\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice T.Mathivanan\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t Crl.O.P.No.21270 of 2010\n and\n M.P.No.1 of 2010\n\n\nBhanwarlal Sharma\t\t\t\t\t\t.... Petitioner \n\n\t\t\t\t\tVs.\n\n1.K.V.Sathyanarayanan\n\n2.The Deputy Commissioner of Police\n Central Crime Branch, Chennai\n\n3.The Inspector of Police\n Central Crime Branch, Team-III\n Chennai\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..... Respondents\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nPrayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking a direction to call for the records and quash the proceedings in Crl.M.P.No.1946 of 2010, pending on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crime No.703 of 2007.\n\n\n\tFor Petitioner : Mr.Udayat V.Lalit, Senior Counsel\n\t\t\t\t\t for Mr.P.Krishnan\n \n\tFor Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elanto, Senior Counsel\n\t\t\t\t\t for R.Vivekananthan for R1\n\t\t\t\t\t Mr.A.N.Thambidurai \n\t Addl.Public Prosecutor for Rr2 & 3\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 190,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 246,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 315,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 385,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 745,
"end": 759,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 791,
"end": 801,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 838,
"end": 848,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 876,
"end": 891,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 908,
"end": 923,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Order Sheet Sheet No...\n\n\n A.P. No. 346 of 2005\n\n In The High Court At Calcutta\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n Original Side\n\n\n In the matter of:\n\n State Of West Bengal\n Vs.\n Afcons Pauling (India) Limited\n\n\nBefore:\nThe Hon'ble Justice\nIndira Banerjee.\n\nDate: 10.09.2013\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 144,
"end": 166,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 362,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 450,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 481,
"end": 496,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat At Jabalpur\n\n Writ Petition No. 3826/2008(Pil)\n\n Association of the Residents of Mhow\n\n Vs.\n\n Union of India and others\n\n\nPresent :\n\nHon'ble Shri Justice A.K. Patnaik, Chief Justice.\nHon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Lahoti, Judge.\n\n Mr. A.M. Mathur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sanjay\n Agrawal, Advocate, and Mr. Abhinav P. Dhanodkar,\n Advocate, for the Petitioner.\n\n Mr. B.L. Pavecha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vinay\n Zelawat, Assistant Solicitor General and Mr. Ashutosh\n Nimgaonkar, Advocate, for the respondents No.1, 3 & 4.\n\n Mr. Siddharth Patel, Advocate, for the Interveners - Kannu\n Bhai Shah and 40 others.\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 55,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 179,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 271,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 329,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 378,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 403,
"end": 414,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 442,
"end": 467,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 487,
"end": 507,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 566,
"end": 578,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 605,
"end": 629,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 667,
"end": 697,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 758,
"end": 773,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hon'Ble Sri Justice Ashutosh Mohunta And Hon'Ble Sri Justice G. Krishna Mohan Reddy \n\nF.C.A.No.21 of 2009 \n\n12-09-2012 \n\nSmt. Ch. Padmavathi \n\nCh. Sai Babu. \n\nCounsel for the petitioner: Sri P.V. Ramana\n\nCounsel for Respondent: Sri G. Rama Gopal Head Note: \n?Cases referred:\n1. Air 1988 Ap 68 \n2. 2000(2) Ald 723 (Db) \n3. Air 1975 All. 94 \n4. Air 2003 Karnataka 508 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 36,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 83,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 149,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 165,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 212,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 255,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 12..06..2009\n\nC O R A M\n\nThe Honourable Mrs. Justice Prabha Sridevan\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam\n\nC.M.A. No.1851 of 2004\n\n\tM/s. New India Assurance Company Limited,\n\t46, Moore Street, Chennai-1.\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\n\tversus\n\n1.\tV. Bommi\n2.\tMinor Saravananan\n3.\tV. Pakkirisamy Naidu\n4.\tV.P. Lakshmi Devi\n\t(Minor is represented by 1st respondent)\n5.\tT. Dhakshinamoorthy\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n- - - - -\nPrayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.3.2004 made in M.C.O.P. No.2789 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Iv Judge, Court of Small Causes) at Chennai.\n- - - - -\n\t \tFor Appellant\t : Mr. K.S. Narasimhan\n\t \tFor Respondents-1 to 4 : Mr. M. Swamikannu \n\t\t\t\t\t \t for Mr. A.C. Kumaragurubaran\n \t\tFor Respondent-5 : Mr. K. Surendranath\t\t\t\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 119,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 166,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 233,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 303,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 324,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 348,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 369,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 415,
"end": 434,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 725,
"end": 740,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 779,
"end": 792,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 816,
"end": 836,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 886,
"end": 901,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n W.P. (C) No. 5520 of 2007 & Cm No. 5655 of 2008\n\n Saroj Rani ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar with\n Mr. Rajveer Bansal and\n Mr. Anurag Kasana, Advocates.\n\n versus\n\n Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate\n for R-1 & R-2.\n Mr. Amitabh Marwah, Advocate for R-3.\n\n Coram: Justice S. Muralidhar\n\n 1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed\n to see the order? Yes\n\n 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes\n\n 3. Whether the order should be referred in the digest? Yes\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 127,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 253,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 313,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 358,
"end": 371,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 453,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 524,
"end": 538,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 618,
"end": 632,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 678,
"end": 691,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n \u00ae\nIn The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 06Th Day Of June 2012\n\n Present\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice D.V.Shylendra Kumar\n\n And\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B.Manohar\n\n Ita No.2886/2005\n\nBetween:\n\n1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax\n Cr Building,\n Queens Road,\n Bangalore.\n\n2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax\n Head Quarters Ii\n Bangalore. ...Appellants\n\n\n(By Sri.M.V.Seshachala & Sri.K V.Aravind, Advs)\n\nAnd:\n\nIng Vysya Bank Ltd\nNo.72, St. Marks Road,\nBangalore 1. ...Respondent\n\n(By Sri.S.Parthasarathi, Adv)\n 2\n\n\n\n I.T.A filed U/S.260-A of I.T Act, 1961 arising out of\norder dated 10-03-2005 passed in Ita\nNo.382/Bang/1997 for the Assessment Year 1993-94,\npraying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to\nformulate the substantial questions of law stated\ntherein and allow the appeal and set aside the orders\npassed by the Itat, Bangalore in Ita\nNo.382/Bang/1997 dated 10-03-2005 and confirm the\norder of the Appellate Commissioner confirming the\norder passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income\nTax, Headquarters-II, Bangalore.\n\n This appeal coming on for hearing this day,\nShylendra Kumar J., delivered the following:\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 215,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 284,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 417,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 499,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 540,
"end": 554,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 561,
"end": 572,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 587,
"end": 605,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 688,
"end": 703,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1359,
"end": 1374,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 28/1/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam \nAnd \nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justsice S.K. Krishnan \n\nW.P.No.16043 Of 2000 \nand \nW.M.P.No.23271 of 2000 \n\nP.Virabhagu ....Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The Union of India\nrep. By the Secretary to Govt. of India\nMinistry of Health & Family Welfare Services\nNirman Bhavan \nNew Delhi-1.\n2.The Director\nJawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate\nMedical Examination and Research \nDanvanthri Nagar\nPondicherry \u0016 605 006.\n3.The Deputy Director (Administration)\nJawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate\nMedical Examination and Research \nPondicherry.\n4.The Under Secretary to the Government \nDepartment of Personnel and Administrative\nReforms (Personnel Wing) \nChief Secretariat Buildings\nPondicherry. ..Respondents.\n\n\n Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia to issue Certiorarified Mandamus as prayed for therein.\n\nFor Petitioner : Mr.D. Bharathachakravarthy\n\nFor Respondents No.1 to 3: Mr.M.T. Arunan, Acgsc. \nFor Respondent No.4:Mr.T.Murugesan \n Government Pleader for Pondicherry.\n\n:Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 121,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 175,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 252,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 336,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 457,
"end": 577,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 585,
"end": 703,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 711,
"end": 857,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1073,
"end": 1097,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1130,
"end": 1142,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1176,
"end": 1187,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Criminal Miscellaneous No.39130 of 2014\n Arising Out of PS.Case No. -33 Year- 1992 Thana -C.B.I Case District- Muzaffarpur\n===========================================================\nAjay Kumar @ Ajay Kumar Singh son of late Ram Prakash Singh, resident of village - Haibatpur, P.S. Rampur Chauram, District - Arwal, presently posted as an Assistant, Forest and Environment Department, Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi (Jharkhand ) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar through the Vigilance .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah Cav Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 284,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 533,
"end": 547,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 698,
"end": 717,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 845,
"end": 861,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nH. Venkatachala Iyengar\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nB. N. Thimmajamma & Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 72,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n Civil Appeal No.4561 Of 2008\n\n\n\n\n\nItc Ltd. ... Appellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nState of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\nWith Civil Appeal Nos.4562/2008, 4563/2008, 4564/2008, 4565/2008, \n\n4566/2008, 4567/2008, 4568/2008, 4569/2008, 4570/2008, 4571/2008, \n\n4572/2008 and 4968/2008.\n\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 66,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 191,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 299,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Tamil Nadu\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nHind Stone Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 65,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRamana Dayaram Shetty\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe International Airport Authority Of India And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 97,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Criminal Appeal (Sj) No.181 of 1995\n Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- Bhagalpur\n ===========================================================\n Shri Nagendra Prasad Lal, son of late Murli Manohar Lal, Ex-Assistant Grade (Ii), Shed In-Charge, Food Storage Depot, Food Corporation of India, Panna Mill, Bhagalpur (Now retired) .... Appellant Versus Union of India (C.B.I.) .... Respondent With =========================================================== Criminal Appeal (Sj) No. 188 of 1995 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- Samastipur =========================================================== Sone Lal Ram, son of late Mahabir Ram, resident of village Kalyanpur, (Panchairi Tola), P.S. Bibhutipur, district Samastipur .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance :\n (In Cr. App (Sj) No. 181 of 1995) For the Appellant :M/S Vijay Kumar Pandey, Rajesh Kumar & Arvind Kumar Verma, Advs. \n\n (In Cr. App (Sj) No. 188 of 1995) For the Appellant : Mr. Purusotam Prasad For the Respondent : Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, SC(Vigilance) (in both Appeals) =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Gopal Prasad Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 312,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 491,
"end": 505,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 770,
"end": 782,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 921,
"end": 935,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1083,
"end": 1101,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1103,
"end": 1115,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1118,
"end": 1136,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1205,
"end": 1221,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1247,
"end": 1264,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1388,
"end": 1400,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 State Vs. Zakir\n\n\n In The Court Of Ms Aanchal Mm-8, (Central),\n Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.\n\nIn the matter of:\n State\n Vs.\n Zakir\n Fir No. 367/04\n P.S. I.P. Estate\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 36,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 46,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 161,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 237,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 347,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 7304 of 2005\n\nPetitioner:\nU.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr.\t\t\t\n\nRespondent:\nUdai Narain Pandey\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 126,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Sanjeev Jain: Special Judge (Pc Act), \n Cbi\u00ad3, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi\n\nCc No. 49/12\nRc No. DAI/2007/A/0005/CBI/ACB/New Delhi \nUnder Section 120\u00adB Ipc r/w Sec. 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13 (1)(d) of Prevention of \nCorruption Act, 1988\n(Case Uid No.02406R1110912008)\n\n\nCentral Bureau of Investigation\n\n\n Versus \n\n\n 1. Samir Kumar Ghosh\n S/o Late Shri B.K. Ghosh\n R/o B\u00ad605, Royal Towers,\n Sector\u00ad61, Noida, U.P.\n\n 2. Rajeev Kant Sharan\n S/o Shri B.B. Sharan,\n R/o 4B 602, Gurjinder Vihar,\n Awho Colony, Greater Noida, \n Uttar Pradesh\u00ad201308.\n\n\n\nDate of Fir : 23.01.2007\nDate of filing of Charge\u00adsheet : 29.03.2008\nArguments concluded on : 06.12.2013\nDate of Judgment : 17.12.2013\n\n\n\n\nDAI/2007/A/0005/CBI/ACB/New Delhi 1 \n Appearance:\n\nFor prosecution : Shri Raj Mohan Chand, Ld. Pp for Cbi.\nFor accused persons : Sh. Yogesh Verma, Advocate for accused Samir Kumar Ghosh. \n Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Advocate with Shri Yunus Malik, \n Advocate for accused Rajeev Kant Sharan. \n\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 116,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 336,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 392,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 499,
"end": 517,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1006,
"end": 1021,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1073,
"end": 1085,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1108,
"end": 1125,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1164,
"end": 1178,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1213,
"end": 1226,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1280,
"end": 1298,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nPannalal Binjraj\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 28,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 62,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSyad Akbar\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Karnataka\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 60,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao \n\nWrit Petition No. 17038 Of 2014 \n\n10-07-2014 \n\nGreeeda Sudhasini J W/o S. David Prathap Singh Pallavan Nagar, Madurai Tamil \nNadu Petitioner \n\nGovernment of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Transport Department,\nSecunderabad and 2 others . Respondents \n\nCounsel for the Petitioner: Sri B. Nagi Reddy\n\nCounsel for the Respondents:GP for Transport\n\nHead Note: \n\n? Citations:\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao \n\nWrit Petition No. 17038 Of 2014 \n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 126,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 296,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 373,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 500,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\nIn The Court Of Sh. Pritam Singh, Arc (Central) Tis Hazari \n Courts, Delhi.\n E\u00ad124/09\nSh. Sheetal Parshad Jain\nS/o Late R.S.Ulfat Rai Jain,\nR/o 7/33, Ansari Road, \nDarya Ganj, New Delhi\u00ad110002. ...Petitioner\n Versus\n1. Sh. Harsh Sabharwal\n S/o Late Virender Kumar\n\n\n2. Smt. Poonam Sabharwal,\n W/o Late Virender Kumar\n\n\n3. Smt. Anju Batra\n D/o Late Virender Kumar\n\n\n4. Smt. Reena Taneja\n D/o Late Virender Kumar\n\n\n All of 7/33, Ansari Road,\n Darya Ganj, New Delhi\u00ad110002.\n And also at :\n R/o G\u00ad25, Preet Vihar,\n I.P.Extension, Vikas Marg, Delhi\u00ad110092.\n\n\n Petition U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25\u00adB of Delhi Rent Control Act.\n\n\n1. Date of institution of the case : 21.01.2009\n2. Date of Judgment Reserved : 13.01.2011\n3. Date of Judgment pronounced : 21.01.2011\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 187,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 220,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 431,
"end": 446,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 485,
"end": 501,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 541,
"end": 551,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 590,
"end": 602,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (Ne) Karkardooma Courts Delhi.\n\n\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. G. N. Pandey \n Additional District Judge\u00ad02, (Ne)\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\n Mca No. 05/14 \n Unique Id No. : 02402C0217692014\n\nIn the matter of:\n\n M/S Maks Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. \n At 1/11798\u00adB Sarover Marg, \n Panchsheel Garden, \n Naveen Shahdara, Delhi\u00ad110032\n Through its Director\n Sh. Madhusudan Agarwal .....Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n (1) M/S Mediways Agencies\n Kamla House, 91/1, Nai Basti, \n Ghaziabad ( U. P. ) 201001, \n Through its Prop. Avneesh Agarwal\n (2) Sh. Sumit Agarwal\n Authorized signatory of M/s Mediways Agencies\n Kf\u00ad76, Kavi Nagar, \n Ghaziabad ( U. P.) 201001 .......RespondentsDate of Institution : 23.07.2014 Date of Arguments : 17.11.2014 Date of Judgment : 17.11.2014 Decision : Appeal dismissed with cost Mca No. 05/14 1/16 M/S Maks Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Mediways Agencies & Ors. \n Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge (Ne) Karkardooma Courts Delhi. \n\n J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 18,
"end": 73,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 138,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 426,
"end": 456,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 807,
"end": 824,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 999,
"end": 1012,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1364,
"end": 1394,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1403,
"end": 1420,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1434,
"end": 1446,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nAshokbhai Chimanbhai\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 47,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 87,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "E. No.\u00ad10/2011 1 22.08.2014\n\n\n\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Kiran Gupta, Senior Civil Judge\u00adCum\u00ad\n Rent Controller: Patiala House Courts: New Delh\n\n\n E.No.\u00ad10/2011 \n Unique Id No.02403C0079102011 \n\n\nS.K. Gupta\nS/o Late Sh. Devi Charan Gupta,\nR/o 6, Under Hill Road,\nCivil Lines, Delhi\u00ad110054\n ....... Petitioner\n\n\n Versus\n\n1. Sh. Balbir Singh\n 84, Tolstoy Lane, Janpath,\n New Delhi\u00ad110001\n\n2. Sh. Swaran Singh\n 84, Tolstoy Lane, Janpath,\n New Delhi\u00ad110001\n\n ........ Respondents\n\nDate of institution: 09.06.2011\nDate of arguments : 02.08.2014\nDate of decision : 22.08.2014\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 178,
"end": 189,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 273,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 507,
"end": 517,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 771,
"end": 783,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 846,
"end": 858,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 14.03.2013\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice B.Rajendran\n\nCRL.R.C.No.777 of 2010\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nNaseerulah\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\t\t\t \t \nVs.\n \n1.State by:-\n Sub-Inspector of Police,\n Coonoor.\n\n2.G.Subramaniya Karthick,\n Secretary, \n Tamil Nadu Ecological Animal Protection Society(TEAPS),\n No.47, Vijayanagar Palace Road,\n Ooty - 643 001.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\n(Impleaded the second respondent \n as per order of this Court \n dated 18.08.2010 in M.P.No.1 of 2010)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPrayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order in C.M.P.No.2710 of 2010, dated 23.06.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor dismissing the petition for return of property and seeks to set aside the same prays for return of the seized animals.\n\n\n\n\n\t\tFor Petitioner\t\t: \tM/s.A.Madhumathi\n\t\tFor Respondent 1\t: \tMr.R.Prathap Kumar\n\t \t\t\t\t \tGovernment Advocate (Crl. side)\n\n\t\tFor Respondent 2 \t: \tMr.M.Santhana Raman\n\n\n\n\n\n***\n\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 108,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 150,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 196,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 267,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 899,
"end": 914,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 985,
"end": 1001,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\nIn The Court Of Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal Special Judge \n Cbi\u00ad03 (Pc Act) Delhi\n\nCa No. 18/14\n\nSmt. Ranjana Sharma \nW/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma \nR/o 43, Bunglow Road, Kamla Nagar,\nDelhi .....Appellant\n Versus\n 1. The State(Govt of Nct of Delhi)\n Through Commissioner of Police\n 2. Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma \n S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash\n R/o 170 D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi\n 3. Sh. Satish Kumar Sharma \n S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash\n R/o 170 D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi\n 4. Ashok Kumar Sharma \n S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash\n R/o 170D, Kamla Nagar, Delhi ....Respondents\n\n\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 39,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 145,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 392,
"end": 419,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 492,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 582,
"end": 601,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 687,
"end": 705,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWA.No. 316 of 2009()\n\n\n\n1. Bhoopesh\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n1. M/S.New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,Tvpm.\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Rajesh P.Nair\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Kkm.Sherif\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.S.R.Bannurmath\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph\n\n Dated :10/08/2009\n\n O R D E R\n C.R.\n\n\n S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J.\n ----------------------------------------------\n W.A. No.316 of 2009 &\n\n W.P.(C) Nos.30239 of 2007,\n\n 9158, 22116, 22153, 24118, 24130, 24141, 24174 &\n 33258 of 2008 and\n\n 5887, 7724 & 9687 of 2009\n ----------------------------------------------\n Dated 10th August, 2009.\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 77,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 175,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 281,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 323,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 324,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 330,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 379,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 404,
"end": 417,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 529,
"end": 543,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 565,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n Civil Appeal Nos 7114-15 Of 2003\n\n\n\n\nMunicipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi ... Appellant\n\n\n Vs.\n\n\nAssociation of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy & Ors. ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\nWith Ca 7116/2003 & Ca 6748/2004 \n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 215,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 360,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Raj Kumar: Addl. District \n Judge\u00ad09: Tis Hazari Courts : Delhi\n\nSuit No. 289/14 (Old Suit No. 26/09)\nUnique Case Id No. 02401C0016022009\n\n1. Sudhir Kumar Sharma,\n\n2. Subhash Chander Sharma, \n\n3. Suman Kumar Sharma, \n\n4. Satish Chander Sharma \n S/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, \n\n\n5. Sudesh Sharma \n D/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, \n\n\n6. Smt. Sushila Sharma @ Mrs. Sheela Sharma \n D/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, \n\n\n All R/o Canada\n Through Attorney Sh. G.L. Bhutani \n S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Bhutani \n R/o 8/14, West Patel Nagar, \n New Delhi\u00ad110008. ........... Plaintiffs.\n\n\n Versus \n\n\n1. Suresh C. Sharma\n S/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, \n R/o 656, Inverness Burlingtion_ON L7T\n\n\nSuit No. 289/14 (Old Suit No. 26/09) Page No. 1/22\n 358, Canada.\n\n\n2. Mr. Sushil Pal Sharma\n S/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Sharma, \n R/o 35\u00adC, Nisbet Road, \n Mazgaon, Mumbai\u00ad400010.\n\n\n3. Land & Development Officer, \n Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi. ......... Defendants. \n\nDate of institution of the suit : 14.01.2009\nDate on which order was reserved : 09.02.2015\nDate of decision : 17.04.2015\n\n\n\n Suit For Partition And Permanent Injunction\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 94,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 196,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 228,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 257,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 289,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 352,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 421,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 749,
"end": 765,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 963,
"end": 980,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1090,
"end": 1150,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nM. Pentiah And Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMuddala Veeramallappa And Others.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 74,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nHarcharan Singh\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nShiv Rani And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 56,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Letters Patent Appeal No. 14 Of 2008\n\n\n\n\n \n In\n Writ Petition No. 4141 Of 2006\n Alongwith\n Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 15 To 25 Of 2008\n\n\n\n\n \n In\n Writ Petition Nos. 4145, 4147, 4148, 4149, 4150,4151,\n 4152,4143, 4144, 4146 & 4142 Of 2006.\n\n\n\n\n \n The State of Maharashtra and another).......Appellants\n \n versus\n Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav )........ Respondant.\n \n Mr. A.P. Vanarse Agp for the Appellants\n Mr. S.M. Dharap i/b Mr. Neel Helekar for the Respondent.\n \n\n\n Coram: Swatanter Kumar, C.J., &\n \n\n\n\n A.P. Deshpande, J.\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 841,
"end": 861,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 964,
"end": 988,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1074,
"end": 1090,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1129,
"end": 1140,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1149,
"end": 1161,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1247,
"end": 1263,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1342,
"end": 1356,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n Criminal Appeal No. 2287 Of 2009\n\nDashrath Rupsingh Rathod \u2026..Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nState of Maharashtra & Anr. \u2026..Respondents\n\n W I T H\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1593 Of 2014\n [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2077 of 2009];\n Criminal Appeal No. 1594 Of 2014\n [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2112 of 2009];\n Criminal Appeal No. 1595 Of 2014\n [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.2117 of 2009];\n Criminal Appeal Nos. 1596-1600 Of 2014\n [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)Nos.1308-1312 of 2009];\n Criminal Appeal No.1601 Of 2014\n [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3762 of 2012];\n Criminal Appeal No. 1602 Of 2014\n [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3943 of 2012];\n Criminal Appeal No.1603 Of 2014\n [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.3944 of 2012]; And\n Criminal Appeal No. 1604 Of 2014\n [Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No.59 of 2013].\n\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 66,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 203,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 272,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honourable Sri Justice S.Ravi Kumar \n\nCriminal Petition No.4190 Of 2013 \n\n17-9-2014 \n\nT.B.Shankar Rao and others...Petitioners.\n\nThe C.B.I. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Special Public\nProsecutor, for Cbi (P.Kesava Rao). ..Respondent.\n\nCounsel for the petitioners : Sri M.Jagadish Kumar. \n\nCounsel for respondent: Special Public \n Prosecutor For Cbi\n (P.Kesava Rao).\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n1 (2008) 9 Scc 677 \n2 (2003) 4 Scc 675 \n3 (2009) 6 Scc 351 \n4 2003 (4) Scc 675 \n5 (2010) 15 Scc 118 \n6 Air 1975 Sc 1002 \n7 (2008) 16 Scc 1 \n8 2014 Law Suit (Sc) 145 \n\n\nHonourable Sri Justice S.Ravi Kumar \nCriminal Petition No.4190 Of 2013 \nDated 17-9-2014 \n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 114,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 176,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 314,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 430,
"end": 442,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 684,
"end": 696,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSmt. Nagawwa\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nVeeranna SHIVALlNGAPPA Konjalgi\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 75,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nChandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nAshalata S. Guram\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 39,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 76,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[Reportable]\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No.686/2014\n\n (arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.9547 of 2013)\n\n Narinder Singh & Ors. \u2026\u2026Appellants\n\n Vs.\n\n State of Punjab & Anr. \u2026Respondents\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 240,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 335,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1188 of 2005()\n\n\n1. S.Devan, Cine Artist, No.Iv,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. C.Krishna Menon, 'Sowparnika',\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State Of Kerala Rep. By Public\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.G.Janardhana Kurup (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Sri.K.Ramakumar (Sr.)\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :09/04/2010\n\n O R D E R\n R.Basant & M.C. Hari Rani,Jj\n\n ==============================\n\n Crl.R.P.Nos.1186, 1187,1188 & 1197 Of 2005\n\n ============================\n\n Dated This The 9Th Day Of April 2010\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 85,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 194,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 273,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 345,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 390,
"end": 401,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 441,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 480,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 527,
"end": 535,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 538,
"end": 552,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 70 of 1999\n\nPetitioner:\nI.T.C. Ltd.\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Central Excise, New Delhi And Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 61,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 116,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAddanki Narayanappa & Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nBhaskara Krishtappa And 13 Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rewa Kundu & Ors. vs. Daulat Ram & Ors.\n 1\n\n\n In The Court Of Shri K. S. Mohi: Presiding Officer : \n Mact South District : Saket Courts : New Delhi\n\nIn Suit No. 101/13\n\nFir No. 265/13, P.S Saket\n\n 1. Smt. Rewa Kundu\n W/o Late Sh. Badal Kumar Kundu .... Wife\n 2. Deepak Kundu\n S/o Late Sh. Badal Kumar Kundu .... Son\n 3. Sushil Kundu\n S/o Late Sh. Badal Kumar Kundu .... Son\n All R/o 1008/15, Block L, Sangam Vihar\n New Delhi, presently R/o 882/12, Block L\n Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. ..... Petitioners \n\n\n Versus \n 1. Daulat Ram\n S/o Raja Ram\n R/o H No. 24, gali No. 12, G Block, \n Ratia Marg, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. ..... Driver\n 2. Naresh Yadav\n S/o Maukam Singh\n R/o G\u00ad28, Gali No. 11, Ratia Marg\n Sangam Vihar, New Delhi\u00ad110062. .... Owner \n 3. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Big Jos Tower A\u00adB, Ii Floor, \n Netaji Subhash Palace, Pitampura, \n New Delhi. ....... Insurer\n ...... Respondents\n\n\n\n\nSuit No. : 101/13 Page No. 1 of 23\n Rewa Kundu & Ors. vs. Daulat Ram & Ors.\n 2\n\n\n Date of Institution : 02.09.2013\n\n Date of reserving of judgment/order : 21.04.2014\n\n Date of pronouncement : 21.04.2014\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 23,
"end": 33,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 153,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 234,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 307,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 434,
"end": 446,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 572,
"end": 584,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 976,
"end": 986,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1180,
"end": 1192,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1388,
"end": 1425,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nGrindlays Bank Limited\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Income Tax Officer, 'H' Ward Companies, District-Iv,Calc\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 34,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 114,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Letters Patent Appeal No.695 of 2014\n In\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15667 of 2013\n===========================================================\n1. Nand Kishore Thakur s/o Sri Kusheshwar Thakur, resident of village Rasulpur, Ps Karja, District Muzaffarpur, Routine Clerk, B R Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur\n2. Upendra Kumar Dwivedi s/o late Jagannath Dwivedi, resident of village Chakri, Ps Darauli, District Siwan, Routine Clerk, B R A Bihar University, Muzaffarpur\n3. Braj Mohan Roy s/o late Baidya Nath Roy, resident of village Parao Pokhar Lane- 3, Po Ramana, District Muzaffarpur, Routine Clerk, B R A Bihar University, Muzaffarpur\n4. Arun Kumar singh s/o late Yadunandan Singh, resident of village Panchgachiya, Ps Bihra, District Saharsa, Routine Clerk, B R A Bihar University, Muzaffarpur\n5. Abhishek Anand, s/o late Pramod Ranjan, resident of village Pakri Ismail, Ps Sadar, Muzaffarpur, Routine Clerk, B R A Bihar University, Muzaffarpur\n6. Kailash Mishra s/o late Shiva Chandra Mishra, resident of Jarangdih, Ps Gaighat, District Muzaffarpur, Routine Clerk, B R A Bihar University, Muzaffarpur\n7. Sikandar Singh, s/o late Gita Prasad Singh, resident of village Gardh Sisai, Ps Vidyapatinagar, Samastipur, Routine Clerk, B R A Bihar University, Muzaffarpur\n8. Nalin Kumar Vairagi s/o Nunulal Thakur, resident of village- Aganpur, Ps Maniyari, District Muzaffarpur. Routine Clerk, B R Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellants Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna\n2. B R Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through its Registrar\n3. The Vice Chancellor, B R Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur\n4. The Registrar, B R Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur\n5. Ram Nath Rai, s/o Sri Musafir Rai, resident of village Madapur, Ps Kudhani, District Muzaffarpur\n6. Krishna Kumar Singh, s/o not known to appellants, Routine Clerk, B R Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur\n7. K K Singh- Ii, s/o not known to appellants, Routine Clerk, B R Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondents With =========================================================== Letters Patent Appeal No. 1134 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15667 of 2013 ===========================================================\n1. Sri Krishna Kumar Singh son of Late Satrudhan Prasad Singh Resident of Patna High Court Lpa No.695 of 2014 dt.25-03-2015 village Kupri, Police Station Kudhani, District Muzaffarpur presently posted as Routine ClerkB.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. \n\n 2. Sri Krishna Kumar Singh (Ii) son of Late Ambika Singh Resident of village Kalyani, Police Station Gayghat, District Muzaffarpur presently posted as Routine ClerkB.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. \n\n .... .... Appellants Versus\n 1. Ram Nath Rai son of Shri Musafir Rai resident of village Madapur, Police Station Kudhani, District Muzaffarpur. \n\n 2. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna. \n\n 3. B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur through its Registrar. \n\n 4. Vice Chancellor, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. \n\n 5. Registrar, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. \n\n 6. Sri Upendra Kumar Dwivedi, Routine Clerk, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. \n\n 7. Sri Braj Mohan Rai, Routine Clerk, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. \n\n 8. Sri Nand Kumar Thakur, Routine Clerk, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. \n\n 9. Sri Arun Kumar Singh, Routine Clerk, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. \n\n 10. Sri Abhishek Anand, Routine Clerk, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. \n\n 11. Sri Kailash Mishra, Routine Clerk, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. \n\n 12. Sri Shikandar Singh, Routine Clerk, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. \n\n 13. Sri Nalin Kumar Vairagi, Routine Clerk, B.R. Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur. \n\n .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :\n (In Lpa No. 695 of 2014) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate (In Lpa No. 1134 of 2014) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Lal Babu Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice I. A. Ansari And Honourable Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 287,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 459,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 598,
"end": 612,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 768,
"end": 784,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 928,
"end": 942,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1079,
"end": 1093,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1236,
"end": 1250,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1398,
"end": 1417,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1596,
"end": 1610,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1682,
"end": 1724,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1754,
"end": 1813,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1821,
"end": 1874,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1878,
"end": 1890,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1978,
"end": 1997,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2089,
"end": 2099,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2430,
"end": 2453,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2695,
"end": 2718,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2936,
"end": 2948,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3058,
"end": 3072,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3148,
"end": 3178,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3221,
"end": 3281,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3289,
"end": 3343,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3355,
"end": 3376,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3448,
"end": 3462,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3534,
"end": 3551,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3623,
"end": 3639,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3712,
"end": 3726,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3799,
"end": 3813,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3886,
"end": 3901,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3974,
"end": 3993,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 4205,
"end": 4223,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4261,
"end": 4274,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4337,
"end": 4351,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4389,
"end": 4402,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4503,
"end": 4515,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 4544,
"end": 4557,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nWrit Petition (civil) 4677 of 1985\n\nPetitioner:\nM.C. Mehta\n\nRespondent:\nUnion of India & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 97,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Cr.R. No.4/2015 & Cr.A. No.1998/2015\n\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Principal Seat At Jabalpur\n Division Bench\n\n Criminal Reference No. 4/2015\n\n In Reference\n Received from learned First Additional Sessions Judge,\n Ashta, Sehore (M.P.)\n\n Versus\n\n Ramesh, S/o Ghasiram Khati, Aged 31 years, R/o\n Village Polaykala, Thana Awantipur, Badaudiya,\n District Shajapur (M.P.)\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri Ajay Shukla, Learned Govt. Advocate for the State.\n\nShri U.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel with Shri P.N. Tiwari, learned\ncounsel for the respondent/accused.\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1998/2015\n\n Ramesh, S/o Ghasiram Khati, aged 31 years, R/o\n Village Polaykala, Thana Awantipur, Badaudiya,\n District Shajapur (M.P.)\n\n Versus\n\n The State of M.P. through P.S. Ashta, District Sehore\n (M.P.)\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nShri U.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel with Shri P.N. Tiwari, learned\ncounsel for the appellant/accused.\n\nShri Ajay Shukla, learned Govt. Advocate for the State.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPresent: Honourable Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar\n Honourable Shir Justice Subhash Kakade\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Judgment delivered today: 04.03.2016\n 2 Cr.R. No.4/2015 & Cr.A. No.1998/2015\n\n\n\nPer: Subhash Kakade, J.\n (J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 156,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 482,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 725,
"end": 736,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 782,
"end": 793,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 828,
"end": 839,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1054,
"end": 1060,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1275,
"end": 1288,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1446,
"end": 1457,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1492,
"end": 1503,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1554,
"end": 1565,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1730,
"end": 1745,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1787,
"end": 1801,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2050,
"end": 2064,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nKumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of U.P. And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 38,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Dr. T. R. Naval, Additional Sessions\nJudge, (Special Fast Track Court), East, North East\n & Shahdara Districts, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\nUnique Case I.D. No.02402R0349862009\n\n\nSc No.150/13 Date of Institution : 15.12.2009\nFir No.173/09 Date of Argument : 29.01.2014\nPs Farsh Bazar Date of Order : 30.01.2014\nU/S 376(g)/34 Ipc\n\n\nState Versus Accused Persons\n\n 1. Rakesh\n S/o Sh. Gokal Chand,\n R/o F-77, Seeta Puri,\n Uttam Nagar,\n New Delhi\n\n 2. Nand Lal\n S/o Sh. Jassa Ram\n R/o Rz-C-19, Sagarpur,\n Delhi.\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 31,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 153,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 412,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 488,
"end": 494,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 722,
"end": 730,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRosy Jacob\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nJacob A. Chakramakkal\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 63,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao \n\nM.A.C.M.A Nos.2953 of 2009 and batch \n\n22-04-2014 \n\nSmt. K. Jayasree & others.. Appellants \n\nK. Shankara Reddy and others.. Respondents Counsel for Appellants : Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri P. Harinatha Gupta Counsel for Respondents 3 and 4: Sri K. Madhava Reddy Head Note: \n?Cases referred:\n1) 2009 (2) Alt 512 (Ap) \n2) 2013 Acj 1441 (Sc) \n3) 2009 Acj 1580 (Sc) \n4) 2011 Acj 1441 \n5) 2008 Acj 614(Sc) \n6) 2009 (6) Scc 121 \n7) 2013 (9) Scc 54 \n8) 2011 Acj 1360 \n9) 2013 Acj 1593 (Ap) \n10) 2014 (1) Decisions Today (Sc) 122 \n11) 2011 Acj 2145 (Sc) \n12) 1997 Acj 1148 (Sc) \n13) 2003 Acj 534 (Sc) \n14) 1985 Acj 75 (Sc) \n\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao \nM.A.C.M.A. Nos.2953 of 2009 and 1846 of 2010 \n\nCommon Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 125,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 167,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 245,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 297,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 351,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 814,
"end": 833,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honourable Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao \n\nCrl. P. No.5324 Of 2015 \n\n01-09-2015 \n\nSmt. Indu Dalmia, and others . Petitioners\n\nState of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Police Alipiri Through its Public\nProsecutor High Court at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of\nAndhra Pradesh and another . Respondents \n\nCounsel for the petitioners: Sri N.Naveen Kumar\n\nCounsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor\nCounsel for the Respondent No.2 : K.Vinaya Kumar \n\n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n\n1. (2015) 1 Scc 513 \n2. (2015) 4 Alt 596 (Db) \n3. (2014) 13 Scc 553 \n4. 1992 Supp (1) Scc 335 \n5. (2000) 2 Scc 636 \n6. Air 2008 Sc 1683 \n7. (2005) 10 Scc 336 \n8. (2006) 6 Scc 736 \n9. Air 2008 Sc 251 \n10. (2013) 6 Scc 740 \n11. (2009) 7 Scc 495 \n12. (2008) 14 Scc 1 \n13. (2013) 3 Scc 330 \n14. (2014) 10 Scc 663 \n15. (2013) 9 Scc 293 \n\nHonourable Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao \nCriminal Petition No.5324 Of 2015 \n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 45,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 114,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 165,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 384,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 472,
"end": 486,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 960,
"end": 978,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCh. Tika Ramji & Others, Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Uttar Pradesh & Others.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 87,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nR.S. Nayak\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nA.R. Antulay & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 54,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "fa205.09.odt 1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.\n\n\n\n\n \n First Appeal No.205 Of 2009\n\n Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Divisional \n Office No.2, Indore (M.P.) Through The \n\n\n\n\n \n Divisional Manager, The Oriental \n Insurance Co. Ltd. D.O.No.2, Palm Road, \n Civil Lines, Nagpur. \n\n ...Versus... \n\n\n\n\n \n Respondents :- ig 1) Smt.Maya Wd/o Govindrao Khatri, Aged \n about 52 Yrs., Occ: Household, \n\n 2) Ku.Varsha D/o Govindrao Khatri, aged \n \n about 22 Yrs., Occ: Student. \n\n Both R/o - Near Gurunanak Bakery, \n Ambikar Nagar, Amravati. \n \n\n\n 3) Mr.Shaikh Mubarak Shaikh Gafur, Aged \n about 38 yrs., Occ: Driver, R/o - At & \n \n\n\n\n Post: Chaurha, Tah.: Mahu, Distt.Indore.\n (Mp)\n\n 4) Mr.Vinod S/o Bhagwandas Saini, Aged \n\n\n\n\n\n about 49 yrs., occ: Business, C/o.: Saini \n Road Lines, Plot No.55-E, Nanak Nagar, \n Indore (Mp)\n\n -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n\n Shri A. B. Godbole, Advocate for appellant. \n Mrs. R. Dewani, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.\n None for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. \n -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Coram : A. P. Bhangale, J.\n Dated : 17.07.2013 O R A L J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 238,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 512,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 964,
"end": 968,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1108,
"end": 1114,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1445,
"end": 1472,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1733,
"end": 1738,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2115,
"end": 2128,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2173,
"end": 2182,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2436,
"end": 2450,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Nasir Sekh Vs. Banat Ali\n Usman Sekh Vs. Banat Ali\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. K S Mohi : Presiding Officer : Mact\n South District : Saket Courts : New Delhi\n\nIn Petition No. : 160/11\n\nUnique Case Id : 02406C0187802011\n\n 1. Nasir Sekh\n S/o Sh. Usman Sekh ..... Son (Minor)\n 2. Saifi Ul Sekh\n S/o Sh. Usman Sekh ..... Son\n 3. Samiraul Khatun\n D/o Sh.Usman Sekh ..... Daughter\n 4. Usman Sekh\n S/o Sh. Hepajaddin ..... Husband\n All R/o Chapra, Mouja\u00adChapra\n Kaligang, Nadia, West Bengal \n (The petitioner no.1 is minor and being represented \n through petitioner no.4, his father/natural guardian).\n\nIn Petition No. : 162/11\n\nUnique Case Id : 02406C0187762011\n\n Usman Sekh\n S/o Sh. Hepajaddin\n All R/o Chapra, Mouja\u00adChapra\n Kaligang, Nadia, West Bengal ..... Injured\n ..... Petitioners\n Versus \n\n 1. Banat Ali\n S/o Sh. Yar Ali\n R/o Bikulmari, Nadia,\n West Bengal \n\nPetition No. : 160/11 & 162/11 Page No. 1 of 23\n Nasir Sekh Vs. Banat Ali\n Usman Sekh Vs. Banat Ali\n\n\n Also at : \n R. K. Pur, Barasat,\n 24, Pragna, West Bengal ..... Driver\n\n 2. Wazir Ahmed\n S/o Sh. Aziz Ahmed\n R/o 17, Vijay Market, Sultanpuri,\n Delhi ..... Owner\n 3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.\n 87, M. G. Road, Fort\n Mumbai - 400 001 ..... Insurer\n ..... Respondents\n\n\n Date of Institution : 16.07.2011\n\n Date of reserving of judgment/order : 07.03.2014\n\n Date of pronouncement : 25.03.2014\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 15,
"end": 24,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 106,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 120,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 162,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 335,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 426,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 511,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 586,
"end": 596,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 941,
"end": 951,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1225,
"end": 1234,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1485,
"end": 1495,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1500,
"end": 1509,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1585,
"end": 1595,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1600,
"end": 1609,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1735,
"end": 1746,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1886,
"end": 1914,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\nHigh Court Of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat At\n Jabalpur\n\n Writ Petition No.1430/2014\n Nihal Ahmed.\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\n Writ Petition No.3933/2013\n Rupesh Miglani @ Rajesh\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\n Writ Petition No.1554/2014\n Rupesh Miglani\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\n Writ Petition No.1556/2014\n Vikrant Jain\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\n Writ Petition No.2652/2014\n M/s City Connecto Tours Travells\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\n Writ Petition No.2984/2014\n Anil Kumar Pandey\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\n Writ Petition No.3001/2014\n Hardeo Motor Transport Co.\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\n Writ Petition No.3167/2014\n Santram Yadav\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\n Writ Petition No.4256/2014\n Prasant Kumar Dubey\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n 2\n\n\n\n\n Writ Petition No.5587/2014\n Raghvendra Singh\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\n Writ Petition No.11577/2014\n Purnendra Singh\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\n Writ Petition No.12434/2014\n Dilip Dhariwal\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\n Writ Petition No.9661/2015\n Shaikh Anwar\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\n Writ Petition No.10138/2015\n M/s Narmada Travells Bus Service\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\n Writ Petition No.11335/2015\n Sandeep Kumar Mishra\n Vs.\n The State of Madhya Pradesh & others.\n\nFor the petitioners: Shri Harish Chand Kohli, learned counsel in W.PNo.\n 1430/2014.\n\n Shri Brajesh Dubey, learned counsel in\n W.P.No.3933/2013, W.P. No.1554/2014, W.P.No.\n 1556/2014, W.P.No.2984/2014, W.P.No.3167/2014,\n W.P.No.4256/2014 and W.P.No.9661/2014.\n\n Shri Ashish Rawat, learned counsel in\n W.P.No.2652/2014, W.P.No.3001/2014,\n W.P.No.12434/2014 and W.P.No.11335/2015.\n\n Shri Subodh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel in\n W.P.No.5587/2014, W.P.No.11577/2014 and\n W.P.No.10138/2015.\n\nFor the respondents: Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned Dy. Advocate General\n with Shri A.A. Barnad, learned Govt. Advocate and Shri\n Amit Seth, learned Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.\n 3\n\n\n\n\nPresent: Hon'ble The Chief Justice Shri A.M. Khanwilkar\n\nHon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi\n\nWhether approved for reporting : Yes.\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nReserved On : 27.08.2015\nDate of Decision : 22.09.2015\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 6,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 150,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 219,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 306,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 374,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 443,
"end": 457,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 502,
"end": 525,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 596,
"end": 608,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 653,
"end": 676,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 741,
"end": 769,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 814,
"end": 837,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 904,
"end": 921,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 966,
"end": 989,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1051,
"end": 1077,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1122,
"end": 1145,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1214,
"end": 1227,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1272,
"end": 1295,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1361,
"end": 1380,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1425,
"end": 1448,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1575,
"end": 1591,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1654,
"end": 1677,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1762,
"end": 1777,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1838,
"end": 1861,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1948,
"end": 1962,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2024,
"end": 2047,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2135,
"end": 2147,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2404,
"end": 2427,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2509,
"end": 2529,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2590,
"end": 2613,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2651,
"end": 2669,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2753,
"end": 2766,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3000,
"end": 3012,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3173,
"end": 3192,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3337,
"end": 3353,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3412,
"end": 3423,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3475,
"end": 3484,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3618,
"end": 3633,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3656,
"end": 3668,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1)\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Bench At Aurangabad\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Application No. 898 Of 2009\n\n\n\n\n \n Ramkrishna Urban Co-operative Credit .. Applicant\n Society Ltd., Maliwada, Ahmednagar,\n through Authorised Signatory,\n\n\n\n\n \n Shri Chhagan Tukaram Raut, \n Age. 36 years, Occ. Service,\n \n R/o. Mutha Chambers, Maliwada,\n Ahmednagar.\n \n Versus\n \n\n\n Shri Rajendra Bhagchand Warma .. Respondent\n Age 38 years, Occ. Business,\n \n\n\n\n R/o. 2044, Daware Galli,\n Near Vithal Mandir, Ahmednagar.\n\n\n\n\n\n Shri L.B. Pallod, Advocate for the applicant.\n\n Shri J.M. Murkute, Advocate for sole respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\n Coram : P.R. Borkar,J.\n Reserved On : 03.02.2010\n Pronounced On : 16.02.2010\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 98,
"end": 177,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 368,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 732,
"end": 756,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 916,
"end": 927,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 967,
"end": 979,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1069,
"end": 1080,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n (Wp2637.2010)\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Writ Petition No. 2637 Of 2010\n\n\n Mr. E.S. Sanjeeva Rao, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Age 50 years, )\n Occupation - Service, )\n Residing at - B - 503, )\n Olive Estate, Nerul, )\n Navi Mumbai, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Maharashtra - 400 076 ) .... Petitioner.\n\n V/s\n \n \n 1. Central Bureau of Investigation )\n (C.B.I.), Mumbai )\n )\n 2. Mr. Praveen Salunkhe, Ips, )\n Deputy Inspector General of Police)\n \n\n\n C.B.I Acb Mumbai )\n \n\n\n\n )\n 3. Shri Amit Vashishta, )\n Ex-Deputy Director, (Vigilance) )\n Employees Provident Fund )\n\n\n\n\n\n Organization. )\n )\n 4. Shri Rajeev Kumar, Ips, )\n Chief Vigilance Officer, Epfo )\n )\n\n\n\n\n\n 5. Central Provident Fund )\n Commissioner, New Delhi, )\n Hudco, Vishala, Bhikaji Cama )\n Place, New Delhi. )\n )\n 6. The Central Board of Trustees, )\n A Body Corporate, )\n having its address at )\n\n 1/81\n\n\n\n \n 2\n (Wp2637.2010)\n\n Central Provident Fund )\n Commissioner, Hudco, Vishala, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi )\n )\n\n\n\n\n \n 7. State of Maharashtra ) ..... Respondents.\n\n Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Counsel i/b Mrs. Neha\n Palshikar Bhide for the Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. D. J. Khambata, Additional Solicitor General for\n Respondents - Cbi with Mr. P.A. Pol, Public Prosecutor for\n the State.\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram:\n ig V. M. Kanade &\n P.D. Kode Jj.\n \n Judgment reserved on 15/3/2012\n Judgment pronounced on 2/5/2012\n\n\n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 125,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 371,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 807,
"end": 861,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 934,
"end": 950,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1114,
"end": 1128,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1324,
"end": 1336,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1447,
"end": 1469,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1656,
"end": 1681,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2302,
"end": 2322,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2372,
"end": 2389,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2415,
"end": 2439,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2516,
"end": 2530,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2596,
"end": 2604,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2737,
"end": 2749,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2783,
"end": 2792,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nK.S. Rashid And Son\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Income-Tax Investigation Commission, ETC.(With connecte\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 23,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 91,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\nDated This The 29Th Day Of March 2Q_iDI':A.\nBefore O 2\n\nThe Hdnele Mr. Justice \n\nI Criminal Appeal \nBetween: I I A A\n\nJayamma\n\nw/0 Saganappa, ._ _\n\nAged About 42 Years,' ' A.\n\nResiding At Dogihalli \" 5\n\nIn Kadurtaliiein _ - \n\nCHIKAMAGAI;;Uf3:I3ISTRICT: A ' 2 \n__ I - ...Appellant\n\n(Ey SR1.S.V.TIlg,G_,UL;\"ADVY.'.;:}. I-\n\nAnd \n\nState EEpRESENTED.. I\nBirur Police' ._ \"\nRepresented.. By\n\n v TEfE*ST_ATE Publigprosecutor\n\n1' E.ANGAL.fQEE.__\n\nA (EY1S'5Head Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n\n1. 2010 (6) Alt 812 \n2. 2010 (4) Alt 790 \n3. 2013 (5) Alt 209 \n4. (2005) 6 Scc 733 \n5. 2010 (5) Ald 24 (Sc) \n\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice A.V.Sesha Sai \n\nCivil Revision Petition No.5349 Of 2013 \n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 126,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 201,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 280,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 333,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 390,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 595,
"end": 608,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Lokesh Kumar Sharma \n Additional Sessions Judge\u00ad04, New Delhi District\n Patiala House Courts, New Delhi\n\nUnique I D No. : 02403R0181572013\nCriminal Appeal Number : 1/1/14 dated 16.01.2014\nCc No. : 1996/1\nPs: : Connaught Place\nU/S: : 138 of Negotiable Instrument \n Act\n\n\nM/s Beardsell Limited \n114/115, Jyotishikhar Building\nNo.8, District Centre, \nNew Delhi\u00ad110058\nThrough its representative .....Appellant\n\n\n versus\n\n\nM/s Videocon International Limited\n27, Kasturba Gandhi Marg\nNew Delhi\u00ad110001\nThrough its Authorized Signatory\nSh. Yatinder Singh\nS/o Sh. Rajbir Singh .....Respondent\n Appeal received by Court : 16.01.14 \n Arguments concluded : 06.06.14\n Date of order : 10.07.14 \n\nCa No. 1/1/14 Page No.1/17\nM/s Beardsell Ltd. vs. M/s Videocon International Ltd.\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 151,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 688,
"end": 705,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 963,
"end": 993,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1550,
"end": 1564,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1573,
"end": 1600,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nIchhu Devi Choraria\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 65,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and The Honble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy \n\nWrit Petition Nos.20186 Of 2016 and batch \n\n19-07-2016 \n\nM/s.Prathul Automobiles Pvt. Ltd .Petitioners\n\nThe Asst. Commissioner (Ct) Ii, Enforcement Wing, O/o Commissioner of \nCommercial Taxes, M.J. Road, Nampaly, Hyderabad .Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S. Ravi, Learned Senior Counsel for Ms. N. Niyatha Counsel for respondent: Sri T. Vinod Kumar, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes Head Note: \n? Citations:\n1) 1991 (2) All Er 726\n2) (2007) 13 Scc 673 \n3) Air 1960 Sc 554 = (1960) 2 Scr 671 \n4) 143 U.S. 649 \n5) (2011) 8 Scc 274 \n6) (2015) 9 Scc 209 \n7) (2006) 4 Scc 327 \n8) (1985) 1 Scc 641 \n9) (2005) 5 Scc 598 \n10) (2006) 3 Scc 434 = 2006 (3) Scale 1 \n11) (2011) 9 Scc 573 \n12) (2000) 3 Scc 40 \n13) (2009) 15 Scc 570 \n14) (1972) 2 Scc 744 \n15) (1983) 2 Scc 402 \n16) (1975) 1 Scc 421 \n17) (2003) 3 Scc 321 \n18) (1993) Supp. 3 Scc 621 \n19) (2003) 7 Scc 1\n20) (2004) 8 Scc 524 \n\nHonble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan \nAnd \nHonble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy \n\nWrit Petition Nos.20186, 20199 And 20201 Of 2016 Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 92,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 206,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 344,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 400,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 443,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 472,
"end": 486,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1161,
"end": 1179,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1217,
"end": 1239,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Criminal Appeal (Db) No.961 of 2010\n Arising out of PS.Case No.15 Year 2005 Thana Atri District Gaya\n===========================================================\nRajendra Prasad Yadav @ Rajendra Yadav, Son of Late Budhu Singh @ Budhu Yadav, Resident of Madnobigha, P.S Nimachak Bathani, District Gaya. \n\n .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance :For the Appellant : Shri Surendra Singh, Sr. Advocate\n Smt. Soni Srivastava, Advocate\n Shri Anjani Kumar Jha, Advocate\n Smt. Madhuri Kumari, Advocate\n\nFor the State : Shri Dilip Kumar Sinha, App\n\nFor P.W.6 :\n Shri Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate\n Shri Sunil Kumar, Advocate\n Shri Pankaj Kumar, Advocate\n=========================================================== Coram: Honourable Shri Justice Dharnidhar Jha and Honourable Shri Justice Gopal Prasad Cav Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 277,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 427,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 553,
"end": 567,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 614,
"end": 629,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 672,
"end": 688,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 731,
"end": 745,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 794,
"end": 811,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 870,
"end": 894,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 936,
"end": 947,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 985,
"end": 997,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1099,
"end": 1113,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1142,
"end": 1154,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Bank Of Patiala & Ors\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nS.K.Sharma\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Cbi vs J.S Sehrawat etc.\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Gurvinder Pal Singh, \n Special Judge (Pc Act) (Cbi)\u00ad6, \n Patiala House Court, New Delhi\n\n Cc No. 24/12 (Old Cc No. 37/10)\n Rc No. Ac3/2010/A0003/Cbi/Acu\u00adIii/Nd.\n U/S Section 120B Ipc read with Section 7,12\n and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)(d) of Pc Act\n Cbi vs. Jaibeer Singh Sehrawat etc.\n Unique Id No.: 02403R0325642010\n\n Central Bureau of Investigation \n vs.\n 1. Jaibeer Singh Sehrawat (A\u00ad1) S/o Sh Sahab Singh\n R/o\u00ad Flat No. 61, Sangam Apartment, Pocket 24, \n Sector\u00ad24, Rohini, New Delhi\u00ad110085\n 2. Virender Pal (A\u00ad2) S/o Sh. Ram Kumar \n R/o\u00ad House No. 1632, Pana Mamurpur, \n Gali Pandit Balkishan wali, Narela, Delhi\u00ad110040\n 3. Bindeshwar Pandey (A\u00ad3) S/o Sh. Bhaggi Pandey\n R/o\u00adH. No. 23/34, 2nd Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar, \n Near Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi\u00ad60\n Permanent resident of Vpo Gospur, Distt. Sipole, Bihar.\n 4. Laxman Mandal (A\u00ad4) S/o Sh. Uttam Lal Mandal \n R/o\u00ad H. No. 420, Gali No. 5, also known as Nandu Kachori \n wali gali, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi\u00ad5.\n Permanant resident of Vpo Thhuthhi\u00ad Manuman Nagar, \n P.S Chattapur, Tehsil and District Sipole, Bihar\n\n Rc No. Ac3/2010/A0003/Cbi/Acu\u00adIii/Nd Cc No. 24/12 1/85 \n Cbi vs J.S Sehrawat etc.\n\n 5. S.K Lakra (A\u00ad5) S/o Sh. Satbir Singh \n R/o\u00adHouse No. A\u00ad2/274, Janakpuri, New Delhi\u00ad110058.\n Permanent resident of Vpo Morkhedi, Tehsil & District\n Rohtak, Haryana\n\n\nDate of Fir : 17/02/2010\nDate of filing of Charge\u00adsheet : 24/12/2010\nCase received by transfer on : 05/07/2012\nArguments concluded on : 27/11/2013\nDate of Judgment : 18/12/2013\n\nAppearances\nFor prosecution : Sh V.K Ojha, Ld. Public Prosecutor for Cbi.\nFor accused : Sh Anil Kumar, Ld. Counsel for A\u00ad1 and A\u00ad2.\n Sh M.K Singh, Ld. Counsel for A\u00ad3.\n Sh Devender Hora, Ld. Counsel for A\u00ad4.\n Sh Javed Hashmi, Ld. Counsel for A\u00ad5.\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 3,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 7,
"end": 19,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 103,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 262,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 517,
"end": 520,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 525,
"end": 547,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 656,
"end": 687,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 811,
"end": 833,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1073,
"end": 1085,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1701,
"end": 1714,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2313,
"end": 2316,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2320,
"end": 2332,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2358,
"end": 2367,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2923,
"end": 2931,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2999,
"end": 3009,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3075,
"end": 3084,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3142,
"end": 3155,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3213,
"end": 3225,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nVania Silk Mills (P) Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 37,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 94,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 3608 Of 2009\n (Arising out of Slp(C) No. 17525 of 2006)\n\n\n\nR. K. Malik & Anr. .....Appellants\n\n\n Versus\n\nKiran Pal & Ors. .....Respondents\n\n With\n\n Civil Appeal No. 3609 Of 2009\n (Arising out of Slp(C) No. 1686 of 2007)\n\n\n And\n\n Civil Appeal No. 3607 Of 2009\n (Arising out of Slp(C) No. 13397 of 2007)\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 61,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 232,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 336,
"end": 345,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honourable Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao \n\nM.A.C.M.A.No.380 of 2008 and batch \n\n23-12-2014 \n\nNational Insurance Company Limited .Appellant \n\nManne Laxmi and 7 others.... Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.R.Brizmohan Singh Counsel for the Respondents:Sri K.Madhava Reddy Sri N.Vasudeva Reddy for A.P.S.R.T.C Head Note: \n? Cases referred:\n1. Air 1997 Sc 481 \n2. 2014(1) Decisions Today 122 \n3. 1965 (1) All.E.R. 563\n4. 1963 (2) All.E.R. 432\n5. 1969 (1) All.E.R 555\n6. 1995 Acj 366 (Sc) Ca Nos.1799 & 1800 of 1989 with Slp (Civil) 4586 of \n\n7. (2011)8 Scc 142 \n8. (1988) 3 Scc 1 \n9. (2009) 1 Scc 558 \n10. Air 2003 Sc 1446 = (2003)3 Scc 97 \n11. 2001 (8) Scc 197 \n12. 2013(4)Alt 35(Sc) \n13. 2014(6) Ald 281 \n14. 2009 Acj 1298 Honourable Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao M.A.C.M.A.No.380 of 2008 & Cross Objections (Sr) No.9366 of 2008 Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 140,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 166,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 246,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 294,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 315,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 782,
"end": 800,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 17-07-2007\n\nCoram :\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice A. Kulasekaran\n\nWp No. 14832 of 2007\nand\nM.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007\n\n\nC. Augustine Jacob\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner \n\n\n\t\t\t\tVersus\n\n\n1. The Union of India\n rep. By its Secretary\n Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport\n and Highways\n New Delhi\n\n2. The Competent Authority &\n Special District Revenue Officer (La)\n National Highways\n Kancheepuram and Thiruvallur District\n Kancheepuram\n\n3. The Special Tahsildar\n Land Acquisition\n National Highways\n Tahsildar's Office\n Poonamallee\n Chennai \u0016 600 056\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\n\n \tPetition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorari as stated therein.\n\n\tFor Petitioner \t:\tMrs. Hema Sampath, Senior Counsel\n\t\t\t\tfor Mr. S. Packiaraj\n\n\tFor Respondents :\tMr. P. Wilson, Asst. Solicitor General\n \t\t\t\tfor Rr1 & 2\n\t\t\t\tMrs. Bhavani Subbarayan\n\t\t\t\tGovernment Advocate for R3\n\n\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 114,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 187,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 244,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 497,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 506,
"end": 617,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 792,
"end": 804,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 833,
"end": 845,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 870,
"end": 879,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 931,
"end": 949,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1243 Of 2007\n\nAbdul Sayeed ... Appellant\n Vs.\nState of Madhya Pradesh ...Respondent\n\n With\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1399 Of 2008\n\nRafique ... Appellant\n Vs.\nState of Madhya Pradesh ...Respondent\n\n And\n\n Criminal Appeal Nos.1363-1365 Of 2010\n\nRais @ Toun & Ors. ...Appellants\n Vs.\n\nState of Madhya Pradesh ....Respondent\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 159,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 271,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 394,
"end": 401,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 495,
"end": 518,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 646,
"end": 657,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 751,
"end": 774,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Ashu Garg,\nJudge, Small Cause Court - cum- Addl. Senior Civil Judge - cum-\n Guardian Judge - cum - Metropolitan Magistrate (New Delhi),\n Patiala House Courts, New Delhi\n\n\nCc No. 134A/09\nUnique Case Id No. 02403R0759082005\n\n\nDate of Institution: 29.01.2003\nDate of reserving judgement: 30.08.2014\nDate of pronouncement: 18.09.2014\n\n\nIn re:\n\nSh. Ram Kishan Gupta\nS/o. Late Sh. J. P. Gupta\nR/o. G-60, East of Kailash,\nNew Delhi ... Complainant\n\n versus\n\nSmt. Nisha Gupta\nW/o. Sh. A. K. Gupta\nR/o. 7277, Sector-D, Pocket-7,\nVasant Kunj, New Delhi ... Accused\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 202,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 404,
"end": 420,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 565,
"end": 576,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon\n\n Friday, The 12Th Day Of April 2013/22Nd Chaithra 1935\n\n WP(C).No. 27844 of 2012 ()\n ---------------------------\n\nPetitioner :\n---------------------\n\n K.Natarajan\n State Information Commissioner (Under Suspension)\n Kerala State Information Commission\n Residing At 'Geethas', Vra-175, Mannamoola\n Peroorkkada, Thiruvananthapuram.\n\n By Senior Advocate Sri. K.R.B. Kaimal\n By Adv. Sri.Thirumala P.K. Mani\n Sri.B.Unnikrishna Kaimal\n\nRespondent :\n-----------------------\n\n State Of Kerala\n Represented By The Chief Secretary To Government Of Kerala\n Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001.\n\n By Advocate General Sri. K.P. Dandapani\n By Govt. Pleader Sri. Roshan D. Alexander\n\n\n This Writ Petition (Civil) Having Been Finally Heard On 14/02/2013,\n The Court On 12-04-2013 Delivered The Following:\n\n\nMn\n\n\n ...2/-\n\f\nWP(C).No. 27844 of 2012 ()\n\n\n Appendix\n\nPetitioners' Exhibits :\n\nExhibit P1: True Copy Of The Notification Go (Ms) No.54/2011/Gad Dated\n 21.2.2011, Published In Kerala Gazette Extraordinary Dated\n 21.2.2011.\n\nExhibit P2: True Copy Of The Representation Dated 8.11.2012 Submitted By\n The Petitioner To The Governor Of Kerala.\n\nExhibit P3: True Copy Of The Order No.Gs4-1847/12 Dated 9.11.2012 Issued By\n The Governor Of Kerala.\n\nExhibit P4: Copy Of The Letter No. Gs4-1847/12 Dated 9-11-2012 From The\n Secretary To The Governor Of Kerala Addressed To The\n Resident Commissioner, Kerala House, New Delhi.\n\nExhibit P5: Copy Of The Letter No. Gs4-1847/12 Dated 9-11-2012 From The\n Secretary To The Governor Of Kerala, Addressed To The\n Secretary General Of The Supreme Court.\n\nExhibit P6: Copy Of The Report No. Gs4-1847/12 Dated 9-11-2012 From The\n Governor Of Kerala To The Hon'Ble Supreme Court.\n\nExhibit P7: Copy Of The Letter No. 968/Rc.Law/1/2012 Dated 20Th Nov, 2012 Of\n The Resident Commissioner, Govt. Of Kerala, New Delhi\n Addressed To The Secretary To Governor Of Kerala.\n\nExhibit P8: Copy Of The Ext.P-6 Acknowledged By The Registry Of The\n Supreme Court Enclosed With Ext.P-7.\n\nExhibit P9: Copy Of The Letter D No. 9321/2012/Sc/Sec.111-A Dated 20-11-2012\n Of The Registrar Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Addressed To\n The Secretary To Governor Of Kerala.\n\nRespondents' Exhibits : Nil\n\n //True Copy//\n\n\n\n P.A. To Judge\n\nMn\n\f\n\n\n \"Cr\"\n P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.\n ....................................................\n W.P.(C). No. 27844 of 2012\n ......................................................\n Dated this the 12th day of April, 2013\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 162,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 427,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 675,
"end": 688,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 713,
"end": 732,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 760,
"end": 780,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 832,
"end": 847,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1009,
"end": 1023,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1058,
"end": 1077,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3185,
"end": 3207,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Vinod Kumar Meena, Civil \nJudge\u00ad02 New Delhi District, Patiala House \nCourts, New Delhi\n\nAtma Parkash Vs Mirza Riaz Ali\nCase Id No. : 02403R1068502008\nCc No. : 476/12\nDate of Institution : \nof the Complaint : 30.07.2008\nName and address \nof Complainant : Atma Parkash s/o Chander Kishan\n r/o 370 A/2, Chirag Delhi,\n New Delhi\u00ad110017 \n\nName, parentage and \naddress of the accused : Mirza Riaz Ali s/o M. Z. Ali\n r/o D\u00ad2, Mcd Colony, Usmanpur\n Delhi\u00ad110053.\nOffence Complained of : U/s 138 of Negotiable \n Instruments Act, 1881\n\nOffence Proved : No\nPlea of the Accused in his \nexamination. : Pleaded Not guilty, no legal liability.\nDate of reservation of\nOrder : 30.04.2014\nFinal Order : Acquitted\nDate of Order : 19.05.2014 \nPolice Station : Connaught Place\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 132,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 151,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 398,
"end": 410,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 592,
"end": 606,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Rca No.125/2014: \"Bhawani Shankar V/s Surender Kumar & Ors.\" Dod: 26.08.2014\n\n\n In The Court Of Vinod Yadav: Addl. District Judge\u00adI:\n South\u00adWest District: Dwarka Courts: New Delhi\n Regular Civil Appeal No.125/2014\nUid No.: 02405C0127042014\nIn the matter of:\n\nShri Bhawani Shankar,\nS/o Late Shri Madan Lal Aggarwal,\nProprietor of M/s Shankar Cloth Emporium,\nA shop in property No.RZ\u00ad1/2, \nRaj Nagar Part\u00adI, Palam Colony, New Delhi\u00ad110 045.\n .....Appellant\n (Through Shri K.C Maini, Advocate)\n\n Versus\n\n1. Shri Surender Kumar,\n S/o Late Shri Nafe Singh,\n R/o Village Palam, New Delhi\u00ad110 045.\n\n2. Shri Joginder Singh,\n S/o Late Shri Nafe Singh,\n R/o Village Palam, New Delhi\u00ad110 045.\n\n3. Shri Praveen Kumar,\n S/o Late Shri Nafe Singh,\n R/o Village Palam, New Delhi\u00ad110 045.\n\n4. Shri Sunil Kumar,\n S/o Late Shri Nafe Singh,\n R/o Village Palam, New Delhi\u00ad110 045.\n .....Respondents\n (Through Shri Sushil Ahlawat, Advocate)\n\nDate of Institution of Appeal : 16.05.2014\nDate of reserving judgment : 26.08.2014\nDate of pronouncement : 26.08.2014 \n\nRca U/s 96 Cpc: \"Rca Dismissed\" Page 1 of 15\n Rca No.125/2014: \"Bhawani Shankar V/s Surender Kumar & Ors.\" Dod: 26.08.2014\n\n\n Appeal U/s 96 Cpc Against The Impugned Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 34,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 53,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 151,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 239,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 356,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 718,
"end": 727,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 825,
"end": 839,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 941,
"end": 955,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1057,
"end": 1070,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1172,
"end": 1183,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1462,
"end": 1476,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1876,
"end": 1891,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1896,
"end": 1910,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'Ble Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti \n\nCivil Revision Petition No.433 of 2016\n\n20-12-2017 \n\nDhulipalla Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioner\n \nKandula Govardhan Rao S/o Pullaiah and Another. Respondents \n\nCounsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Subba Rao\n\nCounsel for Respondent : Sri Y.Narapa Reddy \n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n\n2004 (6) Scc 415 \n(2002) 7 Scc 559 \n2006(1) Ald 16 \n2008(3) Supreme Court Cases 717 \n(2005) 13 Scc 89 \n(2009) 10 Scc 84 \n2013 (1) Ald 1 (Sc) \n\nThe Honble Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti \n\nCivil Revision Petition No.433 of 2016\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 133,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 202,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 289,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 335,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 547,
"end": 565,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nR. N. Nanjundappa\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nT. Thimmiah & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 64,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "a\n\n\n\n\n I\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The h1D\n 02\n Day Of December 2011\n\n Present\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice D V Shylendra Kumar\n\n And\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice C R Kumaraswamy\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1662/2006\n\n Between:\n State Of Karnataka\n By The Sub-Inspector\n Of Pouce, Chamarajanagar\n Town Pouce Station,\n Chamarajanagar\n Appellant\n (By Sri P. M. Nawaz, Addl. Spp.)\n\n And:\n\n 1. Amjad Khan @ Amjad,\n Son Of Habeeb Ulla Khan @ Habeeb,\n Aged About 22 Years,\n No. 12/12, Iii Cross,\n K. P. Mohalla,\n Chamarajanagar Town.\n\n 2. Zakir Khan @ Zakir,\n Son Of Sardar Khan,\n Aged About 35 Years,\n No. 12/21, Iii Cross,\n K. P. Mohalla,\n Chamarajanagar Town.\n\n ci\n\n\n\n\ntJ\n I El\n\n\n 'p.\n\n\n\n\n 3. Zubera,\n Son Of Sadna Ulla,\n Aged About 20 Years,\n I Cross, K. P. Mohalla,\n Chamarajanagar Town.\n\n 4. Fairoz \u00a9 Munna,\n Son Of Abdul Wahab \u00a9 Wahab,\n Aged About 28 Years,\n No. 12/239, I Cross,\n K. P.Mohalla,\n Chamarajanagar Town.\n\n 5. Afsar,\n Son Of Abdul Wahab \u00a9 Wahab,\n Aged About 24 Years,\n No. 12/239, Iii Cross,\n K. P. Mohalla,\n Chamarajanagar Town.\n\n 6. Zaka Ulla,\n Son Ofabdulwazeersab\n Aged About 38 Years,\n I Cross, K. P. Mohalla,\n Chamarajanagar Town.\n\n 7. Zakria,\n Son Of Abdul Subhan,\n Aged About 28 Years,\n K. P. Mohalla,\n Chamarajanagar Town.\n\n 8. Sana Ulla,\n Son Of Abdul Wazeer Sab,\n Aged About 42 Years,\n I Cross, K. P. Mohalla\n Chamarajanagar Town\n\n 9. Mohammed Asgar \u00a9 Wahab,\n Son Of Abdul Wahab \u00a9 Wahab,\n Aged About 37 Years,\n No. 12/239, I Cross,\n (di\n 4%\n\n\n\n 3\n\n\n K. P. Mohalla,\n Chamarajanagar Town.\n\n 10. Mohammed Parikh,\n Son Of Mohammed Asgar\n @ Asgar,\n Aged About 20 Years,\n No. 12/239, I Cross,\n K. P. Mohalla,\n Chamarajanagar Town.\n\n 11. Syed Zabi Ulla,\n Son Of Syed Ibrahim,\n Aged About 34 Years,\n I Cross, K. P. Mohalla,\n Chamarajanagar Town. ... Respondents\n (By Sri N. V. Vijay, Adv. For Ri To Ru)\n\n This Criminal Appeal Is Filed Under\n Section 378 (1) And (3) Of The Code Of Criminal\n Procedure Against The Judgment And Order Of\n Acquittal Dated 29.04.2006 Passed By The\n Learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court,\n Chamarajanagar In S. C. Nos. 146/2004, 364/2004,\n 420/2004 And 36/2005 Thereby Acquitting The\n Respondents -Accused For The Offences\n Punishable Under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148,\n 120 (B) And 302 R/W 149 I. P. C. And Sections 3\n And 25 Of The Arms Act.\n\n\n This Criminal Appeal Coming On For Final\n Hearing This Day, Kumaraswamy J., Delivered\n ThE Following:\n Li\n 4\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 62,
"end": 98,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 318,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 412,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 492,
"end": 510,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 703,
"end": 714,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 756,
"end": 774,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 962,
"end": 980,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1255,
"end": 1261,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1409,
"end": 1423,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1603,
"end": 1608,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1791,
"end": 1800,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1950,
"end": 1956,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2097,
"end": 2106,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2258,
"end": 2280,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2549,
"end": 2564,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2755,
"end": 2769,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2932,
"end": 2943,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nUjagar Prints Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India & Ors. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 64,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nV. Tulasamma & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nV. Sesha Reddi (Dead) By L. Rs.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 65,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Liv Addl., City Civil & Sessions\n Judge At Bangalore City (Cch-55)\n\n Dated this the 14th day of September 2015\n\n Present: Smt.Vijayalaxmi S.Upanal, M.A., Ll.M.,\n Liv Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Banglore City\n\n S.C.No.472/2012\n\nComplainant State by Jalahalli Police,\n Bangalore City.\n (By Learned Public Prosecutor)\n\n -Vs -\n\nAccused Anuj Arya,\n S/o.Surendra Singh Arya, 28yrs,\n R/at. No.E-23,\n Sri Ramasadana Apartment,\n Gokula Post,\n Bangalore-54.\n\n Permanent resident of:\n\n No.H.110, Sector-22,\n Noida,\n Uttar Pradesh.\n\n (By Sri.R.L.N.-Advocate)\n\n\n1. Date of commission of offence 19-10-2011\n2. Date of report of occurrence 01-02-2012\n 2 S.C.No.472/2012\n\n\n\n\n 3. Date of arrest of Accused\n Date of release of Accused Accused\n Period undergone in custody by On Bail\n Accused\n 4. Date of commencement of evidence 12-12-2012\n 5. Date of closing of evidence 17-03-2015\n 6. Name of the complainant Victim/\n prosecutrix\n 7. Offences complained of Sections 376,\n 420 of Ipc\n 8. Opinion of the Judge Accused is\n convicted\n 9. Order of sentence As per the final\n order\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 94,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 187,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 344,
"end": 349,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 518,
"end": 527,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 916,
"end": 931,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar And Honble Sri Justice P.Keshava Rao \n\nCriminal Appeal No.560 of 2011 \n\n10-11-2017 \n\nArjun Prasad Chowdary.....Appellant\n \nState of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its P.P... Respondent Counsel for Petitioners : Smt R.Raghamma Counsel for Respondent :Public Prosecutor Head Note : \n?Cases referred :\n Air 1959 Sc 1012 2.2015(2) Ald (Crl) 533 (Sc) Honble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar And Honble Sri Justice P.Keshava Rao Criminal Appeal No.560 of 2011 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 71,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 163,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 210,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 281,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 448,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 472,
"end": 485,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDate: 28-04-2009\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mrs. Justice Prabha Sridevan\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam\n\nC.M.A.No.4145 of 2005\nand\nCross Objection No.11 of 2006\nand\nC.M.P.No.20229 of 2005\n\nThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.\nMotor Third Party Cell, No.46,\nMoore Street, Regina Mansion\nChennai 1\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\nVs. \n\n1.\tEr. K. Jothilingam \n\n2.\tJ. Nitya Janani(minor)\n\n3.\tD. Balaraman\n\n\n4.\tB. Kanniammal \n(2nd Respondent, minor, rep. by \nher father and next friend the 1st \nrespondent.) All are residing at\nNo.M4A, Mig Flats, Lattice Bridge\nRoad, Tiruvanmiyur, Chennai \t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\n\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal against the decree and judgment dated 29th day of August, 2005 made in M.C.O.P.No.1150 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Court of Small Causes) of Madras.\n\n\t\t\tFor appellant \t:: Mr. S. Manohar\n\n\t\t\tFor respondents\t:: Mr. N.M. Muthurajan \n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 114,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 161,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 279,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 400,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 427,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 445,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 464,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 888,
"end": 898,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 926,
"end": 941,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Harjinder Singh\n v.\n Punjab State Warehousing Corporation\n (Civil Appeal No. 587 of 2010)\n January 05, 2010\n [G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, Jj.]\n 2010 (1) Scr 591\n\n The following Order of the Court was delivered\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 15,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 101,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 229,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 252,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Vbc 1/24 Pil90.12-2.7\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Appellate Side\n\n\n\n\n \n Public Interest Litigation No.90 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n Nitin Shankar Deshpande. ...Petitioner.\n Vs.\n\n\n\n\n \n The President of India & Ors. ...Respondents.\n ....\n Mr.Ashish N.Mehta for the Petitioner.\n Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr.M.S.Karnik for \n\n\n\n\n \n Respondent Nos.1 to 4.\n Dr.Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr.N.V. \n \n Walawalkar, Senior Advocate and Mr.Vikrant Walawalkar i/b. \n Mr.P.S.Dani for Respondent No.5.\n Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior \n \n Advocate i/b. Mr.P.J. Thorat for Respondent No.6.\n Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr.Zaal Andhyarujina, \n Mr.Farid Karachiwala and Mr.Bhavik Manek i/b. Wadia Ghandy & \n Co. for Respondent No.7.\n \n\n\n Mr.Amit Borkar with Mr.Akshay P.Shinde for Respondent No.8.\n Mr.Srihari Aney, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vineet Naik and \n \n\n\n\n Ms.Deepa Ahuja for Respondent No.9. \n Mr.Syed Ejaz Abbas Naqvi for Intervenor Samajwadi Legal Sabha \n (Cell). \n\n\n\n\n\n .....\n Coram : Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud And\n R.D.Dhanuka, Jj. \n July 2, 2012. \n\n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 135,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 452,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 614,
"end": 632,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 940,
"end": 962,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 995,
"end": 999,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1038,
"end": 1048,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1081,
"end": 1101,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1117,
"end": 1125,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1154,
"end": 1164,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1190,
"end": 1206,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1269,
"end": 1280,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1309,
"end": 1322,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1356,
"end": 1375,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1385,
"end": 1402,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1410,
"end": 1422,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1495,
"end": 1506,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1515,
"end": 1530,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1559,
"end": 1573,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1607,
"end": 1620,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1648,
"end": 1659,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1689,
"end": 1710,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1856,
"end": 1871,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1927,
"end": 1938,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nHarakchand Ratanchand Banthia And Ors.\tEtc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 41,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 89,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n\n Judgment reserved on: 22.05.2012\n% Judgment delivered on: 01.06.2012\n\n\n+ W.P.(C) 11271/2009\n\n\n Registrar Of Companies & Ors ..... Petitioners\n Through: Mr. Pankaj Batra, Advocate.\n versus\n\n\n Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta and\n Ms. Shikha Soni, Advocates.\n\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 46,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 231,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 329,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 400,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 487,
"end": 508,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 555,
"end": 566,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 622,
"end": 634,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 M.Cr.C. No.1869/2012\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Bench At Gwalior\nDivision Bench:\n Hon. Shri Justice S.K. Gangele\n &\n Hon. Shri Justice Rohit Arya\n\n\n Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1869/2012\n\n\n.........Applicant:\n Nishant Kumar Jha\n\n\n Versus\n.......Respondents\n State of M.P. and another\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri Yogesh Chaturvedi, Advocate for applicant.\nShri Prabal Solanki, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State.\nShri N.S. Kirar, Advocate for respondent No.2/complainant.\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nDate of hearing : 05/11/2014\nDate of order : 26/11/2014\nWhether approved for reporting : Yes\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 128,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 198,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 303,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 431,
"end": 448,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 558,
"end": 571,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 678,
"end": 695,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 726,
"end": 740,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 792,
"end": 802,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 819 of 2005()\n\n\n1. Asokan, S/O. Thankappan,\n ... Petitioner\n2. Lekha, D/O. Shyamala,\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Dy. Superintendent Of Police,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.K.Ramakumar (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Basheer\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S.Gopinathan\n\n Dated :04/06/2009\n\n O R D E R\n A.K.Basheer & P.S.Gopinathan, Jj.\n ==================================\n Crl.A.No.819 of 2005\n ==================================\n Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009.\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 77,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 142,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 208,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 290,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 341,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 425,
"end": 436,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 461,
"end": 475,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 527,
"end": 538,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 541,
"end": 555,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl Rev Pet No. 4423 of 2006(C)\n\n\n1. Jose Maveli, Director,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Represented By The\n ... Respondent\n\n2. K.Babu, S/O.Vijayan,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.B.S.Swathy Kumar\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.Hema\n\n Dated :13/04/2007\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 90,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 189,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 264,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 333,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 412,
"end": 418,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ajay Goel: Additional District\n Judge-12(Central):Delhi.\n\nCs-266/10\nIn the matter of:\nM/s. Puran Chand & Co.,\n(A Partnership Firm)\nAt 3112, Gali Taksalian,\nBazar Sitaram, Delhi-110006.\n(Through its Partners\nSmt. Pushpa Wati & Smt. Rama Gupta) ......Plaintiff.\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n 1. (a) Sh. Rajneesh Jain\n S/o Late Sh. Madan Gopal Jain\n R/o 68, Kapil Vihar,\n Pitampura, Delhi.\n\n (b) Smt. Neelam Jain\n D/o Late Sh. Madan Gopal Jain\n R/o B. K.- 86, Shalimar Bagh (W), Delhi.\n\n (c) Smt. Sadhana Jain\n D/o Late Sh. Madan Gopal Jain\n R/o G-77, Ashok Vihar,\n Phase-I, Delhi.\n (Defendant No. 1 (a) to 1 (c) are LRs of\n Late Sh. Madan Gopal Jain,\n S/o Late Sh. Balak Ram Jain)\n\n (Defendant No. 1 (a) to 1 (c) have been deleted vide\n order dated 19.08.2013\n\n 2. (a). Sh. Rakesh Kumar Jain\n\nCs-266/2010 Page:-1/43\n S/o Late Sh. P. D. Jain\n R/o C-405, Defence Colony,\n New Delhi.\n\n (b ) Sh. Pankaj Kumar Jain\n S/o Late Sh. P. D. Jain\n R/o 405, Kucha Brij Nath,\n Chandni Chowk, Delhi.\n\n (c) Smt. Anita Jain,\n D/o Late Sh. P. D. Jain,\n R/o 2/2418, Gill Colony,\n Sahranpur, U. P.\n\n (d) Smt. Renu Jain\n D/o Late Sh. P. D. Jain,\n R/o Gh-101, Scheem No. 54,\n Indore, M.P.\n\n (e) Smt. Meenakshi Jain\n D/o Late Sh. P. D. Jain,\n R/o A-7, C. C. Colony,\n Delhi-110007.\n (Defendants No. 2 (a) to 2 (e) are LRs of\n Late Sh. P. D. Jain,\n s/o Late Sh. Balak Ram Jain) .....Defendants.\n\n\nDate of filing of suit: 13.10.2010\nDate of assignment to this court: 01.08.2012\nDate of arguments: 21.05.2014.\nDate of decision: 09.07.2014.\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 120,
"end": 137,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 367,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 471,
"end": 482,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 582,
"end": 594,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 902,
"end": 919,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1084,
"end": 1101,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1212,
"end": 1222,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1329,
"end": 1338,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1442,
"end": 1456,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 M.A No.3932/2011\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur\n Misc Appeal No.3932/2011\n\n\nAppellants : Raj Kumar\n And Others.\n\n Vs.\n\nRespondents : Suman\n And Others\n\n\nPresent : Hon'ble Shri Justice R.S. Jha.\nFor the appellants : Shri Ravish Agrawal, Senior\n Counsel with Shri Avinash\n Zargar, Advocate.\nFor respondent nos.1,2 & 3 : Shri Darshan Singh, Advocate.\nFor respondent no.4 : Shri J. P. Sanghi, Senior\n Counsel with Shri Ajay S.K.\n Shukla, Advocate.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 170,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 284,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 377,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 427,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 483,
"end": 526,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 572,
"end": 585,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 642,
"end": 654,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 723,
"end": 781,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 07.01.2010\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.Venugopal\n\nRev.Application Nos.137 to 139 of 2008\nin\nC.R.P. Npd Nos.1095 to 1097 of 2004\n\nM. Jagadeesan\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.... Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t all Rev.Applns.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\tVs\n\nK.Selvam\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t....Respondent in Rev.Appln.137/08 M.Srinivasan ....Respondent in Rev.Appln.138/08 S.Sivanesan ....Respondent in Rev.Appln.139/08 Common Prayer: Review Applications filed under Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code against the order dated 12.02.2008 in C.R.P. (Npd) Nos.1095 to 1097 of 2004. \n\n\t\t\tFor Petitioner : Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan\n\t\t\tin all Rev.Applns. Senior Counsel\n\t\t\t\t\t for Mr.G.Kathirvelu\n\t\t\tFor Respondents : Mrs.R.T.Shyamala\n\t\t\tin all Rev.Applns.\n\nC O M M O N O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 112,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 206,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 281,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 336,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 372,
"end": 383,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 609,
"end": 624,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 684,
"end": 696,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 723,
"end": 735,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\u00ae\nIn The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The Day 11th Day Of October 2012\n\n Present\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ajit J.Gunjal\n And\n The Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice B.V.Nagarathna\n\n M.F.A. No.6950/2007 c/w.\n M.F.A. Nos.6952/2007 & 15422/2007(Mv)\n\nIn M.F.A. No.6950/2007\n\nBetween :\n\nThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,\nNo.67/1, 1st Floor, Reddy Complex,\nWhitefield Road, Mahadevapura Post,\nBangalore - 560 048,\nRepresented by Divisional Office-5,\nInfantry Road, Bangalore - 560 001,\nBy its duly Constituted Attorney. ...Appellant\n\n (By Sri.C.R.Ravishankar, Adv.)\n\nAnd :\n\n1. Sri.Manish Gupta,\n Aged about 36 years,\n S/o.late Kailash Gupta,\n 6th Main Road, 14th Cross,\n Btm 2nd Stage, Bangalore.\n\n2. Sri.Nataraj, major,\n S/o.Sri.C.Rangaswamy,\n Basavanagar,\n -2-\n\n\n\n Virgonagar Post,\n Bangalore District. ...Respondents\n\n (By Sri.Swamy Shivaprakash &\n Sri.Krishnamurthy M.R. Advs. for\n M/s. Esskay Associates for R1)\n . . . .\n\n This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of Mv Act\nagainst the Judgment and Award dated 27.11.2006\npassed in Mvc No.7158/04 on the file of Additional\nJudge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V,\nCourt of Small Causes, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore\n(Scch-05), awarding a compensation of Rs.1,37,000/-\nwith interest at the rate of 6% P.A. from the date of\npetition till date of deposit.\n\n\nIn M.F.A. No.6952/2007\n\nBetween :\n\nThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,\nNo.67/1, 1st Floor, Reddy Complex,\nWhitefield Road, Mahadevapura Post,\nBangalore - 560 048,\nRepresented by Division Office-5,\nInfantry Road, Bangalore-560 001,\nBy its duly Constituted Attorney. ...Appellant\n\n (By Sri.C.R.Ravishankar, Adv.)\n\nAnd :\n\n1. Sri.Muthuramalingam V.,\n Aged about 58 yers,\n S/o.Sri.Venkatachalam,\n Singala Packaging,\n No.32/34, J.K.Industrial Estate,\n -3-\n\n\n\n Begur Road, Bommanahalli,\n Bangalore.\n\n2. Sri.Nataraj, major,\n S/o.Sri.C.Rangaswamy,\n Basavanagar, Virgonagar Post,\n Bangalore District. ...Respondents\n\n (By Sri.Swamy Shivaprakash &\n Sri.Krishnamurthy M.R., Advs. for\n M/s.Esskay Associates for R1)\n . . . .\n\n This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of Mv Act\nagainst the Judgment and Award dated 27.11.2006\npassed in Mvc No.7157/2004 on the file of Additional\nJudge, Member, Mact-V, Court of Small Causes,\nMetropolitan Area, Bangalore (Scch-10), awarding a\ncompensation of Rs.1,96,600/- with interest at the rate\nof 6% p.a. from the date of petition till date of deposit.\n\n\nIn M.F.A. No.15422/2007\n\nBetween :\n\nThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,\nNo.67/1, 1st Floor, Reddy Complex,\nWhitefield Road, Mahadevapura Post,\nBangalore - 560 048,\nRepresented by Divisional Office-5,\nNo.9, Infantry Road,\nBangalore - 560 001\nrep. by its duly constituted Attorney. ...Appellant\n\n (By Sri.C.R.Ravishankar, Adv.)\n -4-\n\n\n\nAnd :\n\n1. Smt.Meera Gupta,\n Aged about 57 years,\n W/o.late Kailash Gupta,\n residing at No.36, 6th Main,\n 14th Cross, Btm Ii Stage,\n Bangalore - 560 076.\n\n2. Sri.Nataraj, major,\n S/o.Sri.C.Rangaswamy,\n Basavanagar,\n Virgonagar Post,\n Bangalore District. ...Respondents\n\n (By Sri.Swamy Shivaprakash &\n Sri.Krishnamurthy M.R., Advs. for\n M/s.Esskay Associates, Advs. for R1)\n . . . .\n\n This M.F.A. is filed under Section 173(1) of Mv\nAct, against the Judgment and Award dated 24.09.2007\npassed in Mvc No.7156/2004 on the file of Member,\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area,\nBangalore, Scch-5, awarding a compensation of\nRs.2,04,000/- with interest at 6% P.A. from the date of\npetition till deposit.\n\n\n These M.F.As. having been heard and reserved,\ncoming on for pronouncement of judgment, this day, Ajit\nJ.Gunjal, J., delivered the following:\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 168,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 238,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 387,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 618,
"end": 633,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 656,
"end": 668,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 788,
"end": 795,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 965,
"end": 983,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 999,
"end": 1012,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1535,
"end": 1563,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1794,
"end": 1809,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1832,
"end": 1850,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2043,
"end": 2050,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2187,
"end": 2205,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2221,
"end": 2239,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2733,
"end": 2761,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3002,
"end": 3017,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3074,
"end": 3085,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3231,
"end": 3238,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3372,
"end": 3390,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3406,
"end": 3424,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3950,
"end": 3963,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 15..04..2009\n\nC O R A M\n\nThe Honourable Mrs. Justice Prabha Sridevan\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice T.S. Sivagnanam\n\nC.M.A. Nos.2871 and 2872 of 2004\n\n\tD. Nagappan\t\t \t \t\t\t.. Appellant \n\n \tversus\n\n\tT. Virgin Rani\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondent \n- - - - -\n\t For Appellant : Mr. K.P. Gopalakrishnan\n\n\t For Respondent : Mr. V. Raghavachari for Mr. Krishnamoorthy\n - - - - -\nPrayer : Appeals against the judgment and decree dated 16.6.2004 made in F.C.O.P. Nos.674 of 1997 and 623 of 1995 respectively on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.\n- - - - -\nJ U D G M E N T \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 119,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 166,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 214,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 273,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 357,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 404,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. R.K. Gauba: District & Sessions \n Judge (South District) Saket: New Delhi\n\n\n(I) Criminal Revision No. 170/13\n Id No.: 02406R0137432013 \n\nSachin Sehgal \ns/o Sh. Jagdish Sehgal\nR/o C\u00ad1004, Sispal Vihar, \nSector\u00ad49, Sohna Road, \nGurgaon, Haryana. .... Petitioner.\nVersus\n\nThe State (Nct of Delhi). .... Respondent.\n\n(Ii) Criminal Revision No. 215/13\n Id No.: 02406R0180232013 \n\nRohit Gupta \nson of Sh. Raja Ram Gupta\nR/o H. No. 18, Chinar Drive,\nDlf Chhattarpur, \nNew Delhi. .... Petitioner.\nVersus\nThe State (N.C. T. of Delhi)\nNew Delhi. .... Respondent \n\n\nInstituted on: 31.05.2013 & 17.07.2013 respectively.\nJudgment reserved on: 15.01.2014 \nJudgment pronounced on: 15.01.2014\n\n\nCrl. Rev. Nos. 170/2013 & 215/2013 Page No. 1 of 19\n J U D G M E N T \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 99,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 187,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 362,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 489,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 646,
"end": 680,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti \n\nCivil Revision Petition No.994 of 2012\n\n22-04-2014 \n\nThe National Insurance Companu Ltd., Rep.by its Divisional Manager,\nVisakhapatnam...Petitioner\n\nYeliminti Appanna and another...Respondents \n\nCounsel for the Petitioner:Sri T.Ramulu\n\nCounsel for Respondents:None Appeared. \n\nHead Note: \n\n?Cases referred:\n\n 2007 Acj 1897 \n C.R.P.No.3488 of 2011, dated 04.02.2013 (Aphc) \n 2004 Acj 1996 \n 2009 Acj 1937 \n 2013 (6) Ald 226\n\n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 142,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 220,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 288,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 22/07/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M. Karpagavinayagam\n\nCrl.R.C. No.412 of 2001\n\n\nS.P. Shenbagamoorthy .. Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1. Mr.Mu.Ka. Stalin\n\n2. The Director,\n Directorate of Vigilance and\n Anti-Corruption,\n Chennai. ..Respondents\n\n Criminal Revision Case against the order dated 19.3.2001 passed in\nunnumbered C.C.S.R.No.1434 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sessions\nJudge, Chennai.\n\n\n!For Petitioner : Mr. T.K.Sampath for\n Mr. I.S. Inbadurai\n\n^For Respondent-1 : Mr. M. Venkataraman for\n Mr. K. Senthilkumar\n\nFor Respondent-2 : Mr. E. Raja, Addl. P.P.\n\n:O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 114,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 162,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 228,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 309,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 570,
"end": 581,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 652,
"end": 668,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 741,
"end": 749,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Shiv\n\n itxa538.12\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Income Tax Appeal No.538 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n The Commissioner of Income-Tax-11,\n Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,\n Mumbai 400 020 .. Appellant.\n Vs.\n N.G.C. Network (India) P. Ltd.\n\n\n\n\n \n Star House, Dr.E. Moses Road,\n Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011 .. Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. P.C. Chhotaray for the Appellant.\n Mr. Porus Kaka, Senior Advocate i/b Atul Joshi for the respondent.\n ig Coram : S.C. Dharmadhikari &\n A.K. Menon , Jj.\n \n Reserved On : 25Th September, 2014\n\n Pronounced On : 13Th October, 2014\n \n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 111,
"end": 145,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 400,
"end": 486,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 557,
"end": 587,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 806,
"end": 820,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 851,
"end": 861,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 883,
"end": 893,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 954,
"end": 972,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1015,
"end": 1025,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh Ajay Kumar Jain, Presiding Officer: \nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal: South East District/Saket \n Courts/New Delhi\n\n\nSuit No. 637/11 \nFir no. 149/11\nPS\u00adAmbedkar Nagar \nManju & Ors Vs Premchand & Ors \n\n\n Fatal Case\n 1. Smt. Manju W/o Late Sh. Kadam Singh\n 2. Ms. Pooja D/o Late Sh. Kadam Singh\n 3. Ms. Khushboo D/o Late Sh. Kadam Singh\n 4. Smt. Jagvati (mother of deceased)\n\n\n R/o\u00adVillage Teliwala, P.O. Dhainori, \n Tehsil and District Haridwar, Uttranchal\n\n\n Versus \n\n\n1. Sh. Prem Chand S/o Sh. Sumer Singh (driver)\nR/o House no. 1152, Gali no. 29, Block\u00adL\u00ad1, \nSangam Vihar, New Delhi\u00ad110062\n\n\n2. Sh. Sumer Singh S/o Sh. Chhidu Ram (owner)\nR/o House no. 1152, Gali no. 29, Block L\u00adI, \nSangam Vihar, New Delhi\u00ad110062 \n\n\n3. Hdfc Ergo Ansal Plaza, New Delhi \nCorporate office\u00ad6th Floor, Leela Business Park \nAndheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai\u00ad400059\nRegistered office\u00ad Ramon House, H.T.Parekh Marg, 69, \nBackbay Reclamation, Mumbai\u00ad400020\n ......................Respondents\n\nSuit No. 637/11, Manju & Ors Vs Prem Chand & Ors, page 1/22 \n Date of Institution : 26.07.2011 \nDate of reserving judgment/order : 14.03.2014 \nDate of Pronouncement : 18.03.2014 \n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 151,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 211,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 230,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 308,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 353,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 401,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 442,
"end": 449,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 648,
"end": 658,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 773,
"end": 784,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 894,
"end": 915,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1210,
"end": 1215,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1225,
"end": 1235,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Cc No. 5545/1/09 1 28.03.2014\n\n\n\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Kiran Gupta: Senior Civil Judge\u00adCum\u00ad\n Rent Controller: Patiala House Courts: New Delh\n\n\n New Cc No. 5545/1/09 with Old Cc No. 522/1\n Unique Id No. 02403R0461612005\n\n\nDomino Printech India Pvt Ltd\nN\u00ad268, Second Floor,\nGreater Kailash Part\u00ad1\nNew Delhi\u00ad110048 ....... Complainant\n\n\n Versus\n\n1 M/s. Digital Multiforms Ltd.\n 60/1, Village Palodia, Taluka Kalol\n Distt. Mehsana\u00ad382721\n Gujarat\n\nAlso at: Ground Floor, Sutara House\n Bhaikaka Hall, Law Garden\n Ahmedabad\u00ad380006\n Gujarat\n\n2 Mr Surendrabhai Jayanti Kotwal\n Chairman & Managing Director\n M/s Ditigal Multiforms Ltd\n 2\u00adA, Mahavir Society\n Behind Paldi Bus Stop, Paldi\n Ahmedabad 380007\n Gujarat\n\n3 Mr. Nipam Kotwal\n Director\n M/s Ditigal Multiforms Ltd\n 2\u00adA, Mahavir Society\n Behind Paldi Bus Stop, Paldi\n Ahmedabad 380007\n Gujarat\n\n\n\n\nDomino Printech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Digital Multiforrms Ltd. & Ors\n Page 1 of 21\n Cc No. 5545/1/09 2 28.03.2014\n\n\n\n\n4 Ms. Sadguna Surendrabhai Kotwal\n Director,\n M/s Ditigal Multiforms Ltd\n 2\u00adA, Mahavir Society\n Behind Paldi Bus Stop, Paldi\n Ahmedabad 380007\n Gujarat\n\n5 Mr. Nimish Sanjaybhai Bhatt\n Director,\n M/s Digital Multiforms Ltd\n 92, Truxton Road, Dix Hills,\n New Delhi\nAlso at: Ground Floor, Sutara House\n Bhaikaka Hall, Law Garden\n Ahmedabad\u00ad380006\n Gujarat\n\n6 Mr. Bharat Poonamchand Shah\n Director\n M/s Digital Multiforms Ltd\n A\u00ad17, Navrang Tower\n Near Satadhar Cross Road,\n Sun\u00adN\u00adStep Club Road\n Ahmedabad\n\n7 Mr. Anish Arubhai Seth\n Director\n M/s Digital Multiforms Ltd\n Block\u00adD, 5th Floor,\n Asavari Flat, Ramdev Nagar,\n Ahmedabad, Gujarat .................... Accused\n\nDate of institution: 28.02.2005\nDate of arguments : 12.03.2014\nDate of decision : 28.03.2014\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 139,
"end": 219,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 428,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 609,
"end": 632,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 898,
"end": 925,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1132,
"end": 1144,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1320,
"end": 1351,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1361,
"end": 1385,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1619,
"end": 1646,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1656,
"end": 1701,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1825,
"end": 1848,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2101,
"end": 2124,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2306,
"end": 2324,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S.B.Civil First Appeal No. 16/1986-Madan Singh vs. Suraj Kanwar-\n S.B.Civil First Appeal No. 478/2006-Madan Singh vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.\n Judgment dt:11/8/2011\n\n 1/32\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At\n\n Jodhpur\n\n Judgment\n\n\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 64,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 136,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 155,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 427,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nITA.No. 65 of 2008()\n\n\n1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. English Indian Clays Ltd.,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.K.R.Menon,Sr.Counsel, Goi(Taxes)\n\n For Respondent :Sri.A.Kumar\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.N.Ramachandran Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S.Gopinathan\n\n Dated :25/05/2010\n\n O R D E R\n C.N.Ramachandran Nair\n &\n P.S.Gopinathan, Jj.\n = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n I.T.Appeal No.65 of 2008.\n = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010.\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 98,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 197,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 292,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 361,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 387,
"end": 408,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 447,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 493,
"end": 514,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 564,
"end": 578,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4966 of 2016\n===========================================================\nMilli Trust at Stadium Road, P.S.- Madhubani, District Madhubani- 847212 through its Secretary Sarfaraz Reyazi, Son of Md. Reyaz Hussain. \n\n .... .... Petitioner Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n3. The Vice Chancellor of Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. \n\n4. The Registrar, Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Kameshwar Nagar, Darbhanga. \n\n .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :\n For the Petitioner : Mr. P. K. Shahi, Senior Advocate Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-State: Mr. Lalit Kishore, Paag Mr. Piyush Lal, Advocate For the Respondent-Univ. : Mr. Ajay Bihar Sinha, Advocate =========================================================== Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice and Honourable Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 178,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 357,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 449,
"end": 521,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 532,
"end": 611,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 622,
"end": 693,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 819,
"end": 830,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 852,
"end": 863,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 904,
"end": 917,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 928,
"end": 938,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 980,
"end": 996,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1131,
"end": 1144,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nDeath Sentence Ref..No. 2 of 2008()\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n1. Amalraj @ Chandu\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :.\n\n For Respondent :.\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :23/02/2010\n\n O R D E R\n R.Basant & M.C.Hari Rani, Jj.\n *************************\n D.S.R No.2 of 2008 &\n Crl.Appeal Nos.1291/2008 and 268/2010\n ******************************\n Dated this the 23rd day of February 2010\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 99,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 186,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 336,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 375,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 424,
"end": 432,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 448,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\n Bangalore Bench \"A\"\n\n Before Shri N.K.Saini, Accountant Member And\n Shri George George K, Judicial Member\n\n I.T.A. No.453/Bang/2011\n (Assessment Year : 2005-06)\n\nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCir. 11(3), Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore. .... Appellant.\n\n Vs.\n\nM/s. Ge India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.,\nEpip, Phase Ii, Hoodi Village,\nWhitefield, Bangalore-560 066 ..... Respondent.\nPan Aabcg 0559J\n\nAppellant By : Mr. Etwa Munda.\nRespondent By : Mr. K. N. Ganesh.\n\nDate of hearing : 14.2.2012.\nDate of pronouncement : 24.2.2012.\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 187,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 392,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 503,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 665,
"end": 675,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 697,
"end": 709,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 01.12.2006\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.Sathasivam\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.E.N.Patrudu\nand\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.Manikumar\n\nC.R.P.(PD)No.1203 Of 2003\n\n\n= = = = =\n\nM/s.Hi.Sheet Industries,\na partnership firm \ncarrying on business at \n61-D, D.V.Road,\nAmbur Town,\nVellore District.\t\t\t...Petitioner\n\n\n\tVs\n\n\n1. Litelon Limited,\n having its Office at \n No.68, Sipcot Industrial Complex,\n Hosur, \n rep.by its Managing Partner\n S.Gokul.\n\n2. S.Gokul\n\n3. M.Sounthirarajan\n\n4. S.R.Gnanam\n\n5. Supreme Industries Ltd.,\n Raheja Buildings,\n Nariman Point,\n Mumbai, \n rep.by its Chairman\n B.L.Taperia,\n 6/2, Raheja Charlens,\n Nariman Point,\n Mumbai 400 021.\t\t\t...Respondents\n\n= = = = =\n\n\t\t\n\tRevision against the order dated 24.03.2003, made in I.A.No.589 of 2002 in O.S.No.45 of 1996 on the file of Sub-Court, Hosur.\n\n\n- - - - -\nFor petitioner : Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, Senior Counsel for \n\t\t M/s.P.Mani and\tM.Sivakumar.\n\t\t\nFor R1 and R2 : Mr.P.Sheshadri\n\t\t\nFor R3 to R5 : No appearance\n- - - - -\n\n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 109,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 149,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 191,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 255,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 390,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 512,
"end": 519,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 524,
"end": 540,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 545,
"end": 555,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 560,
"end": 583,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 928,
"end": 941,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1017,
"end": 1028,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Illa Rawat : Addl. Sessions Judge \n (North\u00adWest)\u00ad01, Rohini : Delhi\n\n\n(Sessions Case No. 114/13)\nUnique Id case No. 02404R0222842013\n\n\nState Vs. Manoj\nFir No. : 157/13\nU/s : 376/354 Ipc and \n 4 of Pocso Act \nP.S. : Begum Pur\n\n\nState Vs. Manoj \n s/o Sh. Ghasi Ram \n r/o House no. 33\u00ad34, Pkt. 10, \n Sector\u00ad24, Rohini, Delhi. \n\n\n \nDate of institution of case\u00ad 02.08.2013 \nDate on which, judgment has been reserved\u00ad03.12.2014 \nDate of pronouncement of Judgment :\u00ad 03.12.2014\n\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 191,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 211,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 360,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 398,
"end": 403,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": ":1:\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n Dated This The 23Rd Day Of July 2012\n Before\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana\n Criminal Appeal No. 2345/2005 (C)\n C/W Criminal Appeal No. 260/2006(C)\n\nIn Criminal Appeal No. 2345/2005(C)\n\nBetween:\n\nSmt. Hulluramma,\nWife of late Rangappa,\nAged about 75 years,\nResiding at Kerepalya Village,\nSompura Hobli,\nNelamanagala\n(now in Judicial custody) ... Appellant\n\n[By Sri P.M. Siddamallappa for Mylaraiah Assts.,\nAdvocate]\n\nAnd :\n\nThe State of Karnataka by\nDabaspet Police Station,\nNelamangala Taluk,\nBangalore Rural District. ... Respondent\n\n[By Sri G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, Hcgp]\n\n This Criminal Appeal is filed under section 374(2)\nCr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 25.11.2005 passed\nby the P.O., F.T.C - Ii Bangalore Rural District,\nBangalore in S.C. No. 156/2005. Convicting the\nAppellant/ Accused No.2 for the offence P/U/S. 498-A\nand 304-B of Ipc and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of D.P. Act and\nsentencing him for the aforesaid offences etc.,\n :2:\n\n\nIn Criminal Appeal No. 260/2006\n\nBetween:\n\nSri. Venkataramanaiah\nWife of Late Rangappa,\nAged about 29 years,\nResiding at Kerepalya Village,\nSompura Hobli,\nNelamangala\n(now in Judicial custody) ... Appellant\n\n[By Sri P.M. Siddamallappa for Mylaraiah Assts.,\nAdvocate]\n\n\nAnd :\n\nThe State of Karnataka by\nDabaspet Police Station,\nNelamangala Taluk,\nBangalore Rural District. ... Respondent\n\n[By Sri G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, Hcgp]\n\n\n This Criminal Appeal is filed under section 374(2)\nCr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 26.11.2005 passed\nby the P.O., F.T.C-Ii Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore\nin S.C. No. 156/2005. Convicting the\nAppellant/Accused No.1 for the offence P/U/S. 498-A\nand 304-B of Ipc and under Sections 3, 4 & 6 of\nD.P. Act and sentencing him for the aforesaid offences\netc.,\n\n These Criminal Appeals coming on for hearing this\nday, the court delivered the following: -\n :3:\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 173,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 324,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 490,
"end": 508,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 553,
"end": 571,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 681,
"end": 701,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1164,
"end": 1180,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1347,
"end": 1365,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1411,
"end": 1429,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1539,
"end": 1559,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\t\t\t\t\t\nDated: 03/08/2012\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mrs. Justice S. Vimala\n\nC.M.A.(MD)No.167 of 2012\n\nA. Sahaya Jackuline Kiruba,\nD/o. A. Aruland,\nD.No.43, E.B.Road,\nDevakottai Town,\nSivagangai District. \t\t ...... Appellant\n\nVs\n\n1. R. Veerachamy,\n S/o. Ramasamy,\n D.No.3-147-B, Mela Theru,\n V.Kalathur Post,\n Veppanthattai Taluk,\n Perambalur District.\n\n2. C. Jeyaraman,\n S/o. Chinnachamy,\n No.2/56, East Street,\n Seethali Post,\n Kunnam Taluk,\n Perambalur District.\n\n3. M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Company,\n \"Sundaram Towers\",\n No.45 & 46, Whites Road,\n Chennai - 600 014,\n rep. by its Branch Manager. \t ...... Respondents\n\t\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor\nVehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.10.2011 made in\nM.C.O.P.No.19 of 2010 by the Subordinate Judge (Motor Accidents Claims\nTribunal), Devakottai. \t\t\n\n!For Appellant ... Mr. N. Sudhagar Nagaraj\n^For Respondents... Mr. S. Srinivasa Raghavan for R-3\n\t\t\t\t\t - - - - - - -\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 169,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 295,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 426,
"end": 438,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 564,
"end": 595,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 991,
"end": 1010,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1037,
"end": 1059,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 08.09.2010\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mrs.Justice R.Banumathi\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice G.M.Akbar Ali\n\nC.M.A.No.3044 of 2005\n\nUnited India Insurance Company Limited,\nSalem. \t\t\t\t....\tAppellant\n\t\t\t\t\t\nVs.\n\n1. V.Vijayakumar\nrep.by his mother Kalamani\n\n2. V.Kalamani\n\n3. C.Marimuthu\n\n4. T.Rukmani\t\t\t... Respondents\n\n\n\tPrayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the award and decree dated 29.11.2004 made in M.C.O.P.No.428 of 2003 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Coimbatore.\n\n\n\tFor Appellant \t\t: Mr.S.Arunkumar\n\n\tFor Respondents \t\t: Mr.K.Thilageswaran \n\t\t\t\t for Rr.1 and 2\n\t\t\t\t R3 and R.4 \u0016 exparte\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 109,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 153,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 216,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 271,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 313,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 329,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 343,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 645,
"end": 656,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 682,
"end": 697,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 03.12.2010\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice C.T.Selvam\n\nC.M.A.No.274 of 2007\n\n\nR.Ravindran\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.... Appellant\n\nVs\n\nM.Rajamanickam\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.... Respondent\n\n\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of Cpc against the Order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2005 in O.S.No.34 of 2004 on the file of District Judge, Nagappattinam dated 22.09.2006.\n\n\t\tFor Appellant\t:\tMr.V.Bharathidasan\n\t\tFor Respondent\t:\tMr.K.V.Subramaniam, Senior counsel\n\t\t\t\t\t\tfor M.A.Abdul Wahab\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 142,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 184,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 422,
"end": 437,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 460,
"end": 475,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Gagandeep Singh, \n Administrative Civil Judge\u00adCum\u00adArc(North West), \n Rohini Courts, Delhi \nE.No. : 22/10\n\nRam Ratan Singh Namdhari\nS/o. Sh. Atma Singh Namdhari\nR/o. D\u00ad35, Rana Pratap Bagh, \nDelhi\u00ad110 007.\n ...Petitioner\n Versus\n\nSmt. Usha Dave\nW/o. Sh. Mahender Kumar Dave \nR/o. D\u00ad35, Rana Pratap Bagh, \nDelhi\u00ad110 007. \nAlso at :\n6161, Melvin Avenue, \nTrzana, Ca Usa.\n ...Respondent\n\nDate of Institution : 05.06.2010\nDate of Arguments : 17.04.2014\nDate of Judgment : 03.06.2014\n\n\n\n\nE. No. 22/10 Ram Ratan Singh Namdhari vs. Usha Dave 1 \n 2\n\n Application For Eviction Of Tenant Under Section \n 14(1) (d) of Drc Act\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 146,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 187,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 380,
"end": 389,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 797,
"end": 821,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 826,
"end": 835,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honourable Sri Justice T.Sunil Chowdary \n\nCriminal Petition No.7468 of 2017 \n\n25-10-2017 \n\nRajulapati Ankababu, S/o.Madhava Rao Petitioner-A2 \n \nThe State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad Respondent-Compla \n\nCounsel for the petitioner: Sri C.Sharan Reddy\n\nCounsel for the respondent: The Public Prosecutor\n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases Referred: \n1. (2012) 8 Scc 795 \n2. (2014) 15 Scc 521 \n3. (1982) 3 Scc 516 \n4. (1984) 2 Scc 500 : Air 1984 Sc 718 \n5. (1999) 3 Alt 533 \n6. (2004) 4 Scc 584 \n7. (2000) 2 Scc 504 \n8. (2003) 2 Scc 649 \n9. (2014) 8 Scc 273 \n10. 2017 Scc Online Hyd 198 \n11. 2015 (2) Ald (Crl.) 141 (Ap) = 2015 (2) Alt (Crl.) 349 (Ap)\n12. (1976) 4 Scc 572 \n\n\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice T.Sunil Chowdary \nCriminal Petition No.7468 of 2017 \nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 39,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 124,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 195,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 340,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 851,
"end": 867,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\nDated : 2.12.2010\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nCoram\n\t\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice Elipe Dharma Rao\nAnd\t\t\t\t\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.Sasidharan\n\nW.A.Nos. 450 to 457, 395 to 449,, 740 to 753, 1655, 1679 to 1685, 1885 to 1897, 2248 to 2260 & 2292 to 2359\nof 2010 & 1839 to 1842 of 2009 & connected Mps.\n\nW.A.No.450 Of 2010:\n\n\n\nT.A.Sugumaran\t\t \t\t\t : Appellant\t\n\nvs.\n\n1. The Government of Tamil Nadu\n Rep.by its Secretary\n Industries Department\n Fort St. George\n Chennai-600 009.\n\n2. The Commissioner of Sugar\n 696, Anna Salai\n Nandanam\n Chennai-600 035.\n\n3. The Special Officer\n Salem Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.,\n Mohanur\n Namakkal District.\t\t\t \t : Respondents\n\nPrayer In W.A.No.450 Of 2010:-\tWrit appeal against the order dated 9 December, 2009 in W.P.No.25189 of 2009 on the file of this Court.\n\n\n\t\t\tFor appellants : Mr.T.V.Ramanujam\n\t\t\t\t\t Senior Counsel\n\t\t\t\t\t for Mr.T.V. Krishnamachari\n\t\t\t\t\t in W.A.Nos.450 to 457, 395 to 449,\n``````\t\t\t\t\t 740 to 753, 1679 to 1685 & 2292\n\t\t\t\t\t to 2359 of 2010\n\n\t\t\t\t\t Mr.K.Maheswaran\n\t\t\t\t\t in W.A.No.1885 to 1897 of 2010\n\n\t\t\t\t\t Mr.Vijay Narayan\n\t\t\t\t\t Senior Counsel\n\t\t\t\t\t for Mr. R. Pathiban\n\t\t\t\t\t in W.A.No.2248 to 2260 of 2010\n\n\t\t\t\t\t Mr.G.Rajan in \n\t\t\t\t\t W.A.No.1839 to 1842 of 2009\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\tFor Respondents \t: Mrs. Malarvizhi Vijayakumar\n\t\t\t\t Spl. Govt. Pleader for Rr1 and 2\n\t\t\t\t in all W.As.\n\n\t\t\t\t Mrs.G.Thilakavathy for R3\n\t\t\t\t in W.A.Nos.395 to 457/2010 and 1655/2010\n\n\n\t\t --------\n Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 134,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 183,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 383,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 424,
"end": 448,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 554,
"end": 631,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 642,
"end": 735,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 924,
"end": 937,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1177,
"end": 1190,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1288,
"end": 1295,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1378,
"end": 1400,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1487,
"end": 1501,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRP.No. 234 of 1997(F)\n\n\n\n1. P.M.Narayanan\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n1. P.K.Shalima\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.T.A.Ramadasan\n\n For Respondent :Sri.A.Mohamed Mustaque\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R.Raman\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair\n\n Dated :04/09/2008\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 166,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 262,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 319,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 354,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 400,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan And The Hon'Ble Sri Justice S. Ravi Kumar \n\nO.S.A.Nos.16 Of 2015 \n\n28-07-2015 \n\nM/s. Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd.Petitioner \n\nM/s. Sujana Universal Industries Limited. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S. Niranjan Reddy Counsel for respondent: Sri A. Sudarshan Reddy, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-company Head Note: \n?Citations:\n Air 2008 Sc 1797 (2014) 12 Scc 368 1981 Vo. 51 Comp Cases 301 Air 1969 Sc 297 2009 Vol.4 Calcutta High Court Notes 429 (Db) (2014) 6 Karnataka Law Journal 99 2014 Scc Online Bombay 1276 2008 Vol.144 Comp Cases 454 2013 Vol.176 Comp Cases 483 (1985) 58 Cc 156 (Guj (1966) 59 Itr 767 (Sc) (1990) 69 Comp Cas 178 [1988] 11 Qb 518 (1909) Ilr 36 Cal 936 (Fb) (1978) 48 Comp Cas 231 Air 1995 Orissa 249 Air 1974 Sc 1265 (1869) 37 Calif 524 (1972] 42 Comp Cas 386 (Raj) [1974] 44 Comp Cas 496 (Punj (2001) 29 Scl 313 (P&H) (1) 6 Ves. Jun. 714. 734: 31 E.R. 1272, 1282 (1869) 6 Bombay High Court Reports 241 (2003) 113 Com Cases 383 (Mad) (2003) 41 Scl 134 (Delhi) 2014 Scc Online Bom 1276 2010 (4) Ald 116 (2011) 4 Comp. Law. J 279 (Ap) 2003 (113) Cc 85 (Bombay High Court) (2005) 7 Scc 42 : (Air 2005 Sc 4175: 2005 Air Scw 5324 (1990)3 Comp.LJ 322 2009(11) Drj 384 1998 (45) Drj 522 Air 1994 Delhi 1 (1987(47) Comp Cases 1 (1976) 46 Cc 91 (Sc) (2001) 5 Ald 800 2008 Lap 340 2001(4) Scc 534 (2001) 5 Scc 407 (2001)8 Scc 676 (2001) 8 Scc 540 (1964) 7 Scr 539 (1899)2 Qb 158 Judgment in W.P. No.25583 of 2010 dated:31.01.2012 Air 1990 Ap 171 (2004) 8 Scc 579 2003(11) Scc 584 2004(3)Scc 75 (2008) 16 Scc 14 (Order in C.P.No.34 of 2011 dated 24.04.2012) 2001 (107) Comp Cas 401 (1875) 1 Ch D 426, 45 Lj Ch 373 Air 1936 Pc 253 Air 1975 Sc 915 (1993) 3 Scc 161 Judgment of A.P. High Court in C.P. No.24 of 2008 dated 26.04.2010 The Honble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan And The Honble Sri Justice S.Ravi Kumar O.S.A.Nos.16 Of 2015 & 22 Of 2015 Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 77,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 179,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 241,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 303,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 350,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1898,
"end": 1916,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1944,
"end": 1956,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nMfa No. 502 of 1999()\n\n\n\n1. Mathew Joseph\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n1. Janaki\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Raju Joseph\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Mathews Jacob\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.V.K.Bali\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Ramachandran\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Siri Jagan\n\n Dated :23/01/2007\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 83,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 160,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 254,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 306,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 349,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 388,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 425,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl A No. 1407 of 2004()\n\n\n1. Manoj, S/O.Ashokan, Aged 34, Kaniyoli\n ... Petitioner\n2. P.Shaji @ Pondy Shaji, S/O.Nanu,\n3. Kattinavida Suresh, S/O.Govindan,\n4. Valsan, S/O.Kunhiraman, Aged 40,\n5. Sajeevan, S/O.Vasu,\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, To Be Rep. By Public\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.K.S.Madhusoodanan\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\nCoram\n\n\n Dated : 03/12/2004\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 77,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 172,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 205,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 230,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 268,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 329,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 404,
"end": 435,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 475,
"end": 492,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Election Petition No.3 of 2009\n\n (In the matter of an application under Section 80, 80A\n and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951\n calling in question Election of the Returned Candidate,\n namely, Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Lallan Singh from 28-\n Munger, Parliamentary Constituency in the election of\n the member of Lok Sabha from the said Constituency\n election of which was held on 30.04.2009 and result of\n the said election declared on 16.05.2009)\n\n===========================================================\nRam Badan Rai, son of late Bahore Rai, resident of Village- Ramdiri, Tola- Rachiahi Purnatola, P.O.- B.T.P.S., P.S. Matihani, District- Begusarai. \n\n .... .... Petitioner Versus Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Lallan Singh, son of Sri Jwala Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla- 50, Budha Colony, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Budha Colony, District- Patna. \n\n .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Petitioner : Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate. \n\n Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate. \n\n Mr. Pancha Nand Pandit, Advocate. \n\n Mr. Ranjit Kumar Yadav, Advocate. \n\nFor the Respondent : Mr. S.N.P. Sharma, Sr. Advocate. \n\n Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. \n\n =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice V.N. Sinha C.A.V Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 626,
"end": 639,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 804,
"end": 837,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1081,
"end": 1099,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1118,
"end": 1130,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1149,
"end": 1167,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1186,
"end": 1204,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1243,
"end": 1256,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1279,
"end": 1299,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1404,
"end": 1414,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'Ble Sri Justice K.C. Bhanu \n\nCriminal Petition No. 11025 Of 2009 \n\n22-03-2012 \n\nBmw India Private Limited (A1), Building No.8, Tower B, 7th Floor, Dlf Cyber\nCity, Phase 2, Gurgaon - 122001 (Haryana) and four others\n\nThe State of A.P., rep., by its Public Prosecutor and another\n\nCounsel for Petitioner: Sri B. Mayur Reddy\n\nCounsel for Respondent1: Public Prosecutor \n\nCounsel for Respondent 2: Sri A. Ramesh, Senior Advocate \n assisted by Sri C. Raghu\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred\n1) (1972) 3 Scc 661 \n2) 1982 Crl.L.J. 2266\n3) Air 1954 Sc 724 \n4) 1999 Crl.L.J 3909\n5) (2006) 6 Scc 736 \n6) (2008) 11 Scc 670 \n7) 1992 Supp. (1) Scc 335 \n8) Air 1999 Sc 1216 \n9) Jt 2002 (3) Sc 89\n10) Air 1992 Sc 1379 \n11) (2009) 11 Scc 529 \n12) Air 2001 Sc 3014 \n13) (2007) 12 Scc 93 \n14) Air (32) 1945 Privy Council 18\n15) (2003) 2 Scc 649 \n16) (2005) 4 Scc 303 \n17) (2007) 3 Scc 693 \n18) (2008) 5 Scc 662 \n19) (2011) 1 Scc 74 \nThe Hon'Ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu \nCriminal Petition No. 11025 Of 2009 \nO R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 123,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 251,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 341,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 427,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 504,
"end": 512,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1011,
"end": 1020,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Criminal Revision No.544 of 2010\n ======================================================\n Arvind Kumar S/O Late Biyogi Lal Choudhary Residing At Present At 402 Tulip Cooperative Society,Mahada Building No.6,Mahada,Adarsh Nagar Andheri,West Mumbai And Permanent R/O Shahpur,P.S.-Tisiyoti, Dist.- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner/s Versus\n 1. The State Of Bihar\n 2. M/S Ashok Leyland Finance Through Shri Kashi Nath Rai,Branch Manager, Exhibition Road, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan,Dist.-Patna. \n\n .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. G.P.Bimal, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, App. For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate. ====================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi Cav Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 198,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 452,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 461,
"end": 482,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 698,
"end": 707,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 745,
"end": 766,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 807,
"end": 830,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 927,
"end": 947,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 35318 of 2008(D)\n\n\n1. M/S Panopharam, Narayaneeyam,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Union Of India Rep. By Its\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Commissioner Of Central Excise,\n\n3. Commission Of Central Excise,\n\n4. Assistant Commissioner Of Central\n\n5. Superintendent Of Central Excise,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.E.K.Nandakumar\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Tojan J.Vathikulam,Sc,C.B. Excise\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R.Raman\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Q.Barkath Ali\n\n Dated :21/01/2010\n\n O R D E R\n P.R.Raman & P.S.Gopinathan, Jj.\n =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=\n W.P.(C) Nos. 35318 of 2008\n &\n 37168 of 2009\n =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=\n Dated this the 22th day of January, 2010\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 102,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 194,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 285,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 291,
"end": 319,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 358,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 395,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 449,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 488,
"end": 506,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 547,
"end": 556,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 581,
"end": 596,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 644,
"end": 653,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 656,
"end": 670,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Narinder Kumar\n Additional Sessions Judge(Central): Delhi\n\n\nCriminal Appeal No.19/14\nIn the matter of:\u00ad\n\n\nSh. Arun Gupta\nS/o Sh. Babu Ram Gupta, \nR/o 192, IIIrd Floor, Bank Enclave,\nLaxmi Nagar, Delhi\u00ad 92. ....Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nState (Cbi) ....Respondent\n\n\nDate of Institution: 04.06.2014\nDate of Judgment: 22.07.2014\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 153,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Illa Rawat : Addl. Sessions Judge \n (North\u00adWest)\u00ad01, Rohini : Delhi\n\n\n\n(Sessions Case No. 136/13)\nUnique Id case No. 02404R0236602013\n\n\n\nState Vs. Surender \nFir No. : 248/13\nU/s : 354A/354 Ipc \n & 10 Pocso Act 2012\nP.S. : Aman Vihar \n\n\n\nState Vs. Surender\n S/o Sh. Raj Singh \n R/o Rz\u00ad476, Gali no. 9,\n Karan Vihar, Part\u00ad 1st, \n Kirari Suleman Nagar, \n Delhi. \n\n\nDate of institution of case\u00ad 29.08.2013\nDate on which, judgment has been reserved\u00ad 11.09.2014\nDate of pronouncement of judgment :\u00ad 11.09.2014\n\n\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 193,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 215,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 368,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 430,
"end": 438,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Brijesh Kumar Garg: \n Special Judge: Cbi\u00ad01, Central District. Delhi\n\n\nCc No. 1/10 Rc : 58(A)/99\n Ps : CBI/ACB/New Delhi\n U/s : 120\u00adB Ipc r/w sec. 7, \n 13(1) (d) & 13 (2)\n of the P.C. Act and u/s 7 \n and 13(1) (d) r/w\n sec.13(2) of the P.C. Act.\nCbi Vs. 1) Dharam Pal Singh Negi\n S/o Late Shri R.R.Negi,\n r/o 5\u00adD/80, S.F.S.Flats,\n Green View Apartments,\n Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.\n\n\n 2) M.L.Mahajan\n S/o Shri G.M.Mahajan,\n r/o K\u00ad81/D, Sheikh Sarai Phase\u00adII,\n New Delhi. \n \n\n\nDate of Institution : 06.05.2002\nJudgment Reserved : 25.07.2014\nJudgment Delivered : 30.07.2014\n\n\n\n\nCbi Vs. Dps Negi etc., pg 1 of 83 Special Judge, Cbi\u00ad01, Central, Delhi\n 2\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 828,
"end": 831,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 840,
"end": 861,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1051,
"end": 1062,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1427,
"end": 1430,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1435,
"end": 1443,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Illa Rawat : Addl. Sessions Judge \n (North\u00adWest)\u00ad01, Rohini : Delhi\n\n\n\n(Sessions Case No. 141/13)\nUnique Id case No. 02404R0244462013\n\n\n\nState Vs. Parmod Kumar \nFir No. : 344/13\nU/s : 323/354/354\u00adA Ipc and 7/8 Pocso Act \nP.S. : Subhash Place\n\n\n\nState Vs. Parmod Kumar\n S/o Sh. Jai Narayan Yadav \n R/o House No. G\u00ad560, \n Fourth Floor, Shakur Pur, \n Delhi. \n\n\n Permanent resident of \n Village Ram Nagar, \n Police Station Lokhi, \n Distt. Madhubani, Bihar.\n\n\n\nDate of institution of case - 30.08.2013 \nDate on which, judgment has been reserved\u00ad 09.05.2014\nDate of pronouncement of judgment :\u00ad 09.05.2014\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 117,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 192,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 218,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 352,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 425,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWA.No. 1095 of 2009()\n\n\n1. V.V.Varghese,Aged 53 Years,S/O.Baby,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Kerala State Election Commission,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Mrs Annamma Abraham,Kannayil Lijo Villa,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.T.Ramprasad Unni\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Murali Purushothaman, Sc,K.S.E.Comm\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.S.R.Bannurmath\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph\n\n Dated :12/06/2009\n\n O R D E R\n S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. &\n Kurian Joseph,J.\n -------------------------------------------------\n W.A.Nos.1095 & 1096 of 2009\n --------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 81,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 214,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 283,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 359,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 398,
"end": 418,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 468,
"end": 482,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 507,
"end": 520,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 574,
"end": 588,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 621,
"end": 634,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n The Gauhati High Court At Guwahati\n (The High Court Of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya,\n Manipur, Tripura Mizoram And Arunachal Pradesh)\n\n\n\n 1. Misc. Case No.1926 of 2011\n In C.Ex. App. No.1 of 2008.\n\n 2. Writ Appeal No.394 of 2010.\n 3. Writ Appeal No.395 of 2010.\n\n\n1. In Misc. Case No.1926 of 2011\n In C.Ex. App. No.1 of 2008.\n\n\n Applicants :\n 1. M/S. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd.\n (Guwahati and Agartala Units)\n A company incorporated under the provisions\n of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its\n registered office at 4873, Chandni Chowk,\n Delhi - 110006.\n\n 2. Dharampal Premchand Ltd.\n (Agartala Unit)\n A company incorporated under the Companies\n Act, 1956 and having its registered office at\n 1711, S.P. Mukherjee Marg,\n Delhi - 110006.\n\n\n By Advocates :\n Dr. Ashok Saraf, Sr. Advocate,\n Mr. A. Goyal, Advocate.\n\n -versus-\n\n Opp. Parties:\n 1. Commissioner of Central Excise,\n Morello Compound, Mg Road, Shillong.\n\n 2. Commissioner of Central Excise,\n Sethi Building, 5th Floor,\n Bhangagarh, Guwahati, Assam.\n\n\nMc 1926/2011 in C.Ex. App 1/2008,\nWa 394/2010 & Wa 395/2010.\n Page 1 of 30\n 2\n\n\n\n\n By Advocates:\n Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate.\n Mr. R. Dubey, Advocate.\n\n\n\n\n2. Writ Appeal No.394 of 2010\n\n The Union of India and another\n ... .... .... Appellants\n - versus -\n\n M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. & 2 others.\n .... .... .... Respondents.For the Appellants : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate. \n\n Mr. R. Dubey, Advocate. \n\nFor the Respondents : Dr. Ashok Saraf, Sr. Advocate. \n\n Mr. A. Goyal, Advocate.\n3. Writ Appeal No.395 of 2010 The Union of India and another ... .... .... Appellants\n - versus -\n M/S Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. & 2 others. \n\n .... .... .... Respondents. \n\n For the Appellants : Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate. \n\n Mr. R. Dubey, Advocate. \n\nFor the Respondents : Dr. Ashok Saraf, Sr. Advocate. \n\n Mr. A. Goyal, Advocate. \n\n Mc 1926/2011 in C.Ex. App 1/2008, Wa 394/2010 & Wa 395/2010. \n\n\n\n Before Hon'Ble The Chief Justice Mr. A. K. Goel The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice C. R. Sarma Date of hearing : 19.01.2012 Date of judgment : 19.01.2012. \n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 520,
"end": 543,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 857,
"end": 881,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1188,
"end": 1199,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1234,
"end": 1242,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1335,
"end": 1426,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1451,
"end": 1583,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1803,
"end": 1818,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1853,
"end": 1861,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1923,
"end": 1937,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2059,
"end": 2082,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2173,
"end": 2188,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2211,
"end": 2219,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2259,
"end": 2270,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2293,
"end": 2301,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2347,
"end": 2361,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2416,
"end": 2439,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2511,
"end": 2526,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2549,
"end": 2557,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2597,
"end": 2608,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2631,
"end": 2639,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2757,
"end": 2767,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2792,
"end": 2803,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Uttarakhand\n At Nainital\n\n Writ Petition No. 1790 of 2006 (M/S)\nChaman Lal S/o Prasadi Lal ......Petitioner\n Versus\nDistrict Judge, Haridwar and others ...... Respondents.\nPresent:\nMr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.\nMr. Pankaj Purohit, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.\nMr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Lokendra Dobhal and Mr. Ashok\nJoshi, Advocates for the private respondents.\n\n Dated: 20th July, 2017\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 57,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 121,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 238,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 315,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 364,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 424,
"end": 439,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 469,
"end": 484,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 493,
"end": 504,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n\n Date of Reserve: 8th September, 2010\n Date of Order: 15th September, 2010\n+ W.P.(Crl.) No. 80/2010\n% 15.09.2010\n\n Ankur Kumar Jain ... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. R.M. Bagai, Advocate\n\n\n Versus\n\n Cbi ... Respondent\n Through: Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel for Cbi\n with Mr. Suchit Chandra, Advocate\n\n\n\nJustice Shiv Narayan Dhingra\n\n1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to the reporter or not?\n\n3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 363,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 469,
"end": 479,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 522,
"end": 525,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 638,
"end": 649,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 715,
"end": 729,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 751,
"end": 771,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\n ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )\n\t\t\t Dated : 25-01-2002\n\n Friday, the Twenty Fifth day of January Two Thousand Two\n\n Present\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr Justice A.S.Venkatachalamoorthy\n\n Civil Revision Petition No.6922 of 2001 & C.M.P. No.3727 of 2001\n\n V.R.Gopalakrishnan [ Petitioner/S ]\n\n Vs.\n\n Andiammal [ Respondent/S ]\n\n Chinna Perumal\n\n Petition under section 115 of Act V of 1908 praying the\n High Court to revise the Order of the Court of 1st\n Additional District Munsif, Salem, and made in I.A.\n No.709 of 2000 in O.S. No.820 of 1995.\n\n\n\n: \t\t\tOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 295,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 383,
"end": 401,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 483,
"end": 492,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-1-\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba:\n Special Judge (Pc Act) : Cbi - 03 :\n New Delhi District : Patiala House Court :\n New Delhi\nIn re :\n\nCc No. 06/12\nCase Id No. 02403R0031142012\nRc No. 12(A)/2011-DAI/CBI/ACB/New Delhi\nu/Sec. 120B Ipc, Sec. 7 & 13(2)\nr/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of Pc Act\n\nState (Cbi)\nVs.\n1. Samay Singh Meena,\n S/o Late Sh. Kirodi Lal Meena,\n R/o. 382, Dda, Lig Flat Pocket-13,\n Phase-I, Dwarka, New Delhi\n\n Permanent Address :\n Lalpur, Roth Hadiya, Salempur,\n Distt. Dausa, Rajasthan-321608\n\n2. Arvind Kumar Tony,\n S/o Late Sh. Sant Ram Singh\n R/o. Gali No. 5, Nagla Road,\n Mangla Puri, Karnkar,\n Khera, Meerut Cantt.\n\nDate of filing of charge sheet - 27.04.2012\nDate of framing of charge - 21.09.2012\nDate on which arguments concluded- 25.03.2014\nDate on which judgment pronounced- 29.03.2014\n\nAppearances:\nSh. S. C. Sharma, Sr. Ld. Pp for the State (Cbi).\nSh. J. R. Priyani, Advocate for A-1 Samay Singh Meena.\nSh. B. P. Singh, Advocate for A-2 Arvind Kumar Tony.\n\n\nCc No. 06/12 : Rc No. 12A/2011/DAI/CBI/ACB/New Delhi\nCbi Vs. Samay Singh Meena etc. Page No. 1 of 81\n -2-\n\n29.03.2014\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 176,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 340,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 370,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 641,
"end": 658,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1027,
"end": 1039,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1077,
"end": 1090,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1132,
"end": 1143,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1236,
"end": 1239,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1244,
"end": 1261,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 25Th Day Of July, 2013\n\n : Present :\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice N.K. Patil\n\n And\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B.Manohar\n\n M.F.A.No. 4592 Of 2012 (Mv)\n C/W. M.F.A.No. 2048 Of 2012 (Mv)\n\nBetween:\n\nNew India Assurance Co., Ltd.,\nRep. by its Manager,\nMission Road, Bangalore-27.\nRepresenting New India Assurance\nCo., Ltd., Bommasandra,\nBangalore.\n ... Appellant\n\n(By Shri. R.Jai Prakash, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\n 1. Sri. Paary T.T.N,\n S/o. Dr. T.T. Shanmuga Velu,\n Major, G.A. Palmgrove Towers,\n No.19, Palmgrove Road,\n Austin Town,\n Bangalore-47.\n\n 2. Smt. Pramila.N,\n Aged about 38 years.\n\n 3. Kum. M.N. Kavya,\n Aged about 18 years.\n 2\n\n\n\n\n 4. Sri. M.N.Naveen Kumar,\n Aged about 14 years.\n\n 2nd respondent is wife and\n 3rd & 4th respondents are\n Children of one Nagaraju.N,\n As 3rd & 4th respondents are minors,\n Rep. by 2nd respondent.\n\n All are R/at. No.12/57, 4th Cross,\n I Main Road,\n New Kalappa Block,\n Ramachandrapuram,\n Bangalore-21.\n ... Respondents\n\n (By Shri. Viswanath Sabarad, Advocate for R2 to R4;\n Notice to R1 dispensed with v/o. dated 19/02/2013)\n ****\n This Mfa is filed U/S 173(1) of Mv Act against the\nJudgment and Award dated: 05/01/2012 passed in Mvc\nNo.6404/2008 on the file of the Xxii Additional Small\nCauses Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,\nBangalore, awarding a global compensation of `14,04,000/-\nwith interest at 6% p.a.\n\nM.F.A.No. 2048 Of 2012 (Mv)\n\nBetween:\n\n 1. Smt. N. Pramila,\n W/o. Late N. Nagaraju,\n Aged about 37 years.\n\n 2. Kum. M.N. Kavya,\n D/o. Late N. Nagaraju,\n Aged about 17 years.\n\n 3. Master M.N.Naveen Kumar,\n S/o. Late N. Nagaraju,\n Aged about 13 years.\n 3\n\n\n\n\n Appellant Nos. 2 & 3 are minors,\n Rep. by their mother and natural\n Guardian Smt. N. Pramila,\n (I Appellant)\n\n All are R/at. No.12/57, 4th Cross,\n I Main Road,\n New Kalappa Block,\n Ramachandrapuram,\n Bangalore-21.\n ... Appellants\n\n(By Shri. Viswanath Sabarad, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\n 1. The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,\n I Floor, Kiadb Complex,\n Hosur Road, Bommasandra,\n Bangalore.\n By its Manager.\n\n 2. Sri. Paary T.T.N,\n S/o. Dr. T.T. Shanmuga Velu,\n Major,\n No.19, Palm grove Road,\n Austin Town,\n Bangalore-47.\n ... Respondents\n\n(By Shri. R.Jai Prakash, Advocate for R1;\n Notice to R2 dispensed with v/o. dated 21/02/2013)\n ****\n This Mfa is filed U/S 173(1) of Mv Act against the\nJudgment and Award dated: 05/01/2012 passed in Mvc\nNo.6404/2008 on the file of the Xxii Additional Small\nCauses Judge, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,\nBangalore, partly allowing the claim petition for\ncompensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.\n 4\n\n\n\n\n These MFAs coming on for Admission, this day,\nN.K. Patil. J., delivered the following:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 180,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 257,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 388,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 580,
"end": 593,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 623,
"end": 634,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 787,
"end": 796,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 837,
"end": 847,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 923,
"end": 939,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1332,
"end": 1349,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1812,
"end": 1822,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1889,
"end": 1899,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1968,
"end": 1984,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2419,
"end": 2436,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2464,
"end": 2493,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2602,
"end": 2613,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2798,
"end": 2811,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3330,
"end": 3340,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Ashu Garg,\nJudge, Small Causes Court -cum- Addl. Senior Civil Judge -cum-\n Guardian Judge -cum- Metropolitan Magistrate (New Delhi),\n Patiala House Courts, New Delhi\n\nCc No. 102/13\nUnique Case Id No.\n\nDate of Institution: 20.04.2004 [Oldest]\nDate of reserving judgement: 20.09.2014\nDate of pronouncement: 14.10.2014\n\nIn re:\nCommissioner of Customs\nIcd, Tkd, New Delhi ... Complainant\n\n versus\n\nA-1) M/s. Lokesh Garments Pvt. Ltd.\n315, Fie Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi\n\nA-2) Sh. Lokesh Chand Chopra\nDirector, M/s. Lokesh Garments Pvt. Ltd.\n315, Fie Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi ... Accused persons\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 199,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 378,
"end": 421,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 491,
"end": 516,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 570,
"end": 589,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Gauhati High Court\n (The High Court Of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram & Arunachal Pradesh)\n\n\n\n M.F. A. No. 36/2007\n\n\n The Employees State Insurance Corporation and others\n\n .....Appellant\n -Vs-\n\n M/s Sahara India/Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd.\n\n ....Respondents\n\n Before\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Kalyan Rai Surana\n\n\n For the appellants : Mr. S. Roy,\n Ms. B. Sarkar,\n Mr. T. Roy,\n Mr. P. Sen, Advs.\n\n For the respondent : Mr. Sk Borkotody,\n Mr. Sr Rajbongshi, Advs.\n\n Date of hearing &\n judgment : 05.01.2017.\n\n\n\n Judgment & Order\n\n\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 25,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 244,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 448,
"end": 500,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 682,
"end": 699,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 738,
"end": 744,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 782,
"end": 791,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 829,
"end": 835,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 873,
"end": 879,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 924,
"end": 936,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 974,
"end": 987,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice A.M.Shaffique\n\n Friday, The 2Nd Dayof December 2016/11Th Agrahayana, 1938\n\n WP(C).No. 11712 of 2016 (L)\n ----------------------------\n\n\nPetitioner(S):\n----------------------\n\n K. Prasannakumar,\n Kandenkavil House, Marathakkara. P.O.,\n Thrissur, Represented By Power Of\n Attorney Holder A.A. Johar,\n S/O. Anto, Ainikal House, Marathakkara. P.O.,\n Ollur, Thrissur.\n\n\n By Adv. Sri.I.Dinesh Menon.\n\nRespondent(S):\n-------------------------\n\n 1. The Transport Commissioner,\n Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.\n\n 2. The Regional Transport Officer/\n Taxation Officer, Ernakulam - 682 035.\n\n\n By Govt. Pleader Sri.V.K. Shamsudheen.\n\n\n This Writ Petition (Civil) Having Been Finally Heard\n On 11-11-2016, Along With Wp(C). No. 21207 Of 2016 And\n Wp(C).No.34656 Of 2016, The Court On 02/12/2016 Delivered\n The Following:\n\nrs.\n\f\nWP(C).No. 11712 of 2016 (L)\n\n Appendix\n\nPetitioner'S Exhibits:-\n\n\nExhibit-P1: True Copy Of The Judgment In Wp(C).No.6922 Of 2015.\n\nExhibit-P2: True Copy Of The Order Dated 24.03.2015.\n\nExhibit-P3: True Copy Of The Judgment In Wp(C).No.11371 Of 2015.\n\nExhibit-P4: True Copy Of The Order Dated 02.05.2015.\n\nExhibit-P5: True Copy Of The Order Dated 25.06.2015 In\n Wp(C).No. 19132 Of 2015.\n\nExhibit-P6: True Copy Of The Statutory Revision Filed Under Section\n 24 Of The Taxation Act.\n\nExhibit-P7: True Copy Of The Decision Of The R.T.A. Dated 26.05.2015.\n\nExhibit-P8: True Copy Of The Judgment In Wp(C).No. 22210 Of 2015\n Dated 30.07.2015.\n\nExhibit-P9: True Copy Of The Judgment In Wp(C).No.32836 Of 2010\n Dated 21.10.2014.\n\nExhibit-P10: True Copy Of The Order No.B1/18270/Tc/2015 Dated 17.02.2016\n Passed By The First Respondent.\n\n\nRespondent'S Exhibits:- Nil.\n\n\n\n\n //True Copy//\n\n\n P.S.To Judge\n\n\nrs.\n\f\n\n\n A.M.Shaffique, J\n * * * * * * * * * * * *\n W.P.C.Nos.11712, 21207\n &\n 34656 of 2016\n ----------------------------------------\n Dated this the 2nd day of December 2016\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 160,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 424,
"end": 440,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 741,
"end": 755,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 825,
"end": 898,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 926,
"end": 1013,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1059,
"end": 1075,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2467,
"end": 2480,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Xix Addl. City Civil &\nSessions Judge At Bangalore City: (Cch.18)\n Dated this 10th day of September, 2015.\n\n Present\n Smt.K.B.Geetha, M.A., Ll.B.,\n Xix Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bangalore City.\n\n O.S.No.2794/2008\n\nPlaintiffs 1. Sri.K.Mohan @ Manmohan,\n: s/o Sri K.R.Kuppuswamy,\n aged about 54 years,\n r/at Old No.47, New No.176,\n 5th Main Road, Chamarajpet,\n Bangalore-560 018.\n\n 2. Smt.Mallika,\n w/o Sri. K.Mohan @ Manmohan,\n aged about 48 years,\n r/at Old No.47, New No.176,\n 5th Main Road, Chamarajpet,\n Bangalore-560 018.\n (By Sri D.S.Jayaraj,Advocate)\n\n -Vs-\nDefendant : Sri.N.S.Suresh Babu,\n s/o late N.L.Satyanarayana Shetty,\n aged about 45 years,\n r/at No.9,\n West Circle Road,\n V.V.Puram, Bangalore-04.\n\n ( By Sri.VSR, Advocate)\n 2 O.S.No.2794/2008\n\n\n\n\nDate of Institution of the suit : 15/4/2008\n\nNature of the Suit : Specific Performance\n\nDate of commencement of recording\nof evidence : 27/1/2011\n\nDate on which the Judgment was\npronounced : 10/9/2015\n\n\n Year/s Month/s Day/s\n\nTotal Duration : 07 04 25\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 75,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 188,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 359,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 597,
"end": 604,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 845,
"end": 856,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 909,
"end": 924,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1142,
"end": 1145,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\nIn The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n Dated This The 4Th Day Of September, 2014\n Before\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Budihal R.B.\n\n Criminal Petition No.4227/2014\n C/w\n Criminal Petition No.4466/2014\n\nIn Criminal Petition No.4227/2014\n\nBetween:\n\nSri Mallesha\nS/O.Nanjappa,\nAged About 32 Years,\nR/At No.1282, 9Th Main Road,\n5Th Cross Road,\nSrinivasanagar,\nBangalore-560 050.\n ...Petitioner\n\n(By Sri Leeladhar H P., Adv.)\n\n\nAnd\n\nState Of Karnataka\nBy Ccb Police Station,\nWomen And Narcotic Drugs Squad,\nN.T.Pet,\nBangalore-560 002.\n ...Respondent\n\n(By Sri M Narayana Reddy, Spl.Pp)\n\n\n This Crl.P Filed U/S. 439 Cr.P.C By Praying To\nEnlarge The Petr. On Bail In Crime No.183/14 Of\nC.C.B. Police Station, Bangalore City, For The\n 2\n\n\n\nOffences P/U/S 506, 120(b), 384, 389 R/W Sec.34 Of\nIpc.\n\nIn Criminal Petition No.4466/2014:\n\nBetween\n\n1.Smt Nayana Krishna\nAged About 28 Years\nR/At No.103, Rmv Orchid\nSeenappa Layout, Devasandra\nNew Bel Road,\nNear M S Ramaiah Hospital\nBangalore-560036\n\n2.Smt Sona @ Riya @ Dhennka\nD/O Achappa\nAged About 26 Years\nR/At No.9/5, K R Line\nNext To Omshakthi Temple\nJeevana Bhima Nagar\nBangalore-560075\n ...Petitioners\n\n(By Sri Venkata Reddy S K., Adv.)\n\n\nAnd\n\nState Of Karnataka\nBy High Grounds Police\nBangalore-560 001\n(Now Under Investigation By\nM H Sathish, Pi (W & N )\nCcb, N T Pet\nBangalore City)\n ...Respondent\n\n(By Sri M Narayana Reddy, Spl.Pp)\n\n\n This Crl.P Filed U/S. 438 Cr.P.C Praying To\nEnlarge The Petrs. On Bail In The Event Of Their\n 3\n\n\n\nArrest In Crime No.183/14 Of High Grounds P.S.,\nBangalore City, For The Offences P/U/S 506, 120B,\n384 And 389 R/W Sec.34 Of Ipc.\n\n\n These Criminal Petitions Coming On For\nOrders This Day, The Court Made The Following:\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 163,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 326,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 501,
"end": 515,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 530,
"end": 548,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 691,
"end": 707,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1005,
"end": 1019,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1156,
"end": 1177,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1354,
"end": 1372,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1387,
"end": 1405,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1588,
"end": 1604,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n+ W.P.(C) No. 6792/2008\n\n Reserved on: 20th November, 2008\n\n Date of Decision: 16th December, 2008\n\nGmr Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. .....Petitioners\n\n Through: Mr. Arun Jaitley, Sr. Adv. with\n Mr. Atul Sharma and\n Mr. Milanka Chaudhury, Advs.\nVersus\n\nNational Highways Authority Of India & Ors. .....Respondents\n\nThrough: Mr. Dushyant Dave and Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advs. with Mr.\nRavi Kini, Mr. Krishan Kumar, Mr. Sumit Gupta, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Ms.\nMadhuri Diwan and Ms. Padma Priya, Advs. for respondent No. 1/Nhai.\n\n Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Asg with Mr. Gaurav Duggal and Mr. Chetan\nChawla, Adv. for respondent No.2/UOI.\n\nWith\n\n+ W.P.(C) No. 6419/2008\n\nMadhucon Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .....Petitioners\n\n Through: Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv.\n with Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedy, Mr.\n Jeevesh Nagrath and Mr. Mohit\n Chadha, Advocates.\nVersus\n\nUnion Of India & Ors. .....Respondents\n\nThrough: Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Asg with Mr. Gaurav Duggal and Mr. Chetan\nChawla, Adv. for respondent No.1/UOI.\n\nMr. Dushyant Dave and Mr. Ramji Srinivasan, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Ravi Kini,\nMr. Krishan Kumar, Mr. Sumit Gupta, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Ms. Madhuri Diwan\nand Ms. Padma Priya, Advs. for respondent No. 2/Nhai.\n\n\n\nCoram:\n\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice Mukul Mudgal\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Manmohan\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the\njudgment?\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n% Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 218,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 321,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 388,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 421,
"end": 438,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 454,
"end": 490,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 542,
"end": 555,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 569,
"end": 585,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 606,
"end": 615,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 622,
"end": 635,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 647,
"end": 658,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 664,
"end": 676,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 682,
"end": 695,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 704,
"end": 715,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 764,
"end": 781,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 796,
"end": 809,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 818,
"end": 831,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 918,
"end": 945,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1050,
"end": 1063,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1127,
"end": 1145,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1226,
"end": 1282,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1303,
"end": 1317,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1391,
"end": 1408,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1423,
"end": 1436,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1445,
"end": 1458,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1495,
"end": 1508,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1522,
"end": 1538,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1559,
"end": 1568,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1574,
"end": 1587,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1598,
"end": 1609,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1615,
"end": 1627,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1633,
"end": 1646,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1655,
"end": 1666,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1732,
"end": 1744,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1766,
"end": 1774,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": ":1:\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka\n Dharwad Bench\n Dated This The 10Th Day Of August, 2017\n Present\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice A.S.Bopanna\n And\n The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice H.B. Prabhakara Sastry\n M.F.A.No. 21465/2012 (Mv)\n C/w.\n M.F.A.Crob.828/2013 (Mv)\n\nIn Mfa No.21465/2012\n\nBetween:\n\nThe Sr. Dn. Manager,\nThe National Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nRamdev Galli, Belgaum. Now\nRep.By Its Administrative Officer,\nRegional Office, Sujata Complex,\nP.B. Road, Hubballi.\n ... Appellant\n(By Sri. S K Kayakamath, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Laxman Irappa Pavate,\n Age: 53 Years, Occ: Agriculture,\n\n2. Sonakka W/O. Laxman Pavate,\n Age: 45 Years, Occ: Household Work,\n\n3. Jotiba Laxman Pavate,\n Age: 17 Years, Occ: Student,\n\n4. Adiveppa Laxman Pavate\n Age: 15 Years, Occ: Student\n\n (Appellants No.3 And 4 Are Minors,\n Represented By Their Next Friend And\n Father Petitioner No.1, Laxman Irappa Pavate)\n :2:\n\n\n (All Are R/O. Tarihal, Tq. & Dist: Belgaum)\n\n5. Gangaram Adiveppa Pavate,\n Age: Major, Occ: Business,\n R/O. Tarihal, Shivaji Galli,\n Tq & Dist: Belgaum.\n ... Respondents[By Sri. Sanjay S Katageri, Advocate For R1-R4;\n (R3 And R4 Minors Rep.By R1) Sri.M.G.Naganuri, Adv. For R5] This Mfa Is Filed U/Sec.173(1) Of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Against The Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 213,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 296,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 452,
"end": 523,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 686,
"end": 700,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 726,
"end": 746,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 796,
"end": 803,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 875,
"end": 895,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 941,
"end": 963,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1228,
"end": 1252,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1410,
"end": 1427,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1483,
"end": 1495,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n+ Wp (Crl.) 532 Of 2008\n\n\n% Date of Decision: November 14th, 2008\n\n\nSh. Shailender Sharma ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. R.S. Sodhi with Mr. R.S.\n Nirman and Mr. Ajay Kumar,\n Advocates.\n\n Versus\n\nState & Another .... Respondents\n\n Through: Mr. Saleem Ahmed, Asc (Crl.)\n with Mr. Habibur Rehman,\n Advocate for the State.\n\n Mr. Jayant K. Sud with\n Mr. Anupam Mishra and\n Mr. Atul Sahi, Advocates for\n R-2.\n\nCoram:\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice Manmohan\n\n1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes.\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 46,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 187,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 281,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 291,
"end": 350,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 369,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 477,
"end": 482,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 593,
"end": 605,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 674,
"end": 688,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 883,
"end": 896,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 952,
"end": 961,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1057,
"end": 1065,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 27/04/2007\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice A. Kulasekaran\n\nW.P. No. 31283 of 2005\n\n\n\n\n1. Krishnaveni\n\n2. G.Bharanidharan\n\n3. G.Hemamalini\n\n4. G.Ashok Kumar\n\n5. N.Ramasubramani\n\n6. M/s. Sudharsan & Company\n Dealers ~ Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd\n Survey No.39/1A Annadhanapatti \n and\n Survey No.96/2A Kandampatti Village\n at Nh 7\n Salem\n rep. By its Managing Partner \n R. Nandakumar\n 3/57 G\n K.S.V. Nagar\n Salem 4\t\t\t\t\t\t\t ..Petitioners\n\n\n\tVs\n\n\n1. The Union of India\n rep. By The Secretary to Government\n Ministry of Road Transport & Highways\n Transport Bhavan\n New Delhi\n\n2. The National Highways Authority of India\n by its Chairman\n G 5 & 6\n Sector 10\n Dwarka\n New Delhi 110 075\n\n3. The General Manager (Ns Ii)\n The National Highways Authority of India\n G 5 & 6\n Sector 10\n Dwarka\n New Delhi 110 075\n\n4. The Project Director & General Manager (Technical)\n The National Highways Authority of India\n \"Sethuram\"\n Second Floor\n No.14\n Sundaresa Iyer Layout\n Trichy Road\n Coimbatore 641 018\n\n5. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd\n rep. By The Territory Manager\n Karur Attur and Kadappara Village\n Erode Road\n Athur Post\n Karur 639 002\n\n6. R.Veeramani\n\n7. Cauvery Stone Impex Pvt Ltd\n by its Managing Director\n No.349\n Circle Thottam\n Near bypass\n Salem 636 002\t\t\t\t\t\t ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\tPetition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus as stated therein.\n\n\n\nFor Petitioner \t\t:\tMr. T.R. Mani, Senior Counsel\n\t\t\t\t\tfor Mr. T.M. Hariharan\n\nFor Respondents \t\t:\tMr. P. Wilson\n\t\t\t\t\tAssistant Solicitor General for Rr1 to 4\n\n\t\t\t\t\tMr. K. Ethiraj for R5\n\n\t\t\t\t\tMrs. Nalini Chidambaram, Sr. Counsel\n\t\t\t\t\tfor M/s. Gupta & Ravi for Rr6 & 7\n\n\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 159,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 180,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 198,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 217,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 238,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 268,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 559,
"end": 573,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 700,
"end": 736,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 825,
"end": 952,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 962,
"end": 1160,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1166,
"end": 1198,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1324,
"end": 1335,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1341,
"end": 1368,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1648,
"end": 1657,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1687,
"end": 1701,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1727,
"end": 1736,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1793,
"end": 1803,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1822,
"end": 1840,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'Ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao \n\nW.P.Nos.11862 of 2008 and batch \n\ndated:23-07-2013 \n\nSantosh Kumar Sony and others....Petitioners.\n\n1.Chairman, A.P.State Co-operative Tribunal, Hyderabad and others.....\n Respondents. Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.11868 of 2008:Sri S. Sridhar Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.13872 and 13882 of 2008 : Sri Vijay Kumar Heroor Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.16650 of 2011 : Sri N.V.Anantha Kirshna Counsel for the respondent-Bank : Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar Counsel for the Official respondents : Government Pleader for Co-operation. \n\nHead Note: \n?Cases referred 1 2010(5) Ald 821 2 Air 2006 Supreme Court 1871 3 (2000) 3 Scc 87 4 2006 (4) Scc 476 5 (2005) 3 Scc 241 6 (2000) 6 Scc 259 7 (2010) 10 Scc 677 The Hon'Ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao W.P.Nos.11862 of 2008, 13872 of 2008, 13882 of 2008 and W.P.No.16650 of 2011 Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 130,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 213,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 316,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 385,
"end": 403,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 461,
"end": 480,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 519,
"end": 534,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 820,
"end": 840,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 27669 of 2010(G)\n\n\n1. Usman Kurikkal O.V.,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Director Of Public Instructions,\n\n3. The Deputy Director Of Education,\n\n4. The District Educational Officer,\n\n5. Shri.P.Achuthan Nair,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Krb.Kaimal (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Sri.P.K.Suresh Kumar\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T.Sankaran\n\n Dated :14/06/2011\n\n O R D E R\n K.T.Sankaran, J.\n ------------------------------------------------------\n W.P.(C). No. 27669 Of 2010 G\n ------------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 88,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 182,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 267,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 305,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 343,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 369,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 409,
"end": 419,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 464,
"end": 480,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 506,
"end": 518,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 589,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 29.01.2010\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice. C.S.Karnan\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nC.M.A.No.2475 of 2007\nand\nM.P.Nos.1 of 2007 & 1 of 2009\n\n1.Principal\n Adiyaman College of Engineering\n Dr.M.G.R.Nagar, Hosur\n2.The Chairperson Agri\n Dr.M.G.R.Nagar, Hosur\n3.Branch Manager\n National Insurance Co., Ltd.,\n Hosur\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellants\n\nVs\n\n1.Sampangiramaiah\n2.Nagamma\n3.Bhakiyalakshmi\t\t\t\t\t\t .. Respondents\n \n\n\tAppeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and Decree, dated 04.04.2006, made in M.C.O.P.No.1209 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.\n\n\t\tFor appellants\t : Mr.S.Arun Kumar\n\n\t\tFor respondents : Mr.M.Sriram\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 247,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 295,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 354,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 398,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 408,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 409,
"end": 425,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 735,
"end": 747,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 777,
"end": 785,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Smt Justice T. Rajani \n\nCRLP.No.1405 of 2011 \n\n22-12-2017 \n\nAxis Bank Limited and others. Petitioners \n\nState of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Ap, Hyderabad and another... Respondents \n\nCounsel for Petitioners:MR. S. Niranjan Reddy \n For Mr. N. Naveen Kumar \nCounsel for Respondents : Public Prosecutor \n Mr. M.V. Suresh R2 \n \n\nHead Note: \n? Cases referred:\n1. (2011) 13 Scc 412 \n2. (2006) 6 Scc 736 \n3. 2013(3) Scc 330 \n4. (2009) 3 Scc 78 \n5. Air 1992 Sc 604 \n6. (2002) 1 Scc 652 \n7. (2001) 7 Scc 659 \n8. (1986) 3 Scc 67 \n9. (2001) 2 Scc 17 \n10. 1998 Crlj 4865 \n11. (2015) 6 Scc 287 \n\n\nSmt Justice T. Rajani \nCriminal Petition No.1405 of 2011 \nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 81,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 134,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 269,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 858,
"end": 867,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reported\n* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n\n+ Mac.App.164/2010 and Cm Nos.4807/2010 (stay) and\n 4809/2010 (under Order Xli Rule 27 Cpc)\n\n\nMukesh Kumar ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Hari Shankar, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n\nSmt. Kamlesh Devi & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Advocate for\n the respondents No.1 to 4\n Mr. V.K. Goel, Advocate for the\n respondent No.6\n Mr. L.K. Tyagi, Advocate for the\n respondent No.7\n\n\n% Date of Decision : May 11, 2011\n\nCoram:\nHon'Ble Ms. Justice Reva Khetrapal\n\n1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed\n to see the judgment?\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?\n3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 170,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 257,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 308,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 379,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 468,
"end": 477,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 560,
"end": 570,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 714,
"end": 728,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Snigdha Sarvaria, Civil Judge, \n Central\u00ad05 Tis Hazari Courts , Delhi\n Suit No.56/2014\nIn The Matter Of:\u00ad\n\nShri Narender Chauhan,\nS/o of late Shri Surat Singh,\nresident of House No. 161\u00adA,\nVillage Dhaka, Delhi\u00ad110009\nPresently residing at 55\u00adC,\nPlatinum Enclave, Sector\u00ad18\nRohini, Delhi ........plaintiff\n\n Versus\n\nShri Fateh Singh ( Since deceased) \nthrough his Lrs\na) Smt. Usha\n Widow of late Sh. Fateh Singh\nb) Shri Ashwani Kumar \n son of late Sh. Fateh Singh \nc) Shri Deepak Kumar \n son of late Sh. Fateh Singh \nd) Shri Jitender\n son of late Sh. Fateh Singh \ne) Shri Manish\n son of late Sh. Fateh Singh \nf) Ms. Taruna \n D/o late Sh. Fateh Singh \nh) Ms. Mamta \n D/o late Sh. Fateh Singh \n\n\n\n\nSuit No. 56/2014 Page No. 1 of 29\n All resident of house no. 52,\nVillage Dhaka, Delhi\u00ad110009 ........Defendants\n\nDate of Institution: 18.09.2004\nDate of Reserving for Judgment: 01.07.2014\nDate of Judgment : 05.07.2014\n\nSuit For Recovery Of Possession, Rent Use And \nOccupation Charges As Well As Permanent Injunction\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 36,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 102,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 187,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 415,
"end": 426,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Amitabh Rawat, \n Acj/Ccj/Arc (Shahdara), Karkardooma Courts, \n Delhi\nE\u00ad104/2013\nUnique Identification No. 02402C0281352013\n\n1. Mohd. Sayeed\n2. Mohd. Hanif\n3. Mohd. Sharif\n All S/o Late Nuruddin\n R/o; 170, Gali Meat Wali,\n Khureji Khas, Delhi. ...........Petitioners \n\n Versus \n\n\nMohd. Rashid\nS/o Late Sh. Abdul Rashid\nShop No. 3\u00ad4, 106/67\u00adB/2, \nPatparganj Road,\nKhureji Khas, Delhi\u00ad110051. ..........Respondent\n\n Eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control \n Act, 1958.\n\n1. Petition filed on : 02.09.2013\n2. Order reserved on : 20.02.2014\n3. Date of Order : 21.02.2014\n4. Decision : Leave to defend application of the \n respondent - dismissed and \n eviction order passed. \n\nE-104/13 Page No. 1 of 21\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 197,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 216,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 236,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 430,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n First Appeal No.354 of 1991\n =========================================\n Against the judgment and decree dated 28th January, 1991 decree sealed and signed on 07.02.1991 passed by Sub-Judge Ist, Danapur in Title Suit No. 92 of 1984. \n\n ========================================= 1 (a). Dharamsheela Devi wife of Late Nagendra Singh 2 . Shailendra Kumar Singh s/o Late Brahamdeo Singh 3 . Binod Kumar Singh son of Late Nagendra Singh 4 . Parmondra Kumar Singh son of Late Nagendra Singh 5 . Santosh Kumar son of Late Nagendra Singh All resident of village- Rupaspur, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna .... .... Appellants Versus 1 (a) Manish Sinha 1 (b) Ashish Sinha 1 \u00a9 Rajneesh Sinha All sons of Late Binay Kumar Sinha\n 2. Subash Singh son of Late Kapildeo Narain Singh, All R/o Mohalla- Dujra Rajapur, P.S.- Budha Colony, District- Patna .... .... Respondents ========================================= Appearance :\n For the Appellants : Mr. K. N. Choubey, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Veena Rani Prasad, Advocate Mr. Vishal Saurabh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. J. S. Arora, Advocate Mr. Subhash Pd. Singh, Advocate Mr. Gaurav Pratap, Advocate ========================================= Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 362,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 417,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 464,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 517,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 549,
"end": 562,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 690,
"end": 702,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 709,
"end": 721,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 726,
"end": 740,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 780,
"end": 792,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 999,
"end": 1012,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1032,
"end": 1049,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1064,
"end": 1078,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1115,
"end": 1126,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1141,
"end": 1158,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1173,
"end": 1186,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1269,
"end": 1290,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-:1:-\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Manu Vedwan, Ld. Metropolitan \n\n Magistrate : Special Court - 05 (Ni Act) : Dwarka : Delhi\n\n\n\n Archana Vs. Jagmohan\n Complaint Case No. : 201/14\n P.S. : Palam Village \n U/s. : 138 N.I.Act\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 181,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 194,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh Vinod Kumar Meena, Civil Judge\u00ad02, \n New Delhi District Patiala House Court, New Delhi\n\nCase Id No. : 02403R0394532009\nCc No. : 676/1/12\nDate of Institution of the Complaint : 04.12.2009\nName of Complainant : Flamering Machines & Tools\n Z\u00ad52, Okhla Industrial Area\n Ph.II, New Delhi\u00ad110020\n\nName, parentage and address of \nthe accused : 1. M/s Nutech Industries \n Through its Authorised \n Signatory Yash Verma\n 2. Yash Verma Authorised \n Signatory of M/s Nutech `\n Industries, C\u00ad34, Sector \u00ad63, \n Noida 201301,\n Registered office at A\u00ad56, \n Jangpura\u00adB, New Delhi\nOffence Complained of : U/s 138 of Negotiable \nInstruments Act, 1881\nOffence Proved : Yes.\nPlea of the Accused in her \nexamination. : Cheques was given as security \n cheques and machine not \n delivered.\nDate of Reservation of Order : 16.11.2013\nDate of Order : 28.01.2014.\nFinal Order : Convicted.\nPolice Station : Okhla Industrial Area\n\n\nCc No. 676/1/12 , M/s Flamering Machines & Tools V. M/s Nutech Industries & Anr. Page 1 of 19\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 36,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 109,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 396,
"end": 422,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 701,
"end": 718,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 955,
"end": 965,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2199,
"end": 2225,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2233,
"end": 2250,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nFederation Of Indian Chambers Of Commerce & Industries, Newd\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 49,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 129,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Uma Shukla Vs. Mukand Singh\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Sanjiv Jain : Presiding Officer : Mact\n South District : Saket Courts : New Delhi\n\nIn Petition No. : 312/13\n\n 1. Smt. Uma Shukla\n W/o Late Krishna Chandra Shukla ..... Wife\n 2. Manish Shukla\n S/o Late Krishna Chandra Shukla ..... Son\n 3. Vikas Shukla\n S/o Late Krishna Chandra Shukla ..... Son\n st\n All R/o 244, 1 Floor, Dda Flats,\n Pocket\u00ad6/3, Naseer Pur,\n Dwarka, New Delhi.\n 4. Smt. Savitri Devi\n W/o Late Ram Kishore Shukla ..... Mother \n R/o Vill. Thakurpur, Post Parasrampur,\n Distt. Basti, U.P\u00ad272120\n ..... Petitioners\n Versus \n\n 1. Mukand Singh\n S/o Sh. Mahender Singh\n Present Address :\n Shop No.9, Ganga Bus Service\n Sector\u00ad12, R K Puram, New Delhi\n Permanent Address :\n Vill. Binji, Post Office Binji,\n Police Station Kodha,\n Distt. Katihar, Bihar ..... Driver\n\n\n 2. Anil Yadav\n R/o B\u00ad2/2320, Greengland Apartment,\n Vasant Kunj, New Delhi ..... Owner\n\nPetition No. : 312/13 Page No. 1 of 24\n Uma Shukla Vs. Mukand Singh\n\n\n 3. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Birla Tower, 5th Floor,\n 25, Barakhamba Road,\n New Delhi - 110 001 ..... Insurer\n ..... Respondents\n\n\n Date of Institution : 20.03.2009\n\n Date of reserving of judgment/order : 16.01.2014\n\n Date of pronouncement : 29.01.2014\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 10,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 15,
"end": 27,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 70,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 163,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 214,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 300,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 372,
"end": 384,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 592,
"end": 604,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 895,
"end": 907,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1216,
"end": 1226,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1510,
"end": 1520,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1525,
"end": 1537,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1548,
"end": 1588,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAmerican Home Products Corporation\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMac Laboratories Private Limited And Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 98,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hon'Ble Sri Justice S.Ravi Kumar \n\nCriminal Petition Nos.5056 Of 2014 \n\n25-6-2014 \n\nDr.P.Malathi...Petitioner.\n\nThe States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public\nProsecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and\nthe State of Andhra Pradesh and another. Respondents. Counsel for the petitioner: Sri R.N.Hemendranath Reddy Counsel respondents : Public Prosecutor. \n Sri N.Naveen Kumar Head Note: \n? Cases referred:\n (2013) 7 Scc 789 2 2009 Cri.L.J.822 3 (2013) 3 Scc 330 4 (1995) 5 Scc 767 5 (2004) 6 Scc 422 6 (2005) 6 Scc 1 7 Iv (2013) Acc 68 (Sc) 8 (2014) I Scc (Cri) 102 9 (2009) 3 Scc 1 10 (2009) 9 Scc 221 Criminal Petition No.5077 Of 2014 Honourable Sri Justice S.Ravi Kumar Criminal Petition Nos.5056 Of 2014 & 5077 Of 2014 Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 106,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 126,
"end": 164,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 390,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 443,
"end": 457,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 754,
"end": 766,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur\n\n\n W. A. No : 511 Of 2014\n\n State of M.P. & Ors.\n - V/s -\n Satish Shrivastava\nPresent : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.\n\n Hon'ble Shri Justice Alok Verma.\n\n ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Advocate General for the\n\n appellants/State.\n\n Smt. Sobha Menon, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Rahul\n\n Choubey and C.A.Thomas, learned counsel for the respondent.\n\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 140,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 245,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 303,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 349,
"end": 359,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 471,
"end": 481,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 564,
"end": 575,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 607,
"end": 626,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 631,
"end": 641,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n (Wp4701.01)\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No.4701 Of 2001\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. M/s National Non-Ferrous )\n Industries, )\n 234-C, Maulana Azad Road, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Cross Lane, Bombay 400 008 )\n )\n 2A. Shri Bharat Shashikant Patel )\n 142, Bowers Street, )\n Jersey City, New Jersey 07307, Usa )\n\n\n\n\n \n )\n 3A. Smt. Mona Hasit Patel\n ig )\n 19, Kenton Park Road, Kenton Harrow, )\n Middlesex Ha38Ub, U.K. )\n \n )\n 3B. Shri Bharat Shashikant Patel )\n 142, Bowers Street, Jersey City, )\n New Jersey, 07307, U.S.A. )\n )\n \n\n\n 3C. Smt. Parul Kanaiya Kansara )\n \n\n\n\n 147, Bowers Street, Jersey City, )\n New Jersey, 07307, U.S.A. )\n )\n 3D. Kum. Bhavna Shashikant Patel, )\n\n\n\n\n\n 20, Jay Mahal, \"A\", Road, )\n Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020 ) ....Petitioners.\n\n V/s\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. M/s R.B. Patel & Co. )\n a Partnership Fir, doing business )\n at Industries 234-C, Maulana Azad )\n Road, Cross Lane, Bombay 400 008. )\n )\n 2. Rajnikant Gordhandas Patel, )\n 234-C, Maulana Azad Road, Cross Lane, )\n Bombay 400 008. ) ....Respondents\n\n\n\n\n \n 2\n (Wp4701.01)\n\n Mr. C.M. Korde, Senior Counsel with Mr. Milind Jadhav & K.R.\n Daviervala i/b Mulla & Mulla and Cbc for the Petitioners.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. Jayesh Bhatt for the Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram: V. M. Kanade, J.\n Date : 12th August, 2011 Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 397,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 614,
"end": 637,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 824,
"end": 840,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1050,
"end": 1073,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1232,
"end": 1253,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1412,
"end": 1435,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1589,
"end": 1605,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1805,
"end": 1831,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2124,
"end": 2134,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2160,
"end": 2173,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2176,
"end": 2195,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2330,
"end": 2342,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2446,
"end": 2458,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil) 9027 of 2003\n\nPetitioner:\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd.\t \t\t\t\t\n\nRespondent:\nSwaran Singh & Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 95,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 134,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n Baldev vs. Kamal & Ors.\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. K. S. Mohi : Presiding Officer : Mact \n South District : Saket Courts : New Delhi\n\n\nSuit No. 86/13\nFir No. 223/12\nPs Fateh Pur Beri\nUnique Case Id No. 02406C0265542013\n\n\n Baldev\n S/o Sh. Jawahar Ram\n R/o C\u00ad4, Sanjay Colony, Bhatti Mines,\n Delhi. ......Claimant/ Injured\n Versus\n 1. Kamal\n S/o Sh. Lal Chand\n R/o D\u00ad205, Sanjay Colony, Bhatti Mines, \n Delhi. .... Driver\n\n 2. Shamsher Khan\n S/o Risal Khan\n R/o H No. 29, Idgah Colony,\n Sector\u00ad6, Faridabad, Haryana. .... First Owner\n\n 3. Satish Kumar\n S/o Kishori Singh\n R/o G\u00ad232, Mohan Baba Nagar,\n Tajpur, Badar Pur, Delhi. ... Second Owner\n\n\n\n\nSuit No. : 86/13 Page No. 1 of 17\n 2\n Baldev vs. Kamal & Ors.\n\n\n\n\n 4. Samana Ram\n S/o Hira Ram\n R/oA\u00ad65, Sanjay Colony, \n Bhatti Mines, Delhi. .... User\n 5. The National Insurance Company Ltd, \n E\u00ad2/9, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. ...... Insurer \n ...... Respondents\n\n\n Date of Institution : 04.01.2013\n\n Date of reserving of judgment/order : 15.04.2014\n\n Date of pronouncement : 15.04.2014\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 128,
"end": 134,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 144,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 199,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 305,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 412,
"end": 418,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 744,
"end": 749,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 973,
"end": 986,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1199,
"end": 1211,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1773,
"end": 1779,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1784,
"end": 1789,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1812,
"end": 1822,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2025,
"end": 2055,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Xii Addl. City Civil And\n Sessions Judge (CCH.No.27), At Bangalore.\n\n\nPresent:Sri.Bhairappa Shivaling Naik, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl),\n Xii Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bangalore.\n\n Dated: This The 9Th Day Of July 2015\n\n O.S.No.4177/2009\n\n Plaintiff:- Sri M.R.Shivarudraiah,\n S/o.Sri Rudrappa,\n 41 years, residing\n at No.198, I floor,\n I stage, 6th 'A' Main road,\n Mig A Sector,\n Yelahanka New Town,\n Bangalore -560 106.\n\n (By Sri B.G.Ashok kumar,\n Advocate )\n\n -Vs-\n\n Defendant:- Sri M.Somashekar,\n S/o.Sri Rudrappa,\n 54 years, residing at\n No.198, Ground Floor,\n I stage, 6th A Main Road,\n Mig A Sector,\n 2 O.S.No.4177/2009\n\n\n\n\n Yelahanka New Town,\n Bangalore 560 106.\n\n (By Gkm Associates-\n Advocates)\n\n\n\nDate of Institution of the suit : 25/06/2009\nNature of the suit : Ejectment\nDate of commencement of\nrecording of the evidence : 16/09/2010\nDate on which the Judgment was\npronounced : 09/07/2015\nTotal Duration Years Months Days\n : 06 00 14\n\n\n\n (Bhairappa Shivaling Naik)\n Xii Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bangalore\n 3 O.S.No.4177/09\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 129,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 215,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 348,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 682,
"end": 697,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 795,
"end": 807,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1688,
"end": 1712,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1730,
"end": 1804,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nNandlal Jaiswal & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice C.T.Ravikumar\n &\n The Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran\n\n Tuesday, The 30Th Day Of May 2017/9Th Jyaishta, 1939\n\n MACA.No. 1822 of 2013 ()\n -------------------------\n Against The Award In O.P(M.V)1375/2003 of M.A.C.T., Thalassery\n Dated 30-05-2013\n\nAppellant/2Nd Respondent:\n----------------------------------\n\n The United India Insurance Co.Ltd.\n Kannur, Represented By Its Deputy Manager,\n Regional Office, Hospital Road, Ernakulam.\n\n By Adv. Sri.George Cherian (Thiruvalla)\n\nRespondents/Cliamants And Ist Respondent:\n---------------------------------------------------------\n\n 1. M.E.Reetha, W/O. Jayanandan, Kunhipunathil House,\n P.O. Muthiyanga - 670 691.\n\n 2. Rounak Jayanandan (Minor)\n Represented By Mother Ist Respondent\n M.E. Reetha, W/O. Jayanandan, Kunhipunathil House,\n P.O. Muthiyanga - 670 691.\n\n 3. Dronak Jayanandan (Minor)\n Represented By Mother The Ist Respondent,\n M.E. Reetha, W/O. Jayanandan, Kunhipunathil House,\n P.O. Muthiyanga - 670 691.\n\n 4. K.P. Sreemathi, D/O. Kunhambooty,\n Kunhipunathil House, P.O. Muthiyanga - 670 691.\n\n 5. Noufal K.T., S/O. Abdul Khader, Kaseelaz,\n P.O. Muthiyanga, (Via) Pathayakkunnu,\n Kannur District - 670 691.\n\n R1-R4 By Adv. Sri.M.Sasindran\n\n This Motor Accident Claims Appeal Having Been Finally Heard\nOn 30-05-2017, The Court On The Same Day Delivered The Following:\n\f\n\n\n C.T. Ravikumar & Anil K. Narendran, Jj.\n -------------------------------------------------\n M.A.C.A.No.1822 of 2013\n -------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 30th day of May, 2017\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 149,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 254,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 637,
"end": 667,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 809,
"end": 823,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 949,
"end": 959,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1047,
"end": 1064,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1247,
"end": 1264,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1452,
"end": 1466,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1560,
"end": 1571,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1732,
"end": 1743,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1897,
"end": 1911,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1914,
"end": 1931,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Ms Preeti Parewa : Metropolitan \n Magistrate - 02 : South : Saket Court : New Delhi\n\n\n\n Arun Kher vs Nehru Jain \n Cc No 5026/1\n U/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act\n\n\n Unique Identification No. : \n 02406R0259262011\n \n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 113,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 159,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 173,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order\n\n\n Ajn\n 1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Letters Patent Appeal No.121 Of 2000\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. M/s. Traders Pvt. Ltd., Janasatta )\n Karyalaya, Mirazapur Road, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Ahmedabad, (Owner of Motor )\n Vehicle No.MHT 1835). )\n 2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., )\n 30-B, Swastik Society, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380 )\n 009 (Insurer of Motor Vehicle )\n No.GBL-8335.)\n ig ) .... Appellants\n\n Versus\n \n 1. Smt. Sunanda widow of Krishna )\n Machivale. )\n \n\n 2. Kum. Nutan Krishna Machivale, )\n daughter of the deceased. )\n \n\n\n\n 3. Kumar Niranjan Krishna )\n Machivale, son of the deceased. )\n 4. Kum. Kavita Krishna Machivale, )\n\n\n\n\n\n daughter of the deceased. )\n 4A Yeshodabai Babu Machivale, )\n mother of the deceased. )\n All resident of 24-A, Nanabhai )\n Chawl, Room No.2, Parel Village, )\n\n\n\n\n\n Back Road, Bombay - 400 012. )\n 5. Shri Tukaram Maruti More, 16, )\n Hanuman Building, R/76, S.V. )\n Road, Bombay - 400 007. )\n (Owner of Truck No.MHT 1835) )\n (since deceased). )\n\n\n\n\n \n This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order\n\n\n Ajn\n 2\n\n\n\n\n \n 5A Jijabai Tukaram More, widow of )\n Tukaram Maruti More, 16, New )\n\n\n\n\n \n Hanuman Building, R/76, S.V. )\n Road, Bombay - 400 007. )\n 6. Shri Sampat Yeshwant Dhanwat, )\n Uday Housing Company, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Kavarana Bldg., 26, P. D'Mello )\n Road, Bombay - 400 009 (Driver )\n of Truck No.MHT 1835) )\n 7. The New India Assurance Co. )\n\n\n\n\n \n Ltd., New India Bhavan, 34-38, )\n Bank Street, Fort, Bombay - 400\n ig )\n 023. (Insurer of Motor Truck )\n No.MHT 1835) (Discharged). ) ... Respondents\n \n Mr. M.G. Barve for the petitioners.\n\n Mr. P.M. Patel for respondents 1 to 3.\n \n\n\n Mr. R. Mahadik i/b Mr. S.R. Singh for respondent 7.\n \n\n\n\n Coram : Smt. Ranjana Desai &\n Smt. R.P. Sondurbaldota, Jj.\n Date On Which The Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 176,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 459,
"end": 476,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 759,
"end": 786,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1212,
"end": 1219,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1300,
"end": 1323,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1394,
"end": 1434,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1471,
"end": 1495,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1551,
"end": 1583,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1851,
"end": 1870,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2434,
"end": 2454,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2672,
"end": 2695,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3030,
"end": 3053,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3463,
"end": 3473,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3504,
"end": 3514,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3561,
"end": 3571,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3580,
"end": 3590,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3664,
"end": 3677,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3726,
"end": 3744,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nShrinivas Krishnarao Kango\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nNarayan Devji Kango And Others.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 38,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 908 of 2004()\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Represented By\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Babu S/O. Devassy,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Public Prosecutor (State)\n\n For Respondent : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :05/08/2008\n\n O R D E R\n K.Balakrishnan Nair &\n\n M.C.Hari Rani, Jj.\n\n -----------------------------------------\n\n Crl.Appeal No. 908/2004 &\n\n Crl.R.P.No.171/2004\n\n -----------------------------------------\n\n Dated 5th August, 2008.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 86,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 179,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 372,
"end": 391,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 417,
"end": 430,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 486,
"end": 505,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 537,
"end": 550,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 7.11.2008\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.Sasidharan\n\nW.P.NOs.14428 to 14430 Of 2008\n& M.P.No.1 of 2008 (3 Nos.)\n\n\nT.P.Vishnu Kumar\t\t\t\t\t..Petitioner in all W.Ps.\n\n-Vs.-\n1. Canara Bank\n P.N. Road\n Tiruppur.\n\n2. The Debts Recovery Tribunal\n Coimbatore.\n\n3. M/s. Ellwin Garments\n rep.by its Partner, R. Radhamani\n No.28, N.G.R. Nagar, Anakkdu\n Tiruppur-641 601.\n\n4. R. Radhamani\n\n5. P.Rathinam\n\n6. K.M.Krishnasamy\n\n7. O.P.Subbain\t\t\t\t..Respondents in all W.Ps.\n\n\nPrayer:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the file of the second respondent and to quash the order dated 18.2.2008 passed by the second respondent in I.A.Nos.873, 874 and 875/2007 in O.A.No.152/2002 and consequently direct the first respondent to produce the statement of accounts from the inception of the account till 30.6.1999.\n\n\tFor Petitioner \t\t: Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel\n\t\t\t\t\t for Mr.Ananda Gomathy Sivakumar\n\t\n \tFor Respondents\t\t: Mr.M.V.Chandran for R1\n\t\t\t\t\t--------\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 109,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 188,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 229,
"end": 240,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 315,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 341,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 450,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 465,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 485,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 490,
"end": 501,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1006,
"end": 1019,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1052,
"end": 1076,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1105,
"end": 1117,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nShri Bhagwan And Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nRam Chand And Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 62,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "*In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n + TEST.CAS.No.19/2004\n\n Reserved on : 1st June, 2010\n Date of Decision : 18th November, 2010\n\n%\n Sanjeev Kumar Mittal ..... Petitioner\n Through : None.\n\n versus\n\n The State ..... Respondents\n Through : Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Adv.\n for R-2.\n Dr. Arun Mohan, Sr. Adv. as\n amicus curiae.\nCoram :-\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha\n\n1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes\n be allowed to see the Judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be Yes\n reported in the Digest?\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 261,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 369,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 454,
"end": 469,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 563,
"end": 573,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 668,
"end": 678,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Chander Shekhar, \n Distt. & Sessions Judge (North\u00adWest) \n Rohini Courts, Delhi.\n\nCs No. 07/13\n\nSh. Joginder Singh\ns/o Sh. Kehar Singh\nr/o 3\u00adB, Gali No. 13\nGuru Nanak Nagar, Tilak Nagar\nDelhi \u00ad 110018 ......Plaintiff\n\n Versus\nSh. Mehar Singh\ns/o Sh. Rakha Ram\nr/o B\u00ad3, Khasra No. 88/3\nShiv Vihar, Karala\nNew Delhi \u00ad 110081 ........Defendant\n \nDate of institution :\u00ad 06.12.2013\nDate of hearing arguments :\u00ad 09.05.2014\nDate of decision :\u00ad 04.06.2014 \n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 141,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 176,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 404,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nUnni Krishnan, J.P. And Ors. Etc. Etc\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. Etc.\tEtc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 94,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 13.09.2012\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mrs.JUSTICE Chitra Venkataraman\nand\nThe Honourable Mr.JUSTICE K.Ravichandrabaabu\n\nTax Case (Appeal) No.1146 of 2006\nand TCMP.No. 1600 of 2006\n\n\n\n\nThe Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax\nCentral Circle \u0016 I (5)\nChennai 600 034 \t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\t\t\t\nVs.\n\nM/s. First Leasing Company of India Limited\n749, Anna Salai\nChennai 600 002\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondent \n\n\n\n\tTax Case (Appeal) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras A Bench dated 30.12.2005 in Ita. 35/ Mds/ 2001 for assessment year 1996-97. \n\n\n\t\tFor Appellant\t: Mr.V.S.Jayakumar\n\n\t\tFor Respondent\t: Mr.T.Ravikumar\n\n\n-------\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 116,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 120,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 165,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 307,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 380,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 621,
"end": 634,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 659,
"end": 670,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n \n \n \n\n \n \n \t \n \n\t \n\t\t Print\n\t\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nScr.A/963/2007\t 42/ 42\tJudgment \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIn\nThe High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSpecial\nCriminal Application No. 963 of 2007\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature: \nHonourable\nMr.Justice M.R. Shah\n \n=========================================\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n1.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nYes\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n2.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nYes\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n3.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNo\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n4.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNo\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\n5.\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t \n\t\t\t\t \n\nNo\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=========================================\n \n\nSabbir\nJamalbhai Mehtar - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nState\nOf Gujarat & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n========================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMr Mukul\nSinha for\nApplicant(s) : 1, \nMr Pk Jani, Public Prosecutor for Respondent(s)\n: 1, \nNotice Served for Respondent(s) : 2, \nMr Jm Panchal for\nRespondent(s) : 3, \nMr Kj Shethna for Respondent(s) :\n4, \n=========================================\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCoram\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHonourable\n\t\t\tMr.Justice M.R. Shah\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 16/06/2011 \n\n \n\nCav\nJudgment \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 217,
"end": 251,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 373,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1203,
"end": 1226,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1255,
"end": 1271,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1355,
"end": 1366,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1393,
"end": 1400,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1485,
"end": 1495,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1523,
"end": 1533,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1677,
"end": 1686,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 4126 of 2000\n\nPetitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax,Mumbai\n\nRespondent:\nAnjum M.H.Ghaswala & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 85,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 117,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "spb/ cp528-12J.doc\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Company Petition No. 528 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n In the matter of sections 433(e) r/w. S. 434\n (1)(a) & S.439 of the Companies Act,1956;\n And\n\n\n\n\n \n In the matter of Winding up of Videocon\n Industries Ltd.,CIN L99999Mh1986Plc103624\n\n Intesa Sanpaolo S.P.A., ... Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n \n A Bank duly incorporated under the\n appropriate laws of Italy & registered\n \n in the Register of Banks under number-\n 5361, having registered office at Piazza\n San Carlo n.156, Torino, Italy, through\n \n its constituted attorney Sanket Manohar\n Jain, adult, Indian inhabitant residing at\n 1902/A, Aaditya Tower, V.P. Road,\n Sikanagar, Mumbai -400 004.\n \n\n\n V/s.\n \n\n\n\n Videocon Industries Limited ... Respondent.\n A Company incorporated under the\n Companies Act, 1955, having registered\n\n\n\n\n\n office at 14km stone, Aurangabad Paithan\n Road, Village-Chittegaon, Tal. Paithan\n Dist. Aurangabad -431 105 And\n its Corporate office at Fort House,\n 2nd Floor, 221, Dr. D. N. Road, Fort,\n\n\n\n\n\n Mumbai -400 001 (India)\n ---\n Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/with Ms. Vandana Mehta,\n Ms. Kathleen Lobo, Ms. Olga Lume -Pereira and Ms. Nausheen\n Rayani i/by Siddhesh Bhole for the Petitioner.\n Mr. Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate a/with Mr. R.D. Soni, Mr.\n M.A. Saiyed i/by M/s. Ram & Co. for the Respondent .\n ---\n\n Borey 1/64\n\n\n\n \n spb/ cp528-12J.doc\n\n\n Coram : N. M. Jamdar, J.\n\n\n\n\n \n Reserved on : 16 August, 2013\n Pronounced on : 05 December, 2013\n\n\n\n\n \n Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 105,
"end": 139,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 885,
"end": 907,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1588,
"end": 1615,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2105,
"end": 2120,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2149,
"end": 2162,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2180,
"end": 2193,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2199,
"end": 2208,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2226,
"end": 2253,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2259,
"end": 2273,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2310,
"end": 2322,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2351,
"end": 2360,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2378,
"end": 2389,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2745,
"end": 2757,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated: 04/02/2011\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.Chandru\n\nW.P.(Md)No.5482 of 2010\nW.P.(Md)No.5483 of 2010\nand\nW.P.(Md)No.7259 of 2010\nand\nM.P.(MD)Nos.2,2,2, 3 and 3 of 2010\n\nP.Mari\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t W.P.(MD)Nod.5482 and\n\t\t\t\t\t 7259 of 2010\n\nK.Viswanathan\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner in\n\t\t\t\t\t W.P.(MD)No.5483 of 2010\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,\n rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government,\n Home Department,\n Fort St. George,\n Chennai-600 009.\t\t\t.. 1st respondent in all writ petitions\n\t\t\t\t\t\n2.The Regional Transport Authority, Madurai District, Madurai. .. 2nd Respondent in W.P.(MD)No.5482 of 2010 The Regional Transport Authority, Pudukkottai District, Pudukkottai. .. 2nd respondent in W.P.(MD)No.5483 of 2010 The State Transport Authority, Ezhilagam Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. .. 2nd respondent in W.P.(MD)No.7259 of 2010 W.P.(MD)Nos.5482 and 5483 of 2010 have been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent made in G.O.Ms.No.271 Home (Transport Iii) dated 10.3.2010 as published in the Tamil Nadu Government Extraordinary Gazette No.68, dated 10.3.2010 and to quash the same. \n\nW.P.(MD)No.7259 of 2010 has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring the amendment made in G.O.Ms.No.1057 Home (Transport Viii) Department, dated 14.12.2009 to rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu motor Rules as arbitrary, ultravires, unconstitutional and void sofaras the petitioner is concerned. \n\n!For Petitioners ... Mr.M.Palani ^For Respondents ... Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General assisted by Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, Ga\n- - - -\n:Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 231,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 318,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 384,
"end": 408,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 575,
"end": 630,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 681,
"end": 744,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 795,
"end": 856,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 963,
"end": 970,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1661,
"end": 1669,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1694,
"end": 1703,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1737,
"end": 1753,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "srk 1 wp-84-08-final\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No.84 Of 2008\n\n 1. Sanjiv Gajanan Punalekar,\n Indian Adult aged 42 years, a\n\n\n\n\n \n practicing advocate, residing at\n Flat No.25, Malkani Mahal,\n 261, Annie Besant Road,\n Worli, Mumbai-400 030. ... Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n \n 1. Union of India, Ministry of Minority\n Affairs, through Department of Law,\n Ayakar Bhavan, Mumbai and others.\n \n 2. State of Maharashtra\n through Government Pleader.\n \n\n\n 3. Union of India,\n Ministry of Human Resources Department,\n \n\n\n\n Shastri Bhawan,\n Dr. Rajendra Prasad Marg,\n New Delhi-110 001. ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. Ashish Naik for the petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. D.J. Khambatta, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Rui Rodrigues and\n Mr. Gulam Ankhad and Nirmal R. Prajapati i/by Dr. T.C. Kaushik for\n respondent No.1.\n\n Mr. D.A.Nalawade, Government Pleader for State.\n\n\n\n\n \n srk 2 wp-84-08-final\n\n\n\n\n \n Alongwith\n Appellate Side\n\n\n\n\n \n Public Interest Litigation No.254 Of 2009\n\n\n Smt. Jyotika Wale,\n\n\n\n\n \n Age 59, Occ. Social Worker,\n R/at L/2, 902, Hariganga, Oppo.\n Rto, Yerawada, Pune-6. ... Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. Union of India, Ministry of Minority\n \n Affairs, New Delhi .\n\n 2. The State of Maharashtra,\n \n Through the Secretary,\n Department of Education,\n Mantralaya, Mumbai,\n Copy to be served on A.G.P. High Court,\n \n\n\n Appellate Side, P.W.D. Building,\n Mumbai-32. ... Respondents\n \n\n\n\n Mr. Aniruddha Rajput with Mr.P.G.Chavan and Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar for\n\n\n\n\n\n the petitioner.\n Mr. D.J. Khambatta, Additional Solicitor General with Mr. Rui Rodrigues and\n Mr.Aditya Mehta and Mr. N.R.Prajapati for respondent No.1.\n Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Gandhar Raikar for applicant in C.A.No.63\n of 2011.\n\n\n\n\n\n Ms. Neha Palshikar-Bhide, `B' Panel Counsel for State.\n\n\n\n\n \n srk 3 wp-84-08-final\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram : Mohit S. Shah, C.J. &\n D.G. Karnik, J.\n\n\n\n\n \n Judgment reserved on 19th April, 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n Judgment pronounced on 6th June, 2011\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 182,
"end": 216,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 384,
"end": 408,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 778,
"end": 792,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 932,
"end": 952,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1004,
"end": 1018,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1213,
"end": 1224,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1258,
"end": 1272,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1312,
"end": 1325,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1338,
"end": 1350,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1355,
"end": 1374,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1384,
"end": 1396,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1431,
"end": 1443,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1901,
"end": 1913,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2175,
"end": 2189,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2279,
"end": 2299,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2596,
"end": 2612,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2621,
"end": 2631,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2640,
"end": 2658,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2696,
"end": 2710,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2750,
"end": 2763,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2775,
"end": 2787,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2796,
"end": 2809,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2839,
"end": 2857,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2867,
"end": 2881,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2935,
"end": 2949,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3255,
"end": 3268,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3322,
"end": 3333,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal\n Court Of Small Causes At Bengaluru\n (Scch:15)\n\n Dated: This The 16th Day Of July, 2015\n Present : Smt.K.Katyayini, B.Com., Ll.B.,\n Xiii Addl.Small Cause Judge\n & Member, Mact, Bengaluru.\n\n Mvc No.4342/2014\n\nPetitioner/s Sri. Venkatappa,\n S/o Sri. Muniyappa @\n Reddappa,\n Aged about 56 yeas,\n Occ:Coolie,\n R/o No.10, Jayaprakash\n Narayan Colony,\n Behind Escort,\n Yelhanka, Bengaluru-560 064.\n (By Pleader - Sri.Ketan Latur.)\n\n V/s\n\nRespondent/s 1) Sri. Harish B.N.,\n S/o Nagaraj .G,\n R/o No.15, Shankarappa Building,\n Vajarahalli, Near Arrede Shop,\n K.P. Main Road,\n Bengaluru-560 068.\n\n (Owner of motor cycle bearing\n Reg. No.KA-05 Hg-6229)\n (By Pleader - Exparte.)\n\n 2) Sri. Vinod Pais,\n S/o Francis Pais,\n R/o No.438/1,\n Begur Main Road,\n Satish Reddy Building,\n (Scch-15) 2 Mvc.4342/2014.\n\n\n Hongasandra, Bengaluru.\n (By Pleader - Exparte.)\n\n 3) The Manager,\n United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n No.143/144, Ckn Chambers,\n 1st Floor, Ia Main Road,\n Seshadripuram,\n Bengaluru-560 020.\n (Policy No.0705813114P100732296\n Valid from 01.05.2014 to 30.04.2015)\n (By Pleader - Sri.Janardhan Reddy.)\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 183,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 287,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 363,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 718,
"end": 729,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 788,
"end": 799,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1192,
"end": 1202,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1561,
"end": 1627,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1982,
"end": 1997,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nPirgonda Hongonda Patil\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nKalgonda Shidgonda Patil And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 79,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nC.I.T., Bombay\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nGwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Co. Ltd.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 87,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBharat Barrel And Drum Manufacturing Company\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nAmin Chand Payrelal\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 56,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 95,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRohit Pulp And Paper Mills Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCollector Of Central Excise, Baroda\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 98,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nB. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 49,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 100,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Sudesh Kumar\n Additional Session Judge\u00ad07\n South East, Saket Courts\n New Delhi\n\nIn The Matter Of\nSessions Case No. 44/14\nCase Id No. 02406R0326782013\nFir No. 408/13\nPolice Station: Jamia Nagar \nUnder Section: 302/201 Ipc\n\n\nState \n\n\nVersus\n\n\nJaved Chaudhary\nS/o Sh. Akil Chaudhary\nR/o Tanwar House, Village Pavi Sadakpur, Loni, Ghaziabad, Up\n\n\nDate Of Institution: 23.11.2013\nDate Of Reserving Order: 26.08.2014\nDate Of Decision: 27.08.2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 169,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 320,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 348,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n Reportable\n\n The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No. Of 2010\n [Arising out of Slp (Crl.) No.3915/2006]\n\nM/S. Mandvi Co-Op Bank Ltd. ..........Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nNimesh B. Thakore ..........Respondent\n\n\n\n With\n\n Criminal Appeal No(S)._______Of 2010\n[Arising out of Slp (Crl.) No(s). 4760/2006, 5689/2006, 1106/2007,\n6442/2007, 6443/2007 and 6703/2007]\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 123,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 317,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 409,
"end": 426,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "[ Reportable ]\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 925 Of 2009\n\n\n\n\nPrem Singh ....Appellant\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n\nState of Haryana ....Respondent\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 167,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 297,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 06.10.2007\n\n C O R A M :\n\t\nThe Honourable Mr.A.P.Shah, The Chief Justice\nThe Honourable Mrs.Justice Prabha Sridevan\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P. Jyothimani\n\nW.P.No.28304 Of 2007\nand\nM.P.Nos.1 to 3 of 2007\n\nRukmani College of Education, run by\nRukmani Educational and Charitable\nTrust, No.208, National Highway,\nMangalapuram Post,\nKadayanallur\u0016627 751,\nTirunelveli District, rep.by its\nCorrespondent S.Deepak.\t\t\t\t\t ... Petitioner \n \n\t-vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by\n its Secretary, Higher Education\n Department, Fort St.George,\n Chennai-600 009.\n\n2. The Registrar,\n Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,\n Abishekapuram,\n Tirunelveli District.\n\n3. The Controller of Examinations,\n Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,\n Abishekapuram,\n Tirunelveli District.\t\t\t\t\t ... Respondents\nPrayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the second respondent in No.MSU/CD/FA/B.Ed./2007, dated 08.8.2007, quash the same as far as it relates to the granting of affiliation from the Academic Year 2007-2008 onwards and further direct the 2nd respondent to grant affiliation to one Year B.Ed.Course run by the petitioner from the Academic Year 2006-2007 onwards and pass any other further or other orders.\n\n\tFor petitioner \t\t:: Mr.P.Jayaraman, S.C. For \n\t\t\t\t\t Mr.B.Rabu Manohar \n\t\t\n\tFor respondents \t\t:: Mr.G.Sankaran, Spl.G.P.(Edn) for R1\n\t\t\t \t Mr.V.Govardhanan for M/s.Row & Reddy \n\t\t\t\t\t for Rr2 and 3 & also for \n\t\t\t\t\t Bharathidasan University \n\t\t\t\t Mr.M.Sekar for Thiruvalluvar University,\n\t\t\t\t\t Bharathiar University and \n\t\t\t\t\t Periyar University \n\t\t\t Mr.Kandavadivel Doraisamy for\n\t\t\t\t Madras University \n\t\t\t\t Mr.N.R.Chandran, Sc and\n\t\t\t\t Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy, Sc for \n\t\t\t\t M/s.R.Suresh Kumar and\n\t\t\t\t\t P.D.Audikesavalu (Intervenor)\n\t\t\t\t Mr.S.Sethuraman for Madurai Kamaraj \n\t\t\t\t\t University\n\t\t\t\t Mr.P.R.Gopinathan, Standing counsel \n\t\t\t\t\t for Ncte, Bangalore.\n \t\t\t\t\t\t \n \t\t \t\t\t *** \n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 104,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 166,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 210,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 289,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 511,
"end": 530,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 644,
"end": 743,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 755,
"end": 868,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1472,
"end": 1483,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1507,
"end": 1521,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1555,
"end": 1565,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1612,
"end": 1625,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1739,
"end": 1746,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1872,
"end": 1894,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1957,
"end": 1969,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1999,
"end": 2016,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2077,
"end": 2093,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2128,
"end": 2140,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2202,
"end": 2216,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nK. R. M. T. T. Thiagaraja Chetty & Co.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 104,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWp(C) No. 25418 of 2004(A)\n\n\n1. P.V.Varkey, S/O.Late P.A.Varkey,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Rep. By The Secretary\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Deputy Director Of Education,\n\n3. The District Educational Officer,\n\n4. C.A.Varghese, High School Assistant,\n\n5. The Manager, Sacred Heart Orphanage\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.K.P.Dandapani\n\n For Respondent :Sri.V.M.Kurian\nCoram\n\n\n Dated : 29/03/2005\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 194,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 298,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 336,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 354,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 387,
"end": 418,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 457,
"end": 470,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 519,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nIshwar Dass Jain (Dead) Thr. Lrs.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSohan Lal (Dead)By Lrs.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 28,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 75,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Ravinder Singh\u00adIi, Metropolitan \n Magistrate (Ni) Act - 07\n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.\n\nCase No. : 4430/14\nUnique Case Id No: R0187782011\n\nM/s Anmol Financial Services Ltd.\n14, Dayanand Vihar\nKarkardooma Delhi\u00ad110092.\n ...................Complainant\n\nAsha Ram Singh\nS/o Sh. Raj Pal Singh\nR/o B\u00ad182, Ekta Vihar, Jaitpur,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110044.\n ...............................Accused\n\n\n\nDate of Institution: 31.05.2011\nPlea of the accused: Pleaded Not Guilty\nDate of Reserving Judgment: 24/04/2014\nDate of Judgment: 28/04/2014\nSentence/final Order: Acquitted\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 163,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 250,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 427,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\nIn The Court Of Shri D.K.Malhotra; Addl. District Judge;\n Central-14; Delhi.\n\nOriginal Suit No. 1201/95\nNew Suit No. 436/14\n\n Sh. Dev Raj Goel\n S/o late Sh. Dewan Chand\n R/o. 39, Cresthollow Lane\n Seapringtown,\n N.Y.York, Usa,\n through Attorney Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta,\n R/o. F-185, Sarita Vihar,\n New Delhi.\n ..............Plaintiff\n Vs.\n\n 1. Union of India,\n through the Secretary,\n Ministry of Works and Housing,\n Land and Development Office,\n Nirman Bhawan,\n New Delhi.\n\n 2. Land and Development officer,\n Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi.\n ..............Defendants\n\n\n\n\n Date of Filing: 19.05.1995\n Date of Decision: 07.04.2014\n\n\n Suit For Specific Performance And In The\n Alternative For Recover Of Rs. 10 Lakhs As Damages;\n 2\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 36,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 96,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 167,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 310,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 452,
"end": 466,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 611,
"end": 670,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBidi Supply Co.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Union Of India And Others.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 65,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "State Vs Karnail Singh & another\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain\n Additional Sessions Judge-01 (Central): Delhi\n\nSc No. : 194/13\nId No. : 02401R0596392013\n\n Fir No. : 87/13\n Police Station : Gulabi Bagh\n Under Section : 323/354/506/34 Ipc\n r/w Section 8 Pocso\n\n State\n\n Versus\n\n\n Karnail Singh\n S/o Late Sh. Suraj Pal\n R/o 10613, Gali No. 5\n Pratap Nagar, Delhi\n .........Accused No. 1\n\n Deepa\n W/o Karnail Singh\n R/o 10613, Gali No. 5\n Pratap Nagar, Delhi\n .........Accused No. 2\n\n\n Date of Institution : 21.11.2013\n Date of judgment : 19.05.2014\n\n\n\nPresent: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the\n State.\n Sh. Sachin Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr. Jitender Sethi,\n Advocate, counsel for both the accused persons.\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 9,
"end": 22,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 79,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 129,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 448,
"end": 453,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 511,
"end": 524,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 734,
"end": 739,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1072,
"end": 1083,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1169,
"end": 1184,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1203,
"end": 1217,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 1269 of 2006\n\nPetitioner:\nMusaraf Hossain Khan\n\nRespondent:\nBhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 72,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 109,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 7763-7764 of 2004\n\nPetitioner:\nA. Jayachandra\n\nRespondent:\nAneel Kaur\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 71,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 95,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pnp 1/36 APP817-19.7.sxw\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Appeal No.817 Of 2010\n In\n\n\n\n\n \n Notice Of Motion No.1863 Of 2008\n In\n Suit No.1628 Of 2008\n\n Ferani Hotels Private Limited ..Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n \n versus\n Nusli Neville Wadia and others ..Respondents.\n With\n Appeal No.806 Of 2010\n In\n\n\n\n\n \n Notice Of Motion No.1863 Of 2008\n ig In\n Suit No.1628 Of 2008\n\n Nusli Neville Wadia ..Appellant.\n versus\n \n Ferani Hotels Private Limited and others ..Respondents..\n .....\n Mr. Abhishek Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parag Tripathi, Senior Advocate,\n Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin, Mr. Vivek A. Vashi, Ms. Kanika Sharma, Mr.\n \n\n Abhimanyu Bhandari, Mr. Mike Desai, Mr. Kunal Bahri and Mr. Rook Ray i/b M/s.\n Bharucha & Partners for the Appellant in Appeal 817 of 2010 and for\n Respondent No.1 in Appeal 806 of 2010.\n \n\n\n\n Mr. F.S. Nariman, Senior Advocate with Mr. N.H. Seervai, Senior Advocate, Mr.\n R.M. Kadam, Senior Advocate, Mr. V.R. Dhond, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rohan\n Kelkar, Mr. Shrikant Doijode and Ms. Falguni Thakkar i/b Doijode Associates for\n\n\n\n\n\n Respondent No.1 in Appeal 817 of 2010 and for the Appellant in Appeal 806 of\n 2010.\n\n Mr. Vineet B. Naik i/b Mahimtura & Co. for Respondent No.3 in both the Appeals.\n\n Ms. Kashmira Bharucha i/b Mr. K.D. Abhichandani for Respondents 5 and 6.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. Simil Purohit with Mr. Rahul Totala and Mr. Hiren G. Shah i/b Prakash & Co.\n for Respondents 8,9,11,14,15, 17, 18, 23, 28, 29, 30, 34 to 37 and 49.\n\n Mr. N.K. Mudnaney for Respondents 10,13, 19 to 24 and 31.\n\n Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Vaidya i/b A.R. Vaidya & Co.\n for Respondents 12, 16, 25, 26, 27, 38 to 48.\n\n Mr. Ameya Malkan i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondents 32 and 33.\n\n\n\n\n \n Pnp 2/36 APP817-19.7.sxw\n\n\n\n Coram : Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, and\n R.D.Dhanuka, Jj.\n 19 July 2012. \n\n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 112,
"end": 146,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 592,
"end": 621,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 746,
"end": 765,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1143,
"end": 1162,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1264,
"end": 1293,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1395,
"end": 1411,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1438,
"end": 1452,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1479,
"end": 1497,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1503,
"end": 1517,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1523,
"end": 1536,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1556,
"end": 1574,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1580,
"end": 1590,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1596,
"end": 1607,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1616,
"end": 1624,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1766,
"end": 1778,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1805,
"end": 1817,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1844,
"end": 1854,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1877,
"end": 1887,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1910,
"end": 1926,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1932,
"end": 1948,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1957,
"end": 1972,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2105,
"end": 2119,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2190,
"end": 2207,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2216,
"end": 2233,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2272,
"end": 2285,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2295,
"end": 2307,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2316,
"end": 2329,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2432,
"end": 2445,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2495,
"end": 2506,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2533,
"end": 2546,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2628,
"end": 2640,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2889,
"end": 2904,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2947,
"end": 2958,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Death Reference No.2 of 2012\n\n Reference, Appeal against the judgment of conviction and\n order of sentence dated 8.02.2012, 14.02.2012 passed in\n Sessions Case No. 15/2010 by 1st Additional Sessions Judge,\n Khagaria\n===================================================\nThe State of Bihar .... .... Petitioner Versus\n1. Sikandar Sada S/O Durga Sada\n2. Sajjan Sada S/O Bhajjan Sada\n3. Tarni Sada S/O Late Buddhu Sada\n4. Sushil Sada S/O Laddu Sada\n5. Sanatan Sada S/O Harilal Sada\n6. Harilal Sada S/O Late Sukhdeo Sada @ Bulbul Sada\n7. Dilip Sada S/O Laddu Sada\n8. Ram Sada S/O Late Rajo Sada\n9. Bodhan Sada S/O Dhanik Sada\n10. Bilo Sada S/O Late Bhola Sada.... .... Respondents with Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 226 of 2012 ===================================================\n1. Opi [email protected] Mahto son of late Bano Mahto\n2. Ghuran Sada son of late Meppu Sada\n3. Laddulal Sada son of Banarsi Sada\n4. Umesh Mahto son of late Bano Mahto\n5. Sikandar Sada son of Durga Sada\n6. Sajjan Sada son of Bhajjan Sada\n7. Tarni Sada son of Budhu Sada\n8. Sushil Sada son of Laddulal Sada\n9. Sanatan Sada son of Harilal Sada\n10. Harilal Sada son of late Sukhdeo Sada\n11. Dilip Sada son of Suresh Sada\n12. Ram Sada son of late Rajo Sada\n13. Billo Sada son of late Bhola Sada, All resident of village -Amausi, P.S. Morkahi, District-Khagaria\n14. Borhan Sada son of Dhanik Sada resident of village-Rohua, P.S. Gangaur, O.P., District-Khagaria .... .... Appellants Patna High Court D. Ref. No.2 of 2012 dt.03-01-2014 2 Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =================================================== Appearance :\n (In D. Ref. No. 2 of 2012) For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. & Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, A.P.P. \n\n For the Respondents M/s Ajay Kumar Thakur, Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Rajesh Kumar & Nilesh Kumar, Advocates (In Cr. App (Db) No. 226 of 2012) For the Appellants : M/s Ajay Kumar Thakur, Md. Imteyaz Ahmad, Rajesh Kumar & Nilesh Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. & Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, A.P.P. \n\n =================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice V.N. Sinha and Honourable Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 349,
"end": 363,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 408,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 427,
"end": 438,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 459,
"end": 469,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 494,
"end": 505,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 524,
"end": 536,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 557,
"end": 569,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 609,
"end": 619,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 638,
"end": 646,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 669,
"end": 680,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 701,
"end": 710,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 903,
"end": 914,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 941,
"end": 954,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 978,
"end": 989,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1016,
"end": 1029,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1051,
"end": 1062,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1086,
"end": 1096,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1118,
"end": 1129,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1154,
"end": 1166,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1191,
"end": 1203,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1233,
"end": 1243,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1267,
"end": 1275,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1302,
"end": 1312,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1406,
"end": 1417,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1588,
"end": 1602,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1742,
"end": 1761,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1776,
"end": 1793,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1829,
"end": 1846,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1852,
"end": 1865,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1867,
"end": 1879,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1882,
"end": 1894,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1965,
"end": 1982,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2003,
"end": 2015,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2018,
"end": 2030,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2066,
"end": 2085,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2100,
"end": 2117,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2211,
"end": 2221,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2249,
"end": 2270,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'Ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan \n\nWrit Petition No.27062 Of 2011 \n\n11-04-2012 \n\nSri Umesh Kumar Ips \n\nThe State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Chief Secretary, General\nAdministration Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad and 7 others. \n\nCounsel for the petitioner: Sri Prabhakar Sripada,\n\nCounsel for respondents: Gp for General Administration Sri H Prahalada Reddy\nSri Ponnam AShok Goud (Asst. Sol. Gen) G.P. for Home, Mrs. S. Nanda, P. Kesava \nRao Spl. Sc for Cbi\n\nHead Note: \n\n?Citations:\n1) (2009) 1 Scc 441 \n2) 2010(1) Supreme Today 707 \n3) (2008) 2 Scc 409 \n4) (2002) 5 Scc 521 \n5) Air 1988 (Ap) 144 \n6) (2011) 4 Scc 1\n7) Jt 2009 (7) Sc 601\n8) (1997) 1 Scc 134\n9) (2010) 11 Scc 557 \n10) (2005) 6 Scc 138 \n11) (2000) 2 Scc 617 \n12) 2010(3) Ald 452 (Db) \n13) Air 2001 Sc 3320 \n14) (1988) 2 Scc 293\n15) Air 1962 Sc 159\n16) 1987 Supp Scc 350 \n17) Air 1969 Sc 1048 \n18) (1991) 1 Scc 86\n19) (1995) 1 Scc 421 \n20) Air 195 Sc 1795 \n21) (2011) 7 Scc 639 \n22) (1974) 4 Scc 788 \n23) (1980) 3 Scc 311 \n24) (1996) 7 Scc 397 \n25) (2006) 9 Scc 262 \n26) (2008) 12 Scc 481 \n27) (1917) 1 Kb 486\n\nWrit Petition No.27062 of 2011 \n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 121,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 156,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 327,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 406,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 411,
"end": 428,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 466,
"end": 474,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 485,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic), \n South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.\n\nIn the matter of :\nVehicle No. : Dl\u00ad1Rf\u00ad8300\nChallan No. : 626\u00ad00462\u00ad13\nCircle : Dfc\nU/S. : 66/192A & Dmvr 11.8/177 of M.V. Act, 1988. \n\nState\nVersus\nGanga Prasad Sakya\nS/o Sh. Sone Lal Sakya\nR/o Rz\u00ad20/193, Gali No.13, \nDurga Park, Delhi\u00ad110045\n\nDate of Filing the Challan :17.10.2013\nArguments Heard on :22.02.2014\nDate of Judgment 15.04.2014\nPlea of the accused :Not Guilty \nFinal Order :Acquitted\n\nPresent: Ld. App for the State\n Accused in person alongwith Ld. Counsel Sh. Aniruddha Singh \n Rajawat. \n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 132,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 298,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 324,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 794,
"end": 836,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSri J.H. Gotla, Yadagiri\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 53,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 87,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 7th Day Of January, 2014\n\n Present\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar\n\n And\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B.Sreenivase Gowda\n\n Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 1205/2010 (Mv)\n C/W\n Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 54/2010 (Mv)\n\nIn Mfa 1205/2010:\n\nBetween:\n\n1. A.Arun\n S/O.A.Arumugam\n Aged About 32 Years\n\n2. Kum.A.Ankita\n D/O.A.Arun\n Aged About 2 Years\n Minor Rep.By Her\n Father And Natural Guardian\n A.Arun.\n\n Both Are R/A.Ground Floor\n No.121, Shanthi Sadan, Udupi Layout\n Cambridge Road\n Ulsoor\n Bangalore -8. ... Appellants\n\n (By Sri R.Chandrashekar For\n Sri V.R.Sundara Murthy, Adv.)\n 2\n\n\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Smt.H.B.Pushpa\n W/O.Hanumanthappa\n R/A.No.102/203\n Bommasandra Industrial Area\n Hosur Road\n Bangalore.\n\n2. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,\n 1St Floor, Kiadb Complex\n Hosur Road\n Bommasandra\n Bangalore 560 099. ... Respondents\n\n (By Sri S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, Adv. For R2,\n R1 Notice Dispensed With V/O.Dated 20.9.2010)\n\n *** *\n\n This Mfa Is Filed U/S 173(1) Of Mv Act Against The\nJudgment And Award Dated:30.07.2009 Passed In Mvc\nNo.1640/2005 On The File Of The Viii Additional Judge,\nMact-V Court Of Small Causes, Bangalore, Partly\nAllowing The Claim Petition For Compensation And\nSeeking Enhancement Of Compensation.\n\nIn Mfa 54/2010:\n\nBetween:\n\nNew India Assurance Company Ltd.,\nFirst Floor Kiadb Complex\nHosur Road, Bommasandra\nBangalore, Through Its :\n\nDivisional Office\nNo.9/2, Mahalakshmi Chambers\nM.G.Road, Bangalore 560 001.\n 3\n\n\nRepresented By Its\nSr.Divisional Manager. .... Appellant\n\n (By Sri. S.V. Hegde Mulkhand, Adv.)\n\nAnd\n\n1. A.Arun\n Aged About 36 Years\n S/O.A.Armugam\n\n2. Kum.A.Ankita\n Aged About 7 Years\n D/O.A.Arun\n\n Both Are R/O.Ground Floor\n No.121, Shanthi Sadan\n Udani Layout Cambridge Road\n Ulsoor\n Bangalore 560 008.\n\n R2 Is Minor Represented By\n Her Father And Natural Guardian\n Respondent No.1.\n\n\n3. Smt.H.B.Pushpa\n W/O.Hanumanthappa\n Major In Age:\n R/O.No.102/103, Bommasandra Indl.Area\n Hosur Road\n Bangalore. .. Respondents\n\n (By Sri. R.Chandrashekar, Adv.\n For Sri V.R.Sundaramurthy, Adv. For R1,\n R2- Minor Rep.By R1, Sri Vasanthappa, Adv. For R3)\n\n * *** *\n This Mfa Is Filed U/S 173(1) Of Mv Act Against The\nJudgment And Award Dated 13.12.2006 Passed In Mvc\nNo.1640/2005 On The File Of The Member, Mact, Viii\n 4\n\n\nAdditional Judge, Court Of Small Causes, Bangalore\nAwarding A Compensation Of Rs.58,41,000/- With\nInterest At 6% P.A. From The Date Of Petition Till\nDeposit.\n\n These Appeals Having Been Heard And Reserved For\nJudgment, Coming On For Pronouncement Of Judgment\nThis Day, B. Sreenivase Gowda J., Delivered The\nFollowing:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 177,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 255,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 422,
"end": 428,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 486,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 749,
"end": 764,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 788,
"end": 806,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 863,
"end": 873,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 988,
"end": 1102,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1147,
"end": 1165,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1584,
"end": 1677,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1897,
"end": 1916,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1936,
"end": 1942,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2000,
"end": 2008,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2291,
"end": 2301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2475,
"end": 2490,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2511,
"end": 2528,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2574,
"end": 2585,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3099,
"end": 3118,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal\n Court Of Small Causes At Bengaluru\n (Scch:15)\n\n Dated: This The 16th Day Of July, 2015\n Present : Smt.K.Katyayini, B.Com., Ll.B.,\n Xiii Addl.Small Cause Judge\n & Member, Mact, Bengaluru.\n\n Mvc No.4342/2014\n\nPetitioner/s Sri. Venkatappa,\n S/o Sri. Muniyappa @\n Reddappa,\n Aged about 56 yeas,\n Occ:Coolie,\n R/o No.10, Jayaprakash\n Narayan Colony,\n Behind Escort,\n Yelhanka, Bengaluru-560 064.\n (By Pleader - Sri.Ketan Latur.)\n\n V/s\n\nRespondent/s 1) Sri. Harish B.N.,\n S/o Nagaraj .G,\n R/o No.15, Shankarappa Building,\n Vajarahalli, Near Arrede Shop,\n K.P. Main Road,\n Bengaluru-560 068.\n\n (Owner of motor cycle bearing\n Reg. No.KA-05 Hg-6229)\n (By Pleader - Exparte.)\n\n 2) Sri. Vinod Pais,\n S/o Francis Pais,\n R/o No.438/1,\n Begur Main Road,\n Satish Reddy Building,\n (Scch-15) 2 Mvc.4342/2014.\n\n\n Hongasandra, Bengaluru.\n (By Pleader - Exparte.)\n\n 3) The Manager,\n United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n No.143/144, Ckn Chambers,\n 1st Floor, Ia Main Road,\n Seshadripuram,\n Bengaluru-560 020.\n (Policy No.0705813114P100732296\n Valid from 01.05.2014 to 30.04.2015)\n (By Pleader - Sri.Janardhan Reddy.)\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 183,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 363,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 718,
"end": 729,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 788,
"end": 799,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1192,
"end": 1202,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1561,
"end": 1816,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1982,
"end": 1997,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Principal Seat At Jabalpur\n\n Writ Petition No.2804/2015\n\n\nSatya Pal Anand.................. ............... Petitioner\n Versus\n\nBal Neket an Nyas, Bhopal\nand two others................................. .. Respondents\n\n===================================================\nCoram\nHon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice\nHon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe, J.\nDat e of Hear ing: 19.03.2015\nDat e of t he Order: 24.03.2015\n\n\nWhether approved for reporting? Yes\n-------------------------------------------------------\n Petitioner in person.\n Mrs.Shobha Menon, Senior Advocate with Ms.Ankita\n Khare, Advocate for the respondent No.1.\n None for respondent No.2.\n Mr.Swapnil Ganguly, Government Advocate for the\n respondent No.3.\n=============================================\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 158,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 288,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 460,
"end": 475,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 511,
"end": 522,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 731,
"end": 743,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 769,
"end": 788,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 867,
"end": 882,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe Associated Cement Companies Ltd.,Dwarka Cement Works, Dw\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nIts Workmen & Another\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 72,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 103,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 3053-54 of 1997\n\nPetitioner:\nBank Of India And Anr\n\nRespondent:\nDegala Suryanarayana\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 68,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 110,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n \u00ae\nIn The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 5Th Day Of October, 2012\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A S Bopanna\n\n W.P.Nos.20080-20082/2010 (La-Kiadb)\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Sri. G. Eshwaraiah\n S/o Gangappa\n Aged about 55 years\n R/at Chandanahosahalli\n Sompura Hobli\n Nelamangala Taluk\n Bangalore Dist.\n\n2. Parameshwaraiah\n S/o Gangappa\n Aged about 45 years\n R/at Chandanahosahalli\n Sompura Hobli\n Nelamangala Taluk\n Bangalore District.\n\n3. Gangadharaiah\n S/o Gangappa\n Aged about 48 years\n R/at Chandanahosahalli\n Sompura Hobli\n Nelamangala Taluk\n Bangalore District. ...Petitioners\n\n(By Sri S.G. Hegde, Adv.)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. The State of Karnataka\n By its Secretary to Industries and\n Commerce Department\n 2\n\n\n Vikas Soudha\n Bangalore-560 001\n\n2. The Karnataka Industrial Area\n Development Board, Bangalore\n By its Managing Director\n Nrupathunga Road\n Bangalore-560 01.\n\n3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer\n Karnataka Industrial Area\n Development Board\n Nrupathunga Road\n Bangalore. ...Respondents\n\n(By Sri S.B. Shahapur, Aga. for R1\n Sri B.B. Patil, Adv. for\n Sri K Krishna, Adv. for R2 & R3)\n\n These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and\n227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash Annexure-\nB & B1 dated 29.11.2008 and notification dated 27.05.2010\nvide Annexure-F issued by respondents.\n\n These Writ Petitions are having been reserved for\norders, coming on for pronouncement this day, the Court\npronounced the following:\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 109,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 235,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 317,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 472,
"end": 487,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 646,
"end": 659,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 851,
"end": 861,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 887,
"end": 905,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1064,
"end": 1089,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1214,
"end": 1341,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1395,
"end": 1408,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1430,
"end": 1440,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1459,
"end": 1468,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Ravinder Singh\u00adIi\n Metropolitan Magistrate\n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi\n\nCase No. : 2849/12\nUnique Case Id No. : R0699622008\n\n\nMadan Lal\nS/o Sh. Om Parkash\nR/o H. No. 42, Harijan Basti,\nPalam Extension, Dwarka,\nSector\u00ad7, New Delhi\u00ad110075. .......................................Complainant\n\n Versus\n\nKavita Pawa\nD/o Sh. Baldev Raj Pawa\nR/o A\u00ad2/140, First Floor,\nJanakpuri, Pankha Road,\nNewDelhi\u00ad110058. .......................................Accused\n\n\nDate of Institution: 03.12.2008\nPlea of the accused: Pleaded Not Guilty\nDate of Reserving Judgment: 21/12/2013\nSentence or final Order: Convicted\nDate of Judgment: 15/03/2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 141,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 206,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 448,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nM/S. S. C. Kothari\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 47,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 86,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nShri Bodhisattwa Gautam\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMiss Subhra Chakraborty\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 35,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 78,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBrij Bhushan Lal Parduman Kumar Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh Andnew\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 121,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMst. L.M.S. Ummu Saleema\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nB.B. Gujaral & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 36,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 68,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nExpress Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 40,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 4.7.2007\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran\nAnd\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice P.P.S.Janarthana Raja\n\nT.C.(A).No.867 of 2007\n\n\n\n\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax\nSalem 1.\t\t\t\t..\tAppellant\n\n\tVs.\n\nM/s.S.Khader Khan Son\n90~Syed Madar Street\nShevapet\nSalem.\t\t\t\t\t..\tRespondent\n\n\n\n\tAppeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench dated 13.10.2006 in Ita No.479/Mds/2005 for the assessment year 2001-02.\n\n\n\tFor Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 103,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 152,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 217,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 261,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 549,
"end": 560,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax West Bengal,Calcutta\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSmt. Anusuya Devi\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 59,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 97,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri I.S.Mehta \n District & Judge Sessions Judge \n New Delhi \nRca No.43/2013\n\n1 Sh. Kanwar Deep Singh Sawhney\n S/o Late Sh. D. S. Sawhney\n\n2 Sh. Aman Deep Singh Sawhney\n S/o Late Sh. D. S. Sawhney\n\n\n3 Mrs. Harvinder Kaur Sawhney\n W/o late Sh. D. S. Sawhney\n\n\n All resident of 1A\u00ad48\u00adC, Phase\u00adI,\n Ashok Vihar, Delhi.\n\n\n4 Sh. Baljit Singh S/o late Sh. Harbans Singh,\n R/o A\u00ad25/6, Middle Circle, Connaught Place,\n New Delhi.\n \n Appellants \n Versus \n\n1 Sh. Harish Chander,\n2 Sh. Naresh Saxena\n\n Both S/o Sh. J. S. Saxena,\n Both R/o 137, Defence Enclave,\n Vikas Marg, New Delhi.\n\n\n\n\nRca No. 43/2013 Page No. 1 of 24.\n 3 Ms. Jasmine Sawhney\n4 Ms. Judith Sawhney\n\n Both legal heirs\n and D/o late Sh. Trilochan Singh Sawhney,\n Both R/o A\u00ad17. Top Floor, Kirti Nagar, \n Delhi. \nRespondents\n \nDate of Institution : 12.11.2013\nDate of Argument :25.04.2014\nDate of Decision :30.04.2014\n\n Appearance : Shri Amit Sharma\n Ld. counsel for the appellants.\n Shri V. K. Malhotra\n Ld. Counsel for respondent.\nJ U D G M E N T \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 141,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 194,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 260,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 327,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 449,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 682,
"end": 696,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 707,
"end": 720,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 906,
"end": 921,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 933,
"end": 947,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1332,
"end": 1343,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1475,
"end": 1489,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1914 Of 2012 \n\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No. 32450 Of 2010)\n\n \n\nM/s Acg Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd.\n\n(Formerly M/s Associated Capsules Pvt. Ltd.) ... Appellant\n\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax, \n\nCentral-IV, Mumbai ... Respondent\n\n\n\n With\n\n\n Civil Appeal No. 4534 Of 2008 \n\n \n\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi ... Appellant\n\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n\nBharat Rasayan Limited ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 55,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 279,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 439,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 622,
"end": 659,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 722,
"end": 744,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1)\n Election Petition No. 24/2014\n\n\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n Election Petition No. 24/2014\n Kamal Patel\n\n Vs.\n Ram Kishore Dogne and others\n\n\n As Per : G.S.Solanki, J.\n Shri R.P. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Shri Anuj Agrawal,\nAdvocate for the petitioner.\n\n Shri Imtiyaz Hussain, Advocate for respondent No. 1.\n\n Shri S.K. Kashyap, Advocate for respondent No. 6.\n\n Smt. Sushma Pandey, Advocate for respondent No. 11.\n\n Order reserved on : 5.12.2014\n Order passed on : 29.4.2015\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 101,
"end": 140,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 230,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 307,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 364,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 391,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 430,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 489,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 535,
"end": 547,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 593,
"end": 606,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 853 of 2006\n\nPetitioner:\nChandrappa & Ors\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Karnataka\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 60,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 80,
"end": 98,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honourable Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy And Honourable Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao \n\nC.M.A.No.3385 Of 2004 \n\n02-04-2015 \n\nMaganti Krishna Durga,...appellant-Petitioner\n\nMaganti Anil Kumar, .Respondent- Respondent. \n\nCounsel for the Appellant: M/s K. Chidambaram Sri Y.V.Srinivasan\n\nCounsel for respondent: Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu\n\nHead Note : --- \n\n? Cases referred: :\n1. Air 1999 Sc 3381 \n2. Air-1974-Ap-1=Ilr-1972-Ap-421=1971(1)Aplj-56(Sn) \n3. 1993(1)Scc 531 \n4. Air-2000-Sc -3272 \n5. AIR-1955-AP-112-(Paras 5 to 7)\n6. Air 2004 Sc 4096 \n7. 2004(6)Scc 325 \n8. Air-1956-Sc-593=1956-Scr-451 \n9. Air-1994-Sc-853 \n10.Air 1996 Sc 2592-para 23 \n11.Air 2000 Sc 1165 \n12.2005(7)Scc-605 \n13.2010 (8)Scc 383 \n14.1956 All E.R.349\n15. Air 1994 Sc 2151 \n16. (1994) 2 Scc 481 \n17. Air-2003-Sc-1706 \n18. 2011(3) Scc 545(Jjb) \n19. 2002(6) Ald 423 \n20. Air-1989-Sc-1477 \n21. AIR-1969-Madras-405 \n22. Hlr 521 Kerela \n23. Air 1990 Mp 217 \n24. 1995(2) Hlr 633 Ph) \n25. Air 1990 Bombay 84 \n26 1987(1) Hlr page 610 \n\n\nHonourable Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy \nAnd \nHonourable Dr.JUSTICE B.Siva Sankara Rao \n\nC.M.A.No.3385 of 2004 \nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 84,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 166,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 209,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 285,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 291,
"end": 305,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 351,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1123,
"end": 1138,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1179,
"end": 1197,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Preeti Agrawal Gupta: \n Judge: Mact(Outer): Rohini: Delhi\n\n Case No. 931/09\n\n Smt. Kailash w/o Sh. Jagdish\n r/o S\u00ad814, Mangol Puri, \n Delhi .\n ....Petitioner\n Versus\n\n 1. Sh. Pradeep Kumar s/o Sh. Jai Pal Singh \n r/o B\u00ad18, Raj Park, Sultan Puri, Delhi \n 2. Sh. Gajender Kumar s/o Sh. Babu Ram \n r/o House no. 432, Village Pehalad Pur Bangar\n Delhi - 42.\n 3. The National Insurance Company Limited\n Do\u00ad19, Laxmi Tower\n 2nd floor, C\u00ad 113, Behind Akash Cinema\n Azad Pur, Comm. Complex, Delhi - 33.\n ....Respondents Date Of Institution : 09.06.2009\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 87,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 117,
"end": 124,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 333,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 417,
"end": 431,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 536,
"end": 571,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nUnion Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nBombay Tyre International Ltd. Etc. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 93,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nK.K. Modi\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nK.N. Modi & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 50,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "krs 1/13 wpL419.13.sxw\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition (L) No.419 Of 2013\n\n\n\n\n \n M/s.Dalal & Broacha Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. : Petitioner\n\n V/s.\n\n Asstt. Commissioner of Income tax 4(1), Mumbai & Anr. : Respondents\n\n\n\n\n \n .....\n\n Dr.K. Shivram with Mr.R.K. Hakani for the Petitioner.\n\n Mr.Suresh Kumar for the Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n .....\n ig Coram : Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud &\n A.A. Sayed, Jj.\n \n Date of Reserving the )\n Judgment. ) : 08.04.2013.\n\n Date of Pronouncing )\n the Judgment. ) : 07.05.2013.\n \n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 154,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 434,
"end": 473,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 529,
"end": 575,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 727,
"end": 737,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 746,
"end": 757,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 786,
"end": 798,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 964,
"end": 979,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1028,
"end": 1038,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 28.07.2011\n\nCoram \n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice D.Murugesan\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.Sasidharan\n\nW.A.No.1275 of 2006\n\n\nVishwas Footwear Company Ltd\nA-2 Third Phase, Guindy Industrial Estate\nChennai 600 032\nrep.by Director V.Ravi\t\t\t\t\t..\tAppellant\n\n-vs-\n\n1. The District Collector\n Kancheepuram\n\n2. The Revenue Divisional Officer\n Kancheepuram\n\n3. The Tahsildar\n Sriperumbudur\n\n4. E.Kumar\n5. K.Anbalagan\t\t\t\t\t\t..\tRespondents\n \n\tAppeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 30.06.2006 made in W.P.No.25026 of 2005.\n\n\t\tFor Appellant\t::\tMr.T.M.Hariharan\n\n\t\tFor Respondents\t::\tMr.M.C.Swamy\n\t\t\t\t\t\tSpecial Government Pleader \n\t\t\t\t\t\tfor R1 to R3 \n\t\t\t\t\t\tMr.P.Wilson\n\t\t\t\t\t\tSenior Counsel for\n\t\t\t\t\t\tMr.G.Sankaran for R4\n\t\t\t\t\t\tR5-No appearance\n\t\t\n\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 109,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 154,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 206,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 354,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 406,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 415,
"end": 442,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 454,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 458,
"end": 469,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 634,
"end": 647,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 673,
"end": 682,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 746,
"end": 754,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 789,
"end": 799,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 04.12.2006\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice R.Balasubramanian\nand \nThe Honourable Mr.Justice A.C.Arumugaperumal Adityan\n\nCriminal Appeal Nos.735 & 738 of 2004 and 668 of 2005\n\n\n\n\nC.A.Nos.735 and 738 of 2004:\n---------------------------\n\nRamasamy\t\t\t\t..Appellant in Ca.735/2004\n\n1. Anthonysamy\n\n2. Veerasamy\t\t\t\t..Appellants in Ca.738/2004\n\n\n\tVs\n\n\nState \nrep.by\nThe Deputy Superintendent of Police\nCciw (Cid) Cuddalore\t\nCbcid Madras Head Quarters.\t\t..Respondent in both the appeals.\n\n\n\nC.A.No.668 of 2005:\n------------------\n\nState rep.by\nDeputy Superintendent of Police\nCciw (Cid) Cuddalore\t\nCbcid Madras Head Quarters.\t\t..Appellant in Ca.668/2005\n\n\tVs\n\nDr.Ramachandiran\t\t\t..Respondent in Ca.668/2005\n\n\n\n\t Crl.A.Nos.735 and 738 of 2004 against the judgment and conviction dated 31.5.2004 made in S.C.No.183 of 1995 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Tack Court No.3), Vridhachalam.\n\n\tCrl.A.No.668 of 2005 is against the acquittal of A.6 ( A.3 in S.C.No.150/1997) as per judgment dated 31.5.2004 in S.C.No.183 of 1997 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Vridhachalam.\n\n\n-----------------------------------------\nFor Appellants in C.A. Nos.735 & 738/2004 [:]\n-----------------------------------------\n\n\t: Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, Sc for Mrs.P.V.Rajeswari for A.3 in Ca.735/2004\n\n\t: Mr. T.Munirathnam Naidu for A.1 in Ca.738/2004\n\n \t: Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, Sc for Mrs.P.V.Rajeswari for A.2 in Ca.738/2004\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor Respodent in Ca.735 & 738 of 2004 and for appellant in Ca.668/2005 [:]\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\t: Mr.N.R.Elango, App\n\n-----------------------------\nFor Respondent in Ca.668/2005 [:]\n-----------------------------\n\n : Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, Sc for Mr.C.D.Johnson\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 112,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 170,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 296,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 342,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 356,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 396,
"end": 401,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 574,
"end": 579,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 706,
"end": 719,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1331,
"end": 1344,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1357,
"end": 1370,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1402,
"end": 1421,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1453,
"end": 1466,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1479,
"end": 1492,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1745,
"end": 1755,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1871,
"end": 1884,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1896,
"end": 1907,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nRPFC.No. 63 of 2008()\n\n\n1. Moideenkutty S/O.Kunhankutty Haji,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :.\n\n For Respondent :.\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\n\n Dated :03/06/2008\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 81,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 191,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 341,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nUnion Of India & Another\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nG. Ganayutham\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao \n\nM.A.C.M.A No.347 of 2009 \n\n11-08-2015 \n\nThe New India Assurance Company Ltd. Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Ongole. . \nAppellant\n\nKorrapolu Danaiah and others. Respondents \n\nCounsel for Appellant : Sri Naresh Byrapaneni\n\nCounsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Sri N. Krishna Murthy\n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n1) 2009 Acj 187 (Ap) \n2) 2013 (6) Ald 89 \n3) (2006) 4 Scc 404 \n4) 2009 Acj 1127 (Ap) = Manu/Ap/0233/2008 \n5) 2007 Acj 1235 (Gujarat) = Manu/Gj/8262/2006 \n6) 2000 (1) Ll.J. 1656 (Sc) = Manu/Sc/0312/2000 \n7) 2014 Acj 1 (Kerala) = Manu/Ke/0641/2013 \n8) 2012 Acj 1 (Sc) = Manu/Sc/1374/2011 \n9) Air 2004 Sc 1531 = Manu/Sc/0021/2004 \n10) 2004 (2) Klt 395 = Manu/Sc/0246/2004 \n11) (2008) 5 Scc 736 = Manu/Sc/2091/2008 \n\nThe Honourable Sri Justice U.Durga Prasad Rao \nM.A.C.M.A.No.347 of 2009 \n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 132,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 205,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 279,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 337,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 901,
"end": 919,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Anurag Sain, Adj\u00ad03 (East), \n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\nC.S. No.: 277/14\n\n\nUnique Case Id No.02402C0158212013\n\nShri Juginder Arora\nS/o Late Shri Atam Parkash\nR/o 11/145, Geeta Colony,\nDelhi\n ........Plaintiff/Applicant\n\n Versus\n\nVirender Kumar Sikka (Since deceased)\nS/o Shri Kishan Lal Sikka\nThrough LRs\n\n 1. Kunti Sikka (Mother),\n 2. Anju Sikka (Widow wife),\n 3. Kumari Simran Sikka (Daughter),\n 4. Master Ashmit Kumar Sikka (Son)\n\n R/o 370\u00adA, Dda Flats,\n Ghazipur Dairy Farm,\n Ghazipur, Delhi\u00ad110096\n\n Fresh Address\n\n\nCs No.: 277/14 Page 1 of 17\n R/o 280\u00adA, Ghazipur,\n Dda Flats, Delhi.\n ........Defendants\n\nDate of institution of the suit : 21.05.2013\nDate of filing of app. U/O 12 Rule 6 Cpc : 05.03.2014\nDate of reserving judgment : 20.11.2014\nDate of disposal of app. U/O 12 Rule 6 Cpc : 29.11.2014\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 87,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 164,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 331,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nKaranpura Development Co., Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West Bengal\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 106,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 688-90 of 1993\n\n\n\nPetitioner:\nKans Raj\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Punjab & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 64,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 99,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta, Nowst Bengal Iii\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nImperial Chemical Industries (India) Private Ltd.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 66,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 135,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nA.B. Abdul Kadir & Ors Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Kerala\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 28,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 74,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n \uf6da\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n Dated This The 22nd Day Of September 2012\n Before:\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy\n Regular First Appeal No.1369 Of 2003\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Sri. S.Rachaiah,\n Major,\n Son of Sri. Siddappa,\n Since deceased by legal representatives,\n\n1(a) Sri. Lingaraju,\n Aged about 38 years,\n\n1(b) Sri. Siddaraju,\n Aged about 35 years,\n\n1(c) Sri. Racha,\n Correct name is Raja Shetty.R,\n Aged about 31 years,\n\n1(d) Smt. Lakshmi,\n Aged about 33 years,\n\n1(e) Smt. Saraswathi,\n Aged about 28 years,\n\n1(f) Smt. Jyothi,\n Aged about 26 years,\n 2\n\n\n\n\n All are sons and daughters\n of Late Sri. Rachaiah,\n\n2. Smt. Basamma,\n Aged about 50 years,\n\n All are residing at No.126,\n Tippu Convent Road,\n 4th Cross, Someshwaranagar,\n I Block, Jayanagar,\n Bangalore - 560 011. ...Appellants\n\n(By Shri. C.S. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate for M/s. Kumar and\nKumar for Appellant)\n\nAnd:\n\nSmt. N.Sarojamma,\nAged about 59 years,\nWife of N.Nagabhushanappa,\nPresently residing at\nNo.15, 2nd Cross,\n3rd Main, Aiyappa Temple Block,\nViveknagar,\nBangalore. ...Respondent\n\n(By Smt. Anuradha Urs M.D., Advocate for Shri. C.V.Sudhindra,\nAdvocate)\n *****\n\n This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the\nCode of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgement and decree\ndated 19.8.2003 passed in O.S.No.4321/1984 on the file of the\n 3\n\n\n\nXxxi Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (Cch-14),\ndecreeing the suit for recovery of money.\n\n This Regular First Appeal having been heard and reserved\non 06.09.2012 and coming on for Pronouncement of Judgment\nthis day, the Court delivered the following:-\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 66,
"end": 102,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 230,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 306,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 801,
"end": 808,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1009,
"end": 1028,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1048,
"end": 1063,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1091,
"end": 1102,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1301,
"end": 1318,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1339,
"end": 1352,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWa No. 1495 of 2005\n\n\n1. The Chief Electoral Officer And \n ... Petitioner \n\n Vs\n\n\n1. Sunny Joseph, \n ... Respondent\n2. The Delimitation Commission Of India,\n3. Shri.Tandon,\n4. Shri.Mohandas,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Murali Purushothaman, Sc,Ele.Commn. \n\n For Respondent :Sri.K.Ramakumar \nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Rajeev Gupta \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Radhakrishnan \n\n Dated : 09/09/2005\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 94,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 192,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 304,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 320,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 338,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 378,
"end": 398,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 453,
"end": 464,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 523,
"end": 535,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 580,
"end": 597,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Narinder Kumar\n Additional District Judge -01 (West); Delhi\n\nCs No.87/2009 (old Suit no.1238/1987)\n\nDate of Institution: 3.10.2009\nArguments heard on: 10.12.09\nDate of order : 14.12.09\nIn the matter of:\nMohd. Idrees\nS/o Shri Habib Bakhsh,\nR/o H. No.5803, First Floor, Kucha Rehman\nnear Jogiwara, Ballimaran, Delhi. ... Plaintiff\n\n Versus\n1. Shri Mohd. Arifeen s/o Shri Habib Bakhsh\n R/o H. No.5804, Kucha Rahman, Near Jogiwara,\n Ballimaran, Delhi-6.\n\n2. Smt. Hoor Banu wife of Shri Mohd. Arifeeh\n R/o H. No.5804, Kucha Rehman, Near Jogiwara\n Ballimaran, Delhi-6.\n\n3. Smt. Khaliq Sultan wife of Shri Mohd. Idrees\n R/o H.No.5803, Kucha Rahman, Near Jogiwara\n Ballimaran, Delhi-6. ....Defendants.\n\n\n Suit for Partition and for permanent injunction.\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 46,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 258,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 450,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 578,
"end": 587,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 719,
"end": 732,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nKhem Chand\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Union Of India And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 60,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n R\n In The High Court Of Karnataka\n Kalaburagi Bench\n\n\n Dated This The 23Rd Day Of November 2017\n\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Rathnakala\n\n\n M.F.A.No.201484/2016 (Mv)\n\n\nBetween:\n\nThe Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nThrough its Divisional Manager,\nThrough its Divisional Office,\nNg Complex 1st Floor,\nOpp. Mini Vidhana Soudha,\nGulbarga.\n\n ... Appellant\n\n(By Sri S.S.Aspalli, Advocate)\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Annemma W/o Late Iranna Javalgi,\n Age: 57 years, Occ: Household,\n\n2. Gurubai D/o Iranna Javalgi,\n Age: 27 years, Occ: Household,\n\n3. Sidramappa S/o Iranna Javalgi,\n Age: 40 years, Occ: Coolie,\n 2\n\n\n All R/o Aurad (K) village\n Tq. & Dist. Gulbarga-585101.\n\n4. Sharanu S/o Mallappa Pujari,\n Age: Major, Occ: Owner of the Motor Cycle,\n R/o Keb Qtrs. Jewargi,\n Dist. Gulbarga-585101.\n\n ... Respondents\n\n(By Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, Adv. for C/R1 to R3;\nNotice to R4 is served, unrepresented)\n\n\n This Miscellaneous First appeal is filed under\nSection 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, praying to set\naside the judgment and award dated 28.06.2016 in Mvc\nNo.942/2014 passed by Ii Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Mact\nKalaburagi, by allowing the above appeal in the interest of\njustice and equity.\n\n This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the\nCourt delivered the following:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 72,
"end": 129,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 255,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 341,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 530,
"end": 541,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 568,
"end": 575,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 647,
"end": 654,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 721,
"end": 731,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 901,
"end": 908,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1113,
"end": 1131,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n Civil Appeal No.4119 Of 1999\n\n\nNizam Institute of Medical Sciences ...Appellant\n\n\n Versus\n\nPrasanth S. Dhananka & Ors. .........Respondents\n\n\nWith C.A. No. 3126 of 2000\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 53,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 173,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 244,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n \u00ae\n Dated This The 18th Day Of December, 2012\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A.N. Venugopala Gowda\n\n Writ Petition No.8414/2012 (S-De)\n\n\nBetween:\n\nSri A.B. Wadeyar,\nS/o. Bilyani,\nAged about 63 years,\nResiding at Amogh,\nFlat No.126, T.V. Centre,\nBelgaum - 590 019.\n ... Petitioner\n(By Sri K.V. Narasimhan, Adv.)\n\nAnd:\n\nHon'ble High Court of Karnataka,\nBangalore,\nBy its Registrar General,\nBangalore.\n ... Respondents\n\n(By Sri Raghavendra G Gayatri, Hcgp)\n\n This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227\nof the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order\nvide Annexure -E dated 21.12.2011 passed by the\n 2\n\n\n\n\nrespondent and quash the proceedings pending before the\nHon'ble Inquiry Authority, High Court of Karnataka,\nBangalore.\n\n This petition having been reserved, the Court made\nthe following:\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 235,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 298,
"end": 310,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 493,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 516,
"end": 550,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 655,
"end": 676,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 4679 of 1995\n\n\n\nPetitioner:\nUnion Of India & Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nDelhi High Court Bar Association & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 69,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 128,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nU.P. State Sugar Corporation\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nM/S. Sumac International Ltd.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 40,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 89,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 11194 of 1995\n\nPetitioner:\nJanki Narayan Bhoir\n\nRespondent:\nNarayan Namdeo Kadam\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 53,
"end": 72,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 106,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru\n\n Dated This The 09th Day Of June 2017\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice N.K. Sudhindrarao\n\n M.F.A.No.4404/2009 (Mv)\n c/w\n M.F.A.No.1255/2009 (Mv)\n\nIn Mfa No.4404/2009\n\nBetween\n\n1. Smt. Mahadevamma,\n W/O Late Thimmanaika,\n Aged About 29 Years\n\n2. Harish\n S/O Late Thimmanaika\n Aged About 14 Years\n\n3. Pallavi\n D/O Late Thimmanaika\n Aged About 11 Years\n\n4. Sakamma\n W/O Javaranaika\n Aged About 63 Years\n\n5. Javaranaika\n S/O Late Kullanaika\n Aged About 72 Years\n\nAll The Petitioners Are\nResiding At Singamaranahalli Village\nKyathamaranahalli Post, Bilikere Hobli,\nHunsur Taluk - 571 105.\n\nPetitioners 2 And 3 Are Minors\nRepresented By Their Next Friend\n 2\n\n\nMother 1St Appellant Mahadevamma.\n ...Appellants\n(By Smt. Suma Kedilaya, Advocate,\nfor Sri V Padmanabha Kedilaya, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Sri H.S Ramesh\n Aged About 47 Years\n S/O H.G Swamygowda\n No.325/2, Yelwal\n Village And Post\n Mysore Taluk - 570 024.\n\n2. The New India Insurance\n Co.Ltd. Doi, Jlb Road\n Ramaswamy Circle\n Chamundipuram\n Mysore -5\n Represented By D L Manager.\n ...Respondents\n\n(By Sri O Mahesh, Advocate For R-2\nNotice To R-1 Is Held-Sufficient\nV/O Dated 28/5/10)\n\n This Mfa Is Filed Under Section 173(1) Of Mv Act\nAgainst The Judgment And Award Dated 12.11.2008\nPassed In Mvc No.500/2007 On The File Fo Presiding\nOfficer, Fast Track Court-V, Member, Additonal Mact,\nMysore, Partly Allowing The Claim Petition For\nCompensation And Seeking Enhancement Of\nCompensation.\n\nIn Mfa No.1255/2009\n\nBetween:\n\nNew India Assurance Co.Ltd.,\nD.O.I., J.L.B. Road\nChamundipuram\nMysore - 560 002.\nBy Regional Office, Unity Building\n 3\n\n\nAnnex E, P.Kalinga Rao Raod\nBangalore - 560 027\nBy It'S Manager. ..Appellant\n\n(By Sri O.Mahesh, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Smt.Mahadevamma,\n W/O Late Thimmanaika\n Aged About 29 Years\n\n2. Harish\n S/O Late Thimmanaika\n Aged About 14 Years\n\n3. Pallavi\n D/O Late Thimmanaika\n Aged About 11 Years\n\n4. Sakamma\n W/O Javaranaika\n Aged About 63 Years\n\n5. Javaranaika\n S/O Late Kullanaika,\n Aged About 72 Years\n\nAll Are Residing At\nSingamaranahalli Village\nKyathamaranahalli Post\nBilikere Hobli, Hunsur Taluk - 571 105.\n ...Resfpondents\n(By Smt.Suma Kedilaya, Advocate\nfor Sri V.Padmanabha Kedilaya, Advocate\nfor R-1 To R-5\nNotice to R-6 is held sufficient v/o dated 8/8/11)\n\n This Mfa Is Filed Under Section 173(1) Of Mv Act\nAgainst The Judgment And Award Dated:12.11.2008\nPassed In Mvc No.500/2007 On The File Of The Presiding\nOfficer, Fast Track Court-V, Member, Additonal Mact,\n 4\n\n\nMysore, Awading A Compensation Of Rs.4,10,000/- With\nInterest @ 6% P.A From The Date Of Petition.\n\n These MFAs Having Been Heard And Reserved On\n17.03.2017 And Coming On For Pronouncement Of\nJudgment This Day, The Court Delivered The\nFollowing:\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 176,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 354,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 426,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 490,
"end": 497,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 561,
"end": 568,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 627,
"end": 638,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 938,
"end": 949,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1012,
"end": 1025,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1045,
"end": 1066,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1096,
"end": 1106,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1251,
"end": 1270,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1458,
"end": 1466,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1891,
"end": 1918,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2166,
"end": 2174,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2204,
"end": 2215,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2280,
"end": 2286,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2350,
"end": 2357,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2421,
"end": 2428,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2487,
"end": 2498,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2734,
"end": 2747,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2766,
"end": 2787,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate \n (Traffic), South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.\n\nIn the matter of :\nVehicle No. : Dl\u00ad1M\u00ad3321\nChallan No. : 672\u00ad00462\u00ad14\nCircle : Hkc\nU/S. : 66/192A of M.V. Act, 1988. \n\nState\n\nVersus\n\nSabhajeet \nS/o Sh. Hari Ram\nR/o Village Sohgupur, P.O. Fatehpur, \nPs Jalalpur, Ambedkar Nagar, U.P.\n\nDate of Filing the Challan :28.03.2014\nArguments Heard on :03.05.2014\nDate of Judgment :26.05.2014\nPlea of the accused :Not Guilty \nFinal Order :Acquittal\n\nPresent: Ld. App for the State\n Accused in person alongwith Ld. Counsel Sh.S.K. Srivastava \n and Smt. Surabhi Srivastava. \n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 124,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 273,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 292,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 776,
"end": 791,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 820,
"end": 838,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nDattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Bombay And Others.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 42,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nWrit Petition (crl.) 833 of 1990\n\nPetitioner:\nAbdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. \n\nRespondent:\nR.S. Nayak & Anr. \n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 77,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 109,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur.\n\n Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.11936/2014\n\n Satya Prakash Verma\n vs.\n State of M.P. and another\n\n\n\nCoram :\nHon'ble Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, J\nHon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi, J.\n_______________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Shri Anil Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri H.S. Chhabra, for the applicant. \n\nShri S.K. Kashyap, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. \n\nShri Ajay Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. \n\n (O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 143,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 214,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 274,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 311,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 425,
"end": 435,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 477,
"end": 489,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 517,
"end": 529,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 579,
"end": 588,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honourable Dr. Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao \n\nCriminal Appeal No.1173 of 2004 \n\n22-09-2014 \n\nTumula Harinath ...Appellant\n\nM/s Uplands Finance and Chit Funds Private Limited rep. by its Managing\nDirector and another .Respondents \n \nCounsel for the Appellant: Sri T.M.K.Chaitanya\n\nCounsel for respondents/accused : None\nCounsel for respondent No.3/State : Public Prosecutor\n\n\nHead Note : --- \n\n? Cases referred:\n1. (2006)3 Scc 30 \n2. (2009) 2 Scc 513 \n3. Air 2010 Sc 1898 \n4. Air 2008 Sc 1325 \n5. Air 2001 Sc 3897 \n6. Air 1999 Sc 1008 \n7. Ir 2002 Sc 182 \n8. Air 2008 Sc 2898 \n9. 1971 (1) An.W.R. 65\n10. Air2000 Sc 1953 \n11. 1997(2) Ald 249=(2) Alt Crl 626\n12. Air 2000 Sc 92 \n13. (2014 (1) Alt Crl.145\n\n\nThe Honourable Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao \nCriminal Appeal No.1173 of 2004 \nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 121,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 186,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 355,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 829,
"end": 847,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n Civil\n Appeal No.3190 \n \n Of 2011\n \n\n (Arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 12187 of 2009) \n\n\n\n\nDevinder Singh ......Appellant\n\n\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nMunicipal Council, Sanaur ......Respondent\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 32,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 463,
"end": 477,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 605,
"end": 630,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nExpress Newspapers (Private) Ltd.,And Another\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Union Of India And OTHERS(and connected petitions and ap\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 45,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 95,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nShri Ram Krishna Dalmia\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nShri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & OTHERS(and connected appeal)\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 83,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe Bombay Union Of Journalists And Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe, Hindu', Bombay, And Another\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 93,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan And The Honblr Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy \n\nWrit Petition Nos.28499 Of 2013 and batch \n\n27-08-2014 \n\nM/s.Doshi Motors Pvt. Ltd..Petitioner \n\nThe Commercial Tax Officer, Sultan Bazar Circle, Abids Division, Hyderabad &\nOrs. . Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri E.Manohar, Learned Senior Counsel for Sri S.Krishna Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner. \n\nCounsel for respondents: Sri P.Balaji Varma, Learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes. \n\nHead Note: \n?Citations:\n1. (2011) 52 Apstj 85 \n2. 2008(1) Scc 494 \n3. Air 1978 Sc 8 \n4. Air 1965 Sc 111 \n5. 2013(1) Scc 524 \n6. Air 1981 Rajastan 3 \n7. (2011) 44 Vst 353 (Ap) \n8. Air 1987 Sc 88 \n9. Air 1961 Sc 1457 = [1962] 2 S.C.R. 575 \n10. (2013) 3 Scc 182 \n11. (1956) 1 All Er 855\n12. (2011) 3 Scc 363 \n13. (2007) 5 Scc 211 \n14. (1992) Illj 283 Sc\n15. (1997) 1 Scc 9 \n16. (1996) 1 Scc 435 \n17. (1997) 3 Scc 443 \n18. (2003) 9 Scc 401 \n19. (2010) 11 Scc 557 \n20. (1969) 1 Scc 110 \n21. (1977) 2 Scc 431 \n22. (1999) 1 Scc 271 \n23. (2003) 1 Scc 488 \n24. (2004) 7 Scc 166 \n25. (2010) 4 Scc 728 \n26. (1993) 4 Scc 317 \n27. (2009) 9 Scc 386 \n28. 1993 Supp (2) Scc 20 \n29. (1994) 6 Scc 620 \n30. (1995) 1 Scc 242 \n31. (1977 Wln 88 \n 32. (1997) 1 Scc 134 The Honble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan And The Honblr Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy Writ Petition Nos.28499, 28542 And 28582 Of 2013 Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 91,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 196,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 351,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 384,
"end": 400,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 469,
"end": 483,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1331,
"end": 1349,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1377,
"end": 1399,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Sh. P.K. Matto, Additional District Judge\u00ad01 \n (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.\n\n\nRca: 6/2014 \nUnique Case Id No.: 02402C0030572014\n\nDate of Institution : 27.1.2014\nDate of Reserving Judgment: 15.11.2014 \nDate on which judgment was pronounced: 22.11.2014 \n\nIn Re:\nSmt Jyoti Nagpal\nw/o Shri Ravinder Kumar Nagpal\nr/o E\u00ad5, Gali no. 3,\nEast Chander Nagar,\nDelhi - 110 051. .....Appellant/defendant/Judgment \ndebtor.\n\nversus\n\nSmt Meena Kapoor\ns/o Shri Sunil Kapoor\nr/o 18\u00adB, Subhash Gali,\nGopal Park,\nDelhi - 110 051. ....Respondent/plaintiff/Decree holder.\u00ad: Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 320,
"end": 332,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 510,
"end": 522,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nKapurchand Shrimal\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 103,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nHukam Chand Shyam Lal\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nS. Sundaram Pillai, Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nV.R. Pattabiraman Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 73,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Reserved on: 13th February, 2013\n Pronounced on: 18th February, 2013\n+ Mac.App. 483/2011\n\n New India Assurance Co. Ltd ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n Dharmender Kumar Jain & Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr.S.N.Parashar, Adv. for R-1(a) & 1(b)\n Ms.Pooja Uppal, Advocate for R-2\n Mr.A.K.Singh, Adv. with\n Mr. M.Tripathi, Adv. for R-3\n+ Mac.App. 1040/2012\n\n Dharmender Kumar Jain & Ors. ..... Appellants\n Through: Mr. S.N.Parashar, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n New India Insurance Co Ltd ..... Respondent\n Through: Mr.Kanwal Chaudhary, Advocate.\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice G.P.Mittal\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 270,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 348,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 404,
"end": 425,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 487,
"end": 499,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 560,
"end": 571,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 626,
"end": 635,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 684,
"end": 694,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 747,
"end": 768,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 837,
"end": 849,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 905,
"end": 931,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 996,
"end": 1012,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1070,
"end": 1080,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Andhra Pradesh\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nN. Radhakishan\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nM/S Hindustan Times Limited\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India & Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 39,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 73,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1)\n W.P.2431/2010\n M.Cr.C.848/2010\n\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh: Jabalpur\n\n\n Division Bench: Hon'ble Justice Shri Rakesh Saksena\n Hon'ble Justice Shri M.A.Siddiqui\n\n\n Writ Petiton No.2431/2010\n\n\n Dev Vrat Mishra, aged about 52 years\n S/o Shri Ramesh Prasad Mishra,\n residing at House No.945,\n Shaki Nagar, Gupteshwar,\n Jabalpur (M.P.)\n\n .......Petitioner\n\n -Versus-\n\n 1. State of Madhya Pradesh through\n the Superintendent of Police, Office\n of the Lokayukt Bhopal (M.P.)\n\n 2. The Superintendent of Police,\n Special Police Establishment,\n Office of the Lokayukt, Jabalpur\n (M.P.)\n\n .......Respondents\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n For the petitioner: Shri Anil Khare, Advocate with Ku.Namrata\n Kesharwani, Advocate.\n For the respondent: Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate.\n For the intervenor: Shri Kishore Shrivastava, Senior Advocate\n with Shri Kapil Jain, Advocate.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.848/2010\n\n\n Surendra Kori, son of Late Shri\n K.L.Kori, aged 47 years, occupation:\n Sub-Registrar, then posted at Jabalpur,\n R/o Flat No.B-6, Hemasha Apartment,\n Near G.S.College, South Civil Lines,\n Jabalpur, M.P.\n ........Petitioner\n\n -Versus-\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh, through\n Special Police Establishment,\n Lokayukt, Bhopal, M.P. .........Respondent\n (2)\n W.P.2431/2010\n M.Cr.C.848/2010\n\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n For the petitioner : Shri Manish Datt with Shri Siddharth\n Datt, Advocates.\n For the respondent: Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Date of hearing: 21/09/2010\n Date of Order: 04/10/2010\n\n **********\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 222,
"end": 260,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 321,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 378,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 452,
"end": 467,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 814,
"end": 837,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 960,
"end": 1097,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1345,
"end": 1355,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1374,
"end": 1431,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1475,
"end": 1490,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1534,
"end": 1553,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1620,
"end": 1630,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1819,
"end": 1832,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2251,
"end": 2274,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2839,
"end": 2850,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2861,
"end": 2918,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2979,
"end": 2994,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nHar Shankar & Ors. Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Dy.\t Excise & Taxation Commr. & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 23,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 95,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal NOs. 5321-5322 Of 2013\n (Arising Out Of Slp(C) 13619-13620 Of 2012)\n\nState Of Gujarat & Ors. \u2026 Appellants\n\n Verus\n\nPwd Employees Union & Ors. Etc. \u2026 Respondents\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 265,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 367,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 3392 of 2002\n\nPetitioner:\nCholan Roadways Limited\n\nRespondent:\nG. Thirugnanasambandam\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 75,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 111,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ajai Shankar Saxena Vs. School of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education Id No. 461/04\n\n\n Before Labour Court - Xi: Karkardooma Courts: Delhi\n Presiding Officer: Mr. Anand Swaroop Aggarwal \n (Delhi Higher Judicial Service)\n (Additional District & Sessions Judge, Delhi)\n\n\nReference Case (Id) No. 461/04 (Old Id No. 84/87)\nUnique Case Id No. 02402C0407192004\n\nIn the matter of:\n\nAjai Shankar Saxena s/o. Sh. Hari Shankar \nR/o. E - 50, Subhash Mohalla, North Ghonda, Delhi. \n\nOther Addresses:\n(i) A\u00ad4, S\u00ad2, Dilshad Plaza, Bhopra, Sahibabad, U.P.\n\n(ii) H. No. 320, Sector\u00ad1, Vasundhara, Ghaziabad, U.P.\n\nC/o. Delhi Dehati and Shahari Mazdoor Union (Regd.)\nE\u00ad7 / 268 - 269, Sultanpuri, Delhi - 110041 \n ....... Workman / Claimant\n \n Vs. \n\nSchool of Correspondence Courses and Continuing Education,\n(Presently known as School of Open Learning, University of Delhi)\nUniversity of Delhi, 5, Cavalry Lines, Delhi - 110007 \n ....... Management\n\nDate of institution : 14.09.1987\nDate of reserving for award : 18.03.2015\nDate of award : 07.04.2015 \n\nAward:\n\n1. Terms Of Reference\n\n Vide Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 19,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 25,
"end": 82,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 176,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 236,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 601,
"end": 620,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1110,
"end": 1167,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ajay Goel: Additional District\n Judge-12(Central):Delhi.\n\nLac No. 07/13\n Award No: 06/Lac/Cl/2000,\n Announced on: 03.08.2000\n Village: Wazirabad, Delhi\n\nIn the matter of:\nSh. Kartar Singh, S/o Sh.Girohi\n(Since deceased through his Lrs)\n (i) Sh. Ajit Singh\n S/o Late Sh. Kartar Singh\n R/o Ch. Kartar Singh Farm House\n 445, Gali No. 9, Village Jagatpur,\n Delhi-110084.\n\n (ii) Sh. Sunil Kumar\n S/o Late Sh. Kartar Singh\n R/o 445, Gali No. 9, Village Jagatpur,\n Delhi-110084.\n Also at:\n 691, Panorama Hills Rive Nw\n Calgary Ab T3K4V4\n Canada.\n\n (iii) Dr. Vijendra Pal Singh,\n S/o Late Sh. Kartar Singh\n R/o Flat No. 366, Jubilee Appts.\n Sector-11, Sfs Flats,\n Rohini, Delhi.\n\n (iv)Smt. Vijaya Kumari,\n D/o Late Sh. Kartar Singh\n R/o Sadhna Sadan, Hathi Building\n Station Road, Saharanpur (U.P.)\n\n (v) Ms. Suresh Wati,\n\nLac-07/13 Page:-1/14\n D/o Late Sh. Kartar Singh\n R/o Village & P. O. Hardoi Gurjar\n Distt. Jalaun (U. P.)\n\n (vi) Ms. Sunita @ Guddi,\n D/o Late Sh. Kartar Singh\n R/o 185, Rameshwar Nagar,\n Gali No. 4, Azadpur, Delhi. .....Petitioners\n\n\n Versus\n\n1. Union of India\n through Lac/Adm (North)\n 1, Kirpa Narain Marg,\n Civil Lines, Delhi.\n\n2. Delhi Development Authority\n through its Vice Chairman,\n Ina, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. .....Respondents\n\nDate of Filing of Reference: 25.11.2008\nDate of Previous Judgment: 24.12.2008\nDate of Remand back: 08.07.2013.\nDate of Assignment to this court: 02.08.2013\nDate of Arguments: 01.10.2014\nDate of Decision: 03.11.2014\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 25,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 313,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1422,
"end": 1436,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1532,
"end": 1559,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "spb/-\n 1 wp1483-98.sxw\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Side Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No. 1483 Of 1998 \n\n\n 1) Ramchandra Vasudeo Patankar, | ... Petitioners. \n\n\n\n\n \n Age about 81 yrs.,Occ.Nil,R/o 249, | (Org.Plffs-Landlords)\n Mangalwar Peth, Bhor, Dist.Pune. |\n |\n 2) Prabhakar Vasudeo Patankar, |\n\n\n\n\n \n deceased through his legal heirs : |\n a) Mr.Dhananjay Prabhakar Patankar,\n ig |\n R/at 249 Mangalwar Peth, Bhor, Dist.Pune. |\n b) Mrs. Jayashri Shripad Mahajani, Ambar |\n Plaza, Behind Syndicate Bank Bhalerao |\n \n Colony, Talegaon, Tal.Maval, Dist.Pune. |\n c) Mrs. Manjushri Hemant Soman |\n A 21 Poorva Hsg.Society Panch Pakhadi, |\n Near Saraswati English School, Thane. |\n Dist.Thane. |\n \n\n\n d) Mrs. Maya Prakash Abhyankar, |\n \n\n\n\n 356 Madhali Ali, Wai, Tal. Wai. |\n |\n 3) Narayan Moreshwar Patankar, |\n Age about 66 yrs.Occ.Nil. R/o.249, |\n\n\n\n\n\n Mangalwar Peth, Bhor, Dist.Pune. |\n \n V/s.\n\n\n Mukund Dattatraya Desai | ... Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\n Age about 60 yrs., Occ. (Nil as per Pltffs' ) | (Org.Deft-Tenant)\n Astrology & Cloth Shop (alleged), R/o.249,\n Mangalwar Peth, Bhor, Tal.Bhor, Dist.Pune.\n ---\n\n Mr. Vijaykumar G. Peshave for the Petitioners.\n\n Mr.V.D. Borwankar for the Respondent. \n -----\n\n\n\n\n \n spb/-\n 2 wp1483-98.sxw\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram : D. G. Karnik, J.\n Date : 05th January, 2011.\n\n\n\n\n \n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 211,
"end": 245,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 432,
"end": 459,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 794,
"end": 820,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1820,
"end": 1846,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2053,
"end": 2076,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2376,
"end": 2397,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2427,
"end": 2441,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2850,
"end": 2862,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 R\n\n\nIn The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n\n Dated This The 17Th Day Of April, 2013\n\n Present\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Mohan .M. Shantanagoudar\n\n And\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice V.Suri Appa Rao\n\n Criminal Appeal No.380/2007\n\nBetween :\n\nState by Rural Police, Shimoga. ..Appellant\n\n(By Sri G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, Hcgp.,)\n\nAnd :\n\n1. B.C. Manjunatha @ Manju\n S/o B.J. Chandra Shekar,\n Aged about 21 years,\n Vishwakarma by caste,\n Painting work, R/at No.13,\n Iii Cross, Vidya Nagar, Shimoga.\n\n2. V. Prashanth\n S/o Venkatesh,\n 20 years, Jarijan by caste,\n Lorry Cleaner work,\n Ii Cross, Mallikarjuna Nagar,\n Ragigudda, Shimoga City. ..Respondents\n\n(By Sri R.B. Deshpande, Adv. for R-1\n Sri. Harish Kumar, Adv. for R-2\nSri P.M.Nawaz, Amicus Curiae)\n 2\n\n\n This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section\n378(1) & (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to\ngrant leave to appeal against the Judgment and order\nof acquittal passed by the District and Sessions Judge\nand Fast Track Court-II, Shimoga in S.C. No.124/2004\ndated 27.10.2006, acquitting the respondents/accused\nof the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392,\n449 r/w Sec. 34 of Ipc; set aside the aforesaid\nJudgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court\nbelow by allowing this appeal; and convict and\nsentence the accused - respondents for the offences\nwith which they had been charged and tried in\naccordance with law.\n\n This Appeal coming on for hearing this day,\nMohan .M. Shantanagoudar, J., delivered the\nfollowing:-\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 71,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 199,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 278,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 335,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 394,
"end": 414,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 460,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 620,
"end": 632,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 809,
"end": 823,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 844,
"end": 856,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 875,
"end": 884,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1618,
"end": 1642,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nGujarat Electricity Board & Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nAtmaram Sungomal Poshani\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 37,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 88,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-1- (C.R. No.53 /2008)\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Principal Seat At Jabalpur\n\n\nSingle Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Justice P.K.Jaiswal\n\n\n Civil Revision No. 53 of 2008\n\n\n Bhagwandas Yadav\n\n Vs\n\n\n Rohit Tiwari\n\nFor applicant : Shri Vipin Yadav, Advocate\nFor respondent No.1: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate\nFor respondent No.2 :Shri M.S. Bhatti, Advocate\nFor respondent No.3: Shri V.S. Choudhary, Advocate\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 134,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 183,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 285,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 375,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 398,
"end": 409,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 446,
"end": 460,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 497,
"end": 508,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 545,
"end": 559,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nA.K. Gopalan\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Madras.Union Of India: Intervener.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 63,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 stxa-5-11.sxw\n\n\n dgm\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n Sales Tax Appeal No. 5 Of 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n The Additional Commissioner of \n Sales Tax Vat-Iii, Mumbai .... Appellant\n\n\n\n\n \n vs\n Sehgal Autoriders Pvt.Ltd. \n ig .... Respondent\n\n\n Mr. Vinay A. Sonpal, A Panel Counsel for the Appellant.\n \n Mr. V. P. Patkar with Mr. M M. Vaidya for the respondent. \n \n\n\n Coram: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud &\n Anoop V. Mohta, Jj.\n Date : July 11, 2011 Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 165,
"end": 199,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 441,
"end": 498,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 607,
"end": 624,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 720,
"end": 735,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 808,
"end": 820,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 830,
"end": 841,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 932,
"end": 948,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1013,
"end": 1027,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Sh. P.K. Matto, Additional District \n Judge\u00ad01(EAST) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.\nRca No:\u00ad40/2010\nId No.: 02402C0300742010\n\nDate of Institution : 25.10.2010 \nDate of Reserving Judgment: 15.05.2014 \nDate on which judgment was pronounced: 26.05.2014 \n\nIn Re:\nSmt Namita Malik\nThrough her authorized Representative\nShri Vijay Kumar\nPresently residing at A/8 B\nMayur Vihar,Phase\u00adII,Delhi. \n Versus\nNishant Kumar\ns/o Shri Mundrika Prasad\nr/o Wb - 316, Top Floor, Street no.3,\nGanesh Nagar\u00adII,Extension,\nShakarpur,Delhi\u00ad92. ..............Respondent/Plaintiff \u00ad: J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 109,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 308,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 483,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri P.S. Teji : District & Sessions \n Judge (East) : Special Judge (Cbi), Karkardooma \n Courts, Delhi\n\n\nAc No.19/2008\nUnique Case Id No.02402R0651282008\n\nFir No.RC Dai\u00ad2008\u00adA\u00ad0001/\nCBI/ACB/New Delhi\nUnder Sec. 120\u00adB Ipc r/w Section 7\nand 13(2) r/w Sec. 13(1)(d) of Pc Act.\n\nCbi Versus (1) Hari Chand\n S/o Sh. Tota Ram\n R/o K\u00ad6, Gali No.20A, Gangotari\n Vihar, West Gonda, Delhi\u00ad53.\n \n (2) Sanjay Kumar Singh\n S/o Sh. Dharam Singh\n R/o 46, Samachar Appt.,\n Mayur Vihar Ph\u00adI, Delhi\u00ad91.\n\n (3) Subhash Narain\n S/o Late Sh. Parmanand\n R/o 44, Priya Enclave, Delhi\u00ad92.\n\nDate of Institution : 29.08.2008\nDate of reserving the order : 06.05.2014\nDate of pronouncement : 22.05.2014\n\n\nAc No.19/2008 Cbi Vs. Hari Chand etc. Page 1 of 109\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 148,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 324,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 372,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 649,
"end": 667,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 903,
"end": 917,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1258,
"end": 1261,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1267,
"end": 1277,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh,\n Bench At Gwalior\n\n Db : Hon'Ble Mr Justice S.K.Gangele\n Hon'Ble Mr Justice Rohit Arya\n\n (Criminal Reference Capital No.01/2014)\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n -Vs-\n Yogendra alias Jogendra Singh\n\n And\n\n (Criminal Appeal No.883/2014)\n\n Yogendra alias Jogendra Singh\n Vs.\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri Prabal Solanki, Public Prosecutor for the State.\nShri Atul Gupta, Advocate for the accused.\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 69,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 122,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 173,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 273,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 360,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 509,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 569,
"end": 592,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 696,
"end": 710,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 750,
"end": 760,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 7431 Of 2008\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No. 14429 of 2007)\n\n\nRoop Singh Negi ... Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nPunjab National Bank & Ors. ... Respondents\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 56,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 226,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 338,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBachan Singh Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Punjab Etc. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pnp 1/14 Wpl523-6.3\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition (Lodg.) No.523 Of 2013\n\n\n\n\n \n Uti Mutual Fund,\n Through its Trustees Uti Trustee\n Company Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai ..Petitioner.\n versus\n Income Tax Officer -19(3)(2),\n\n\n\n\n \n Mumbai and others ..Respondents.\n .....\n Mr. S.E. Dastoor, Senior Advocate with Mr. Madhur Agarwal and Mr. Atul K.\n Jasani for the Petitioner.\n Mr. P.C. Chhotaray with Ms. Padma Divakar for the Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n .....\n ig Coram : Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, And\n A.A. Sayed, Jj.\n 6 March 2013. \n\n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 116,
"end": 150,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 428,
"end": 443,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 586,
"end": 604,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 813,
"end": 825,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 852,
"end": 866,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 875,
"end": 893,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 922,
"end": 936,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 946,
"end": 959,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1134,
"end": 1149,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1203,
"end": 1213,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nB.C. Chaturvedi\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 61,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nVijayee Singh And Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Uttar Pradesh\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 76,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Letters Patent Appeal No.1639 of 2016\n In\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9918 of 2016\n===========================================================\nBibha Devi wife of Abinash Kumar Thakur, Resident of village and P.O. Kansi, Police Station- Simri and District - Darbhanga. \n\n .... .... Appellant Versus\n1. The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna through the State Election Commissioner. \n\n2. The State Election Commissioner, the State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. \n\n3. The Secretary, the State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. \n\n4. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga -cum- District Election Officer (Panchayat), Darbhanga, District - Darbhanga. \n\n5. The Block Development Officer-cum-Returning Officer (Panchayat Election, 2016), Sadar Darbhanga Block, District Darbhanga. \n\n6. Sri Taukir Kaisar, son of not known to the petitioner, presently posted as the Block Development officer, Kewati, District Darbhanga. \n\n7. Usha Devi, wife of Pawan Kumar Chaudhary, Resident of Village and P.O.- Kansi, Police Station- Simri, District - Darbhanga. \n\n .... .... Respondents With =========================================================== Letters Patent Appeal No. 1643 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9918 of 2016 =========================================================== Akila Khatoon wife of Neyaz Ahmad, resident of village and P.O.- Kansi, Police Station- Simri and District- Darbhanga. \n\n .... .... Appellant Versus\n1. The State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna through the State Election Commissioner. \n\n2. The State Election Commissioner, the State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. \n\n3. The Secretary, the State Election Commission (Panchayat), Sone Bhawan, Birchand Patel Path, Patna. \n\n4. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga -cum- District Election Officer (Panchayat), Darbhanga, District - Darbhanga. \n\n5. The Block Development Officer -cum- Returning Officer (Panchayat Election, 2016), Sadar Darbhanga Block, District Darbhanga. \n\n6. Sri Taukir Kaisar, Son of not known to the Petitioner, Presently posted as the B.D.O., Kewati, District Darbhanga. \n\n7. Bibha Devi Wife of Abinash Kumar Thakur, Resident of village and P.O. Kansi, P.S. Simri, District - Darbhanga\n8. Usha Devi, Wife of Pawan Kumar Chaudhary, Resident of village and P.O. Kansi, P.S. Simri, District - Darbhanga. \n\n .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Patna High Court Lpa No.1639 of 2016 dt.18-10-2016 Appearance :\n (In Lpa No.1639 of 2016) For the Appellant: Mr. P.K. Shahi, Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar No. 2, (In Lpa No.1643 of 2016) For the Appellant: Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate Mr. Gajendra Singh, Advocate For the Respondent State: Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Aag -8 Mr. K.C. Jha, Advocate Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate Mr. S.K. Choudhary, Advocate For State Election Commission:Mr. Amit Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Girish Pandey, Advocate For Private Respondent: Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Advocate Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate =========================================================== Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice and Honourable Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 283,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 513,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 564,
"end": 675,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 686,
"end": 779,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 790,
"end": 897,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 908,
"end": 1025,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1036,
"end": 1049,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1171,
"end": 1180,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1533,
"end": 1546,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1689,
"end": 1767,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1818,
"end": 1929,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1940,
"end": 2033,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2044,
"end": 2151,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2162,
"end": 2281,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2292,
"end": 2305,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2408,
"end": 2418,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2521,
"end": 2530,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2718,
"end": 2734,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 2831,
"end": 2841,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2863,
"end": 2875,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2931,
"end": 2942,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2957,
"end": 2971,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3012,
"end": 3029,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3042,
"end": 3050,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3065,
"end": 3076,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3091,
"end": 3105,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3150,
"end": 3165,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3180,
"end": 3193,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3232,
"end": 3247,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3262,
"end": 3273,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3407,
"end": 3431,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bangalore City.\n (Cch.No.2)\n\n Dated, this the 31st day of July 2015.\n\n Present\n Sri.Ravi M. Naik,B.Com,LL.M.,\n I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.\n\n O.S.No.7738/2007 & 7739/2007\n\nCommon Plaintiff M.R.Narayan, S/o late Mr.M.N.Rajagopalan,\nin Os 7738/2007 & aged about 57years,r/a no.768, 34th cross,\n7739/2007 9th main, Jayanagar 4th block, Bangalore -11.\n\n (party in person)\n - V E R S U S -\n\nDefendant in Os Madhusudhan S/o N.Mukundarao, major, old\n7738/2007 r/a Old no.4, new no.89, first floor, 9th\n main, Jayanagar, 4th block, Bangalore - 11.\n And also at:\n No.14, 10th main, 26th cross, Bsk Ii stage,\n Bangalore - 560 070.\n (By Sri.S.M.Rizvi - Advocate)\n Vs\n\nDefendant in Os N.Mukundarao, s/o Narayana rao, aged about\n7739/2007 80years, r/a Old no.4, new no.89, ground\n floor, 9th main, Jayanagar, 4th block,\n Bangalore - 11.\n And also at:\n No.14, 10th main, 26th cross, Bsk Ii stage,\n Bangalore - 560 070.\n (By Sri.S.M.Rizvi - Advocate)\n\nDate of institution of the suit : (1) 29.9.2007 (2) 29.9.2007\nNature of the suit (suit on Suit for ejectment\npronote, suit for declaration and Suit for ejectment\n 2 O.S.No.7738/2007 &\n Os 7739/2007\n\npossession suit for injunction,etc) :\nDate of the commencement of (1) 2.8.2010 (2) 2.8.2010\nrecording of the evidence :\nDate on which the Judgment was 31.7.2015\npronounced :\nTotal duration Year/s Month/s Day/s\n 07 10 02\n 07 10 02\n\n\n (Ravi M. Naik)\n I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bangalore.\n\n Common Judgment\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 260,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 329,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 408,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 683,
"end": 694,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1058,
"end": 1067,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1151,
"end": 1163,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1565,
"end": 1574,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2408,
"end": 2420,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2451,
"end": 2535,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nTata Iron And Steel Co., Limited,Bombay\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nS. R. Sarkar And Others.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 51,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 85,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n W.P. (C) 4242/2006\n\n Reserved on: January 21, 2010\n Decision on : March 17, 2010\n\n Swarn Singh ..... Petitioner\n Through Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n Union Of India & Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through Mr. Ajay Arora with\n Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for Mcd.\n Mr. Amiet Andlay, Advocate for R-2.\n Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for Railways.\n\n W.P.(C) 4243/2006\n\n Ramesh Kumar ..... Petitioner\n Through Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through Mr. Ajay Arora with\n Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for Mcd.\n Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for Railways.\n Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani with Ms. Bandana\n Shukla, Advocate for R-2\n\n W.P.(C) 4253/2006\n\n Pushpa Devi & Ors ..... Petitioners\n Through Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n Union Of India & Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through Mr. Ajay Arora with\n Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for Mcd.\n Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for Railways.\n Ms. Payal Srivastava, Advocate for R-2\n\n W.P.(C) 4300/2006\n\n Sunita Devi & Ors. ..... Petitioners\n Through Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate\n\n versus\nWP(C)Nos.4242, 4243, 4253, 4300, 4494 & 4506/2006 Page 1 of 26\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through Mr. Ajay Arora with\n Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for Mcd.\n Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for Railways.\n Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani with Ms. Bandana\n Shukla, Advocate for R-2\n\n\n W.P.(C) 4494/2006\n\n Ramesh ..... Petitioner\n Through Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through Mr. Ajay Arora with\n Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for Mcd.\n Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for Railways.\n Ms. Payal Srivastava, Advocate for R-2.\n\n And\n W.P.(C) 4506/2006\n\n Santosh Kumari ..... Petitioner\n Through Ms. Aruna Mehta, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through Mr. Ajay Arora with\n Mr. Kapil Dutta, Advocate for Mcd.\n Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate for Railways.\n Ms. Ruchi Sindhwani with Ms. Bandana\n Shukla, Advocate for R-2\n\n Coram: Justice S. Muralidhar\n\n 1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed\n to see the judgment? Yes\n\n 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes\n\n 3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? Yes\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 265,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 376,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 426,
"end": 440,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 514,
"end": 524,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 555,
"end": 566,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 611,
"end": 623,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 668,
"end": 684,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 759,
"end": 771,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 842,
"end": 853,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 903,
"end": 917,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 997,
"end": 1007,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1038,
"end": 1049,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1094,
"end": 1110,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1160,
"end": 1175,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1185,
"end": 1220,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1298,
"end": 1309,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1391,
"end": 1402,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1452,
"end": 1466,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1544,
"end": 1554,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1585,
"end": 1596,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1641,
"end": 1657,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1707,
"end": 1723,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1801,
"end": 1812,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1890,
"end": 1901,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2033,
"end": 2047,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2124,
"end": 2134,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2165,
"end": 2176,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2221,
"end": 2237,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2287,
"end": 2302,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2312,
"end": 2347,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2426,
"end": 2432,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2538,
"end": 2549,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2599,
"end": 2613,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2690,
"end": 2700,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2731,
"end": 2742,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2787,
"end": 2803,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2853,
"end": 2869,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2989,
"end": 3003,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3078,
"end": 3089,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3139,
"end": 3153,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3230,
"end": 3240,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3271,
"end": 3282,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3327,
"end": 3343,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3393,
"end": 3408,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3418,
"end": 3453,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3495,
"end": 3508,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n srk\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Appellate Side\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No. 446 Of 1992\n (For enhancement of sentence)\n\n\n\n\n \n The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant\n\n Vs.\n\n\n\n\n \n Baban Kisan Kulvade .. Respondent\n (Org.Accd.No.1)\n ig With\n Criminal Appeal No. 472 Of 1992\n (Against acquittal)\n \n The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant\n\n Vs.\n \n\n 1. Baban Kisan Kulvade\n 2. Smt. Shantibai Shrichand Kshyatriya .. Respondents\n \n\n\n\n (Org.Accd.Nos.\n 1 and 2)\n\n Mrs. P. P. Shinde, App for Appellant-State in both the Appeals.\n Mr. Niranjan Mundargi for respondent in Cri. Appeal No.446/92\n\n\n\n\n\n and for respondent no.1 in Cri. Appeal No. 472/92.\n Mr. Dilip Bodake for respondent no.2 in Cri. Appeal No.472/92.\n\n Coram: B.H.Marlapalle &\n Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, Jj.\n\n\n\n\n\n Reserved on : May 07, 2010\n\n Pronounced on: June 15, 2010\n\n\n\n\n \n 2\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 141,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 415,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 518,
"end": 537,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 822,
"end": 842,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 916,
"end": 935,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 949,
"end": 979,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1169,
"end": 1181,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1237,
"end": 1254,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1365,
"end": 1377,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1456,
"end": 1470,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1509,
"end": 1524,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRamji Dayawala & Sons (P) Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nInvest Import\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 42,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 75,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 26.06.2012\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mrs.Justice Chitra Venkataraman\nand\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.Ravichandrabaabu\n\nTax Case (Appeal) Nos.1311 and 1312 of 2005\n\nM/s.EID Parry (India) Limited\n'Dare House'\n#234, Nsc Bose Road\nChennai-600 001.\t\t\t..\t Appellant in both T.Cs\n\nversus\n\nThe Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax\nSpecial Range-I\nChennai-600 034.\t\t\t..\tRespondent in both TCs\n\n-----\n\nPrayer: Tax Case Appeal Nos.1311 and 1312 of 2005 is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai dated 29.03.2005 made in I.T.A.Nos.209 and 210(Mds)/1999. \n\n-----\n\nFor appellant\t\t\t:\tMr.M.P.Senthil Kumar\n\nFor respondent \t\t\t:\tMr.T.R.Senthil Kumar\n\t\t\t\t\t\tStanding Counsel for Income Tax\n\n-----\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 116,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 165,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 241,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 397,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 699,
"end": 716,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 741,
"end": 758,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Crl Appeal No. 90 of 2005\n\n Reserved on April 3, 2008\n Date of decision: July 18, 2008\n\n Rehmatullah ... Appellant\n Through: Mr. H.M Singh, Advocate\n\n\n versus\n\n Narcotics Control Bureau .... Respondent\n Through : Mr. Satish Aggarwala,\n Sr.Standing counsel\n\n And\n Crl Appeal No. 105 of 2005\n\n Yakub Khan ... Appellant\n Through: Mr. H.M Singh, Advocate\n\n\n versus\n\n Narcotics Control Bureau .... Respondent\n Through : Mr. Satish Aggarwala,\n Sr.Standing counsel\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 249,
"end": 260,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 371,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 436,
"end": 460,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 525,
"end": 541,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 680,
"end": 690,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 867,
"end": 891,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 956,
"end": 972,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1059,
"end": 1072,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nFao No. 33 of 2004\n\n\n1. Leby Issac, S/O. Issac,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n1. Leena M.Ninan Alias Lincy,\n ... Respondent\n2. Ninan Varghese,\n3. Mr.Panikar,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Shabu Sreedharan\n\n For Respondent : No Appearance\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Sankarasubban\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.Hema\n\n Dated : 12/07/2005\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 76,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 186,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 249,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 264,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 320,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 394,
"end": 409,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 441,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'Ble Sri Justice M. Seetharama Murti \n\nCriminal Petition No.8604 of 2012\n\n19-01-2015 \n\n1.A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 others.Petitioners \n\nThe State of A.P., rep., by its Pp, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another\n . Respondents \n\nCounsel for the petitioners: Sri M.V. Suresh\n\nCounsel for Respondent No.1: State \nCounsel for Respondent No.2: Sri A.S.Bhavani Shankar \n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n\n(2012) 10 Scc 741 \n\n\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice M.Seetharama Murti \n\nCriminal Petition No.8604 Of 2012 \n\n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 124,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 202,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 334,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 425,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 515,
"end": 533,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 181 of 2007()\n\n\n1. Shajahan @ Shaji, S/O.Sahib Abdul Khader\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Rep.By The Public\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Rajgopal Padippurackal\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Ramkumar\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Q.Barkath Ali\n\n Dated :19/07/2011\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 87,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 199,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 323,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 411,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 436,
"end": 451,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nGomathinayagam Pillai And Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nPallaniswami Nadar\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 80,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Anurag Sain, Adj\u00ad02 (East), \n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\n C.S. No.: 111/14\n Unique Case Id No. 02402C0012072013\n \n\n 1. Dharma Singh\n S/o Late Sh. Mathura Prasad\n H. No.104\u00ad105, Gali No.17,\n Pratap Nagar, Mayur Vihar Phase\u00adI,\n Delhi\n 2. Smt. Mithlesh\n W/o Sh. Prabhat Kumar Sharma\n Flat No.20\u00adB, Pocket\u00adI,\n Mayur Vihar Phase\u00adI,\n Delhi\n ........Plaintiffs/Applicants\n Versus\n\nSh. Sheo Shankar Parshad\nS/o Late Sh. Raghunandan Parshad\nP\u00ad19 & 20, Pandav Nagar,\nOpp. Fine Home Society,\nDelhi\u00ad91.\n ........Defendant/Non\u00adapplicant\n\nDate of institution of the suit : 14.01.2013\nDate of filing of app. U/O 12 Rule 6 Cpc : 08.01.2015\nDate of reserving judgment : 20.07.2015\nDate of disposal of app. U/O 12 Rule 6 Cpc : 31.07.2015\n\nCs No.: 111/14 Page 1 of 40\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 198,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 338,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 536,
"end": 556,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1048 of 2008()\n\n\n1. T.P.Nandakumar,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State, Represented By The Deputy\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Sobhana George, D/O.Issac George,\n\n3. Chandramohan, Aged 36, S/O.Subramanyan,\n\n4. Jayachandran, S/O.Rajappan Nair,\n\n5. Anil P.Sreerangam, S/O.Padmakaran,\n\n6. T.T.Praveen, S/O.Thomson Nadar,\n\n7. V.O.Anilkumar, S/O.Ramakrishnan,\n\n8. Sukumaran, S/O.Narayanan,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.K.Ramakumar (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Ramkumar\n\n Dated :21/05/2008\n\n O R D E R\n V. Ramkumar, J.\n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n Crl. R.P. No. 1048 of 2008\n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n Dated: 21-05-2008\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 92,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 171,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 261,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 297,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 341,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 383,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 405,
"end": 416,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 441,
"end": 454,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 487,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 542,
"end": 553,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 637,
"end": 647,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 707,
"end": 718,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur\n\nSingle Bench : Hon'Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta, J.\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1156/1997\n\n Ramlal and another\n\n Versus\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri R.S.Patel, counsel for the appellants.\nShri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 91,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 175,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 274,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 356,
"end": 365,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 400,
"end": 409,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sc No.185/2013: Fir No.361/2013: Ps Aman Vihar: State V/s Sohan Lal @ Sonu Dod: 09.04.2015\n\n\n In The Court Of Vinod Yadav: Addl. Sessions Judge\u00ad01: \n (North\u00adWest): Rohini District Courts: New Delhi\n\n(Sessions Case No.185/2013)\nUnique Identification No.: 02404R0334902013\n\nState V/s Sohan Lal @ Sonu\nFir No. : 361/2013\nU/s : 376(2)(i)/506 Ipc r/w Section 6 Pocso Act, 2012\nP.S. : Aman Vihar\n\nState V/s Sohan Lal @ Sonu,\n S/o Late Shri Bal Kishan, \n R/o D\u00ad32, Inder Enclave\u00adII, Kirari, Delhi.\n\nDate of institution of case : 18.11.2013\nDate of arguments : 09.04.2015\nDate of pronouncement of judgment : 09.04.2015 \n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 53,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 74,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 134,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 218,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 298,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 340,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 499,
"end": 504,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 529,
"end": 545,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Death Reference No.11 of 2013\n\n (Reference made by the Sessions Judge,\n Jamui, vide letter, dated 22.10.2013 and\n appeal against the judgment of conviction,\n dated 01.10.2013, and the order of\n sentence, dated 19.10.2013, passed by\n Shri Jyoti Kumar Srivastava, Sessions\n Judge, Jamui, in Sessions Trial No. 440 of\n 2013, arising out of Chandramandhih P.S.\n Case No. 70 of 2013.)\n\n ===================================================\n The State of Bihar\n .... .... Petitioner\n Versus\n\n Hemlal Sah, son of Biku Sah, resident of Village- Chunmaraydih, P.S.\n Chandramandi, District- Jamui.\n .... .... Respondent\n With\n\n Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 1045 of 2013\n ===================================================\n Hem Lal Sah Son of Biku Sah, Resident of Village- Chunmaraydih,\n P.S.- Chandramandi, Dist.- Jamui\n .... .... Appellant\n Versus\n The State of Bihar\n .... .... Respondent.\n ===================================================\n Appearance :\n (In D. Ref. No. 11 of 2013)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Singh, App\n For the Respondent : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, App\n (In Cr. App (Db) No. 1045 of 2013)\n For the Appellant : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate.\n For the Respondent : Mr. G.P. Jaiswal, App\n ===================================================\n Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice I. A. Ansari\n And\nHonourable Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh\n Patna High Court D. Ref. No.11 of 2013 dt.11-02-2014\n\n 2/59\n\n\n\n\n Oral Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 370,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 573,
"end": 587,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 681,
"end": 691,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1001,
"end": 1012,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1216,
"end": 1230,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1430,
"end": 1449,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1486,
"end": 1506,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1579,
"end": 1599,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1642,
"end": 1654,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1750,
"end": 1762,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1827,
"end": 1850,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Page 1 of 22\n\n\n\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Navita Kumari Bagha, Adj\u00ad01 (South), \n Saket Courts, New Delhi\n\nCs No.520/11\nUnique Case Id No.02406C0151282011\n\nSmt. Promila Kishore (Deceased) ............ Plaintiff\nThrough Legal Heirs\n\n1. Mr. Kishor Lal S/o Late Sh. Khushi Ram 5, Doctors Lane, Gole Market, New Delhi. \n\n2. Mr. Ashish Kishor 5, Doctors Lane, Gole Market, New Delhi. \n\n3. Mrs. Annu Sabharwal W/o Sh. Sanjay Sabharwal R\u00ad790, 2nd Floor, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi\u00ad110060. \n\n4. Mrs. Alka Sahni W/o Sh. Sandeep Sahni A\u00ad2/14, Model Town, Delhi\u00ad110009. \n\n\n Vs. \n\n1. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. \n\n (A Govt. of India Undertaking) Through its territory manager Bijwasan, New Delhi\u00ad110061. \n\n Also at Through its Chairman Having its registered office at:\n Cs No. 520/11 Promila Kishore Vs. \n\nBharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Page 2 of 22\n 4 & 6, Currimbhoy Road, Balard Estate, Pb No.688, Mumbai\u00ad400001\n\n2. Sh. Sanjay Gupta S/o Sh. Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Gupta House No.104, Golf Links, New Delhi\u00ad110003. \n\n3. Sh. Rajiv Gupta S/o Sh. Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Gupta House No.104, Golf Links, New Delhi\u00ad110003. \n\n4. Ms. Sujata Sadr S/o Sh. Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Gupta House No.104, Golf Links, New Delhi\u00ad110003. \n\n ............ Defendants Suit for Declaration with consequential reliefs of Permanent & Mandatory Injunctions Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 58,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 198,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 292,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 380,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 432,
"end": 446,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 538,
"end": 548,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 618,
"end": 651,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 824,
"end": 839,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 846,
"end": 879,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1019,
"end": 1031,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1121,
"end": 1132,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1222,
"end": 1233,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Criminal Revision No.258 of 2014\n\n Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null\n District- Vaishali(Hajipur)\n===================================================\n========\n1. Manish Kumar Soni Son Of Sunil Kumar Soni\n2. Sunil Kumar Soni Son Of Late Chunnu Prasad\n3. Babi Soni @ Babi Devi W/O Sunil Kumar Soni\n4. Dipak Kumar Son Of Sunil Kumar Soni All Resident Of Gudri, P.S- Town Hajipur, District- Vaishali. \n\n .... .... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. The State Of Bihar\n2. Pammi Soni Wife Of Manish Kumar Soni, D/O Gorakh Prasad R/O Mohalla- Gudri, P.S- Town Hajipur, District- Vaishali, At Present R/O Mohalla Patna City ( Lodi Katra) P.S- Khajekala, Distt- Patna. \n\n .... .... Respondent/s =================================================== ======== Appearance :\nFor the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.D. Yadav, Advocate. For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Akhileshwar Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, App. =================================================== ======== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 291,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 335,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 386,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 411,
"end": 422,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 549,
"end": 563,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 567,
"end": 577,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 887,
"end": 897,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 934,
"end": 955,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 990,
"end": 1011,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1109,
"end": 1127,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1)\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n\n C.R. No. 350/2009\n\n Shri Jagat Guru Shankrachariya\n\n Vs.\n\n Siddhu Enginneering Works\n\n C.R. No. 351/2009\n\n Shri Jagat Guru Shankrachariya\n\n Vs.\n\n Kallu Scooter Service\n\n C.R. No. 353/2009\n\n Shri Jagat Guru Shankrachariya\n\n Vs.\n\n Bhatia Tyres\n\n C.R. No. 356/2009\n\n Shri Jagat Guru Shankrachariya\n\n Vs.\n\n Kalam Scooter Service and others\n\n Db : Hon. Arun Mishra & Hon. K.K.Lahoti, Jj\n\n Ms. Neelam Goel, Advocate for petitioners.\n\n Shri R.K. Verma, Advocate for respondents.\n\n Order reserved on : 23.7.2010\n\n Order passed on :\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 144,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 232,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 325,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 412,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 505,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 576,
"end": 588,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 656,
"end": 681,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 741,
"end": 762,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 794,
"end": 805,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 813,
"end": 823,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 840,
"end": 851,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 892,
"end": 902,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Ravinder Singh\u00adIi\n Metropolitan Magistrate\n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi\n\nCase No. : 2815/12\nUnique Case Id No: 02405R0465642010\n\n\nUma Shankar Goel\nS/o Shri A.P.L. Goel\nR/o. Wz\u00ad1008, Nagal Raya\nNew Delhi\u00ad110046 ..........................................Complainant\n\n\n Versus\n\nVirender Singh\nS/o Late Sh. Tek chand Solanki\nR/o Rz\u00ad422/294, Gali No. 12\nShivpuri, West Sagarpur\nNew Delhi\u00ad110046 .........................................Accused\n\n\nDate of Institution: 21.12.2010\nPlea of the accused: Pleaded Not Guilty\nDate of Reserving Judgment: 01/10/2014\nSentence or final Order: Convicted\nDate of Judgment: 15/10/2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 208,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 409,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu And The Honble Smt. Justice Anis \n\nCriminal Appeal No. 1555 Of 2008 \n\n10-02-2014 \n\nThe State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor..Appellant \n \n\nBhuma Venkata Nagi Reddy and eleven others. Respondents Counsel for the Appellants : The Addl. Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents: Sri P.Nagendra Reddy for Respondent No.1 Head Note: \n? Cases referred:\n1. (2004)4 S.C.C. 158 \n2. (2012)4 S.C.C. 79\n3. Air 1962 Sc 439 \n4. Air 1956 S.C. 217(1) \n5. 2011(2) Alt (Crl.) 275 (Sc)\n6. Air 1965 S.C. 202 The Honble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu And The Honble Smt. Justice Anis Criminal Appeal No. 1555 Of 2008 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 65,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 151,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 256,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 382,
"end": 398,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 623,
"end": 632,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 661,
"end": 665,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-1-\n\n\n\n\n In the court of Dig Vinay Singh Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge : Ndps :\n Rohini Courts : Delhi\n\n In the matter of\n Sc no. 38/13 (Old Sc no. 48/10)\n State Vs. Vikram etc.\n Fir no. 174/09\n Ps Swaroop Nagar\n U/s 308/34 Ipc\n State\n\n Versus\n 1. Vikram @ Sonu\n S/o Sh.Jeet Singh\n R/o Gali of Shiv Mandir,\n Puran Garhi, Mukund Pur,\n Part-II, Delhi.\n 2. Sonu Bartanwala\n S/o Sh. Rajeev\n R/o H.No. 133, 25 Foota Road,\n Som Bazar, Mukund Pur, Delhi.\n 3. Dharamvir @ Motu\n S/o Sh. Jai Singh\n R/o Shiv Mandir Wali Gali,\n Puran Garhi, Mukund Pur, Part-II, Delhi.\n Date of receipt : 04.05.2010\n (Received in this court : 18.11.2013)\n Date of argument : 31.01.2014\n Date of announcement : 14.02.2014\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 86,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 316,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 340,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 580,
"end": 585,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 636,
"end": 649,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 825,
"end": 840,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 989,
"end": 1005,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated :: 22-11-2013\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.Dhanapalan\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice R.Subbiah\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice C.T.Selvam\n\nCriminal O.P.No.351 Of 2012\n\n\nMahender Goyal\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\n\t\t\t\t\t-vs-\n\nM/s.Kadamba International,\nrep.by its Proprietor,\nDeepak Kumar Aggarwal\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\n\tPetition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in S.T.C.No.670 of 2011 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode, and quash the same.\n\n\t\tFor petitioner\t: Mr.Arpanbehl\n\t\t\t\t \t for Mr.M.A.Gouthaman.\n\n\t\tFor respondent\t: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel,\n\t\t\t\t for Mr.M.Guruprasad.\n\n\t\tAmicus Curiae \t: Mr.P.N.Prakash\n\n\n* * * * *\n\n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 114,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 151,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 192,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 238,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 297,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 567,
"end": 576,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 596,
"end": 609,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 634,
"end": 649,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 690,
"end": 702,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 727,
"end": 738,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Second Appeal No. 567 Of 2007\n\n\n\n\n \n In\n Reg. Civil Appeal No. 222 Of 1992\n In\n Reg. Civil Suit No. 215 Of 1978\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. Shri Shahaji Kisan Asme )\n Age 41 years )\n\n\n\n\n \n 2. Smt. Hirabai Kisan Asme, )\n Age 36 years, ig )\n\n 3. Shri Netaji Kisan Asme )\n \n Age 34 years, )\n\n 4. Smt. Vimal Kisan Asme, )\n\n Age 50 years, Occupatin of 1 to 4 )\n \n\n\n 5. Shri Yashoda Hanmant Kadam )\n \n\n\n\n Age 43 years, Occu: agricultgurist, )\n All R/o. Ganeshwadi, Taluka Kharav, )\n Dist. Satara. ).. Appellants\n\n\n\n\n\n (Nos.1 to 4 orig. Plffs &\n No.5 orig. deft.No.3).\n Versus\n\n 1. Shri Sitaram Kondi Asme )\n\n\n\n\n\n since deceased by his heirs )\n Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 and )\n Respondent No.3. )\n\n 2. Shri ramchandra Gangaram pawar, )\n Age 40 years, Occu: Agriculure )\n\n\n\n\n \n 2\n\n 3. Smt. Kalavati @ Parubai Shankar )\n Kshirsagar, )\n Age 65 years, Occu: Agriculture. )\n\n\n\n\n \n 4. Smt. Khashibai Parshuraom Bhosale )\n\n\n\n\n \n Age 55 years, Occu: Agricultural, )\n (Deceased through her heirs) )\n\n 4a. Ashok Parashuram Bhosale )\n\n\n\n\n \n Age 55 years, Occu: Driver. )\n\n 4b. Subhash Parashuram Bhosale )\n Age 45 years, Occu: Business. )\n Permanent Address: Hingnul, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara. )\n Both at present R/o. Tadakeshwar\n ig )\n Bhayyachi Chawl, Room Nos.2 & 3, )\n Gufa Road, Gufa Takadi, Ramwadi, )\n \n Jogeshwari, Bombay - 60. )\n\n 5. Smt. Kusum Nana Jagadale, )\n Age 50 years, Occu: Agricultural. )\n \n\n\n 6. Smt. Bhagirathi Kisan Asme, )\n Age 60 years, Occu: Agriculture, )\n \n\n\n\n Nos. 2, 3 6 residents of Ganeshwadi, )\n Taluka Kharva, Dist. Satara. )\n No. 4 at Chikhali,Taluka Karad, )\n\n\n\n\n\n Dist. Satara. No. 5 at Hiingnule, )\n Taluka Karad, Dist. Satara. )\n No.7 at Revalkarwadi, Taluka )\n Khatav, Dist. Satara. )..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. G.S.Godbole, Advocate, a/w Ms. Manjiri Parasnis, advocate, for the\n appellants..\n Mr.Dilip Bodake, Advocate, for respondent nos. 2, 3, 4b & 5.\n\n Coram: J.H.Bhatia,J.\n Date : 24th September, 2009.\n\n\n\n\n \n 3\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 574,
"end": 592,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 725,
"end": 743,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 828,
"end": 845,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 959,
"end": 975,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1076,
"end": 1097,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1457,
"end": 1475,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1667,
"end": 1692,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1878,
"end": 1904,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2120,
"end": 2148,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2316,
"end": 2340,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2482,
"end": 2508,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3026,
"end": 3045,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3145,
"end": 3166,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3642,
"end": 3653,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3673,
"end": 3689,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3733,
"end": 3745,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3855,
"end": 3865,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Dr. Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao \n\nM.A.C.M.A.No.1142 of 2007 \n\n23-04-2014 \n\nA.P. State Road Transport Corporation and another. Appellants \n\nNenawath Lal Singh and another. Respondents \n\nCounsel for the appellants : Sri H. Venugopal,\n Standing Counsel\n\nCounsel for Respondents : Sri V. Tulasi Reddy\n\nHead Note: \n\n?Cases referred:\n\n1. 2011(8) Scale 240 \n2. 2006 Acj 1398 \n3. 2003(9) Scc 606 \n4. 1964(1) Scr 980 \n5. 1964(3) Scr 549 \n6. 1975(1) Scc 212 \n7. 1965(3) Scr 550 \n8. (2009) 6 Scc 121=2009 Acj-1298 \n9. (1994) 2 Scc 176\n10. (1996) 4 Scc 362=Air 1996 Sc-** dt.07.05.1996\n11. (2004) 2 Scc 473 \n12. (2005) 10 Scc 720 \n13. 1987 Acj 561 \n14. 1970 Acj 110=(1969 (3) Scc 64) \n15. Air 1962 Sc 1 \n16. 2005-2007 Acj 139=2005(4) Ald 301 \n17. 2001 (1) Ald 517 \n18. (1988) Acc 307 \n19. 1987 (2) Alt 56\n20. 2012 Acj 99 = 2012(3) Ald 226 \n21. Air 1993 Sc 1259=1993 Supp (2) Scc 743 \n22. Air 2002 Sc 2483 \n23. (2006) 3 Scc 242 \n24. Acj 2152 \n25. Civil Appeal No.4725 of 2006\n26. (1913) Ac 1 \n27. Air 2001 Sc 3218= \n28. Civil Appeal No.5823 of 2006\n29. 2002 (6) Scc 306 \n30. Civil Appeal Nos.2479 of 2007\n31. (Jt 2007(11) Sc 113)\n32. 2007 Acj 2188 \n33. Civil Appeal Nos.545-546 of 2008\n34. Civil Appeal No.1272 of 2008\n35. (2006) 6 Scc 249 \n36. Appeal (Civil) 2897 of 2008\n37. Civil Appeal No.10 of 2009\n38. (2005) 8 Scc 473 \n39. Civil Appeal No.2241 of 2009\n40. (2002) 6 Scc 281 \n41. Civil Appeal No.3492 of 2009\n42. Civil Appeal (arising out of Slp(C) No.15167/2008)\n43. Civil Appeal No.4795 of 2009\n44. Civil Appeal No.5843 of 2010\n45. 2011 Acj 1990 \n46. 2014(1) Scc 244 \n47. 2013 Acj 1253 \n48. 2013 Acj 1403 \n49. Civil Appeal No.3397 of 2012\n50. Civil Appeal No.2241 of 2009\n51. (2002) 6 Scc 281 \n52. Air 2001 Sc 499 \n53. 2001(1)Alt-205(Ap)(Fb) \n\n\nHonourable Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao \n\nM.A.C.M.A.No.1142 of 2007 \n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 134,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 180,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 256,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 353,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2083,
"end": 2101,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "16\n* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n + MAC.APP.No.284/2008\n\n% Date of decision: 12th November, 2009\n\n\n Head Of Department, Air Force\n Station Amla & Anr ..... Appellants\n Through : None.\n\n versus\n\n Ram Kumar Giri Thr. Lrs ..... Respondents\n Through : Mr. Neeraj Aarora, Adv.\n Mr. V.P. Choudhary, Sr. Adv.\n as amicus curiae.\n\nCoram :-\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha\n\n1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes\n be allowed to see the Judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be Yes\n reported in the Digest?\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 232,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 368,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 440,
"end": 453,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 494,
"end": 508,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 601,
"end": 611,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh ; Jabalpur\n Cr.R.No. 1915/2011\n Kashi Prasad Pandey\n Vs.\n State of M.P and three others\n\n\nFor the Applicant : Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate.\nFor the Respondent No.1 : Shri Puneet Shroti, Panel Lawyer.\nFor Respondent No.2 to 4 : Shri Nitin Karan, Advocate.\n\n\n O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 49,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 146,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 223,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 289,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 345,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 404,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 28051 of 2010(F)\n\n\n1. B.Muhammedkunhi, Member, Ward No.14,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.Abdulla, Member, Ward No.Iv,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Secretary,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.M.Sasindran\n\n For Respondent :Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair\n\n Dated :30/09/2010\n\n O R D E R\n T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n W.P.(C) Nos.28051 & 28056 of 2010-F\n - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 89,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 192,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 275,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 326,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 381,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 428,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 484,
"end": 506,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy \n\nCriminal Petition No.5798 Of 2016 \n\n22-12-2016 \n\nM/S Bajaj Finance Ltd Corporate Office: 4Th Floor Bajaj Finserv Corporate\nOffice, Ahmed Nagar ROad, Viman Nagar, Pune-411 014, Maharastra, Legal & 3 \nothers ...Petitioners\n\nState of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature For\nthe State of Telangana and For the State of Andhra Pradesh & 5\nothers...Respondents \n\nCounsel for the petitioner : Sri Valluri MohaN sRINIVAS\n\ncOUNSEL For The Respondent : Government Pleader for Appeals (Tg) Party-in- \nperson Sri N.Satyanarayana \n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases Refereed \n\n 1982 Crl.J 1717\n Air 1978 Supreme Court 986 \n Air 2007 Supreme Court 2762 \n Air 1970 Sc 962 \n 1995 Crl.L.J 2508\n (2008) 2 Scc 668 \n (2015) 4 Scc 609 \n (1989) 4 Scc 630 \n (2003) 5 Scc 257 \n 1998 (2) Alt (Crl) 458 Kerala\n 1944 (46) Bomlr, page 417 \n 1910 (21) Mlj, page 85\n 1942 (1) Mlj page 247\n Air 1951 page 34 \n 1992 Supp. (1) Scc 335 \n\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy \n\nCriminal Petition No.5798 Of 2016 \n\n%22-12-2016 \n\n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 45,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 258,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 312,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 488,
"end": 510,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1055,
"end": 1077,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Sanjay Bansal:\n Additional Sessions Judge-03 (East):\n Karkardooma Courts: Delhi.\n\nS.C. No: 32/2014\nId No.: 024402R0048612014\n\nState Versus Ranjeet\n S/o Sh. Jawahar Lal\n R/o Kirti Vihar, Loni. 2 near Bijli Ghar,\n Ghaziabad, Up.\nFir No: 70/1989\nPs.: Gandhi Nagar\nU/s. 353/332/307 Ipc & 27 Arms Act\n\nChargesheet Allocated on : 18.07.1989\nJudgment Reserved on : 04.08.2014\nJudgment Delivered on : 07.08.2014\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 143,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 195,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 231,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated:21.09.2012\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.Venugopal\n\nS.A.No.542 of 2001\n\n\n\n\nA.R.Mohamed Hanifa\t\t\t\t... Appellant/2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant\n\nVs.\n\n1.Abdul Rahim\t\t\t\t\t... 1st Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff\n\n2.Parasakthi Ammal \t\t\t\t... 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent/1st Defendant\n\n\n\n\n\tAppeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.01.2001 in A.S.No.51 of 1998 on the file of the Learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.1998 in O.S.No.623 of 1985 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.\n\n\n\n\n\t\tFor Appellant\t\t: Mr.K.Srinivasan\n\t\t\t\t\t Senior Counsel\n\t\t\t\t\t For M/s.A.Venkatesan\n\n\t\tFor 1st Respondents \t: Mr.A.Venkatachalapathy\n\t\t\t\t\t Senior Counsel\n\t\t\t\t For M/s.Sriram \n\n\t\tFor 2nd Respondent\t: No appearance\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 148,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 214,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 277,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 702,
"end": 714,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 794,
"end": 813,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ajay Goel: Additional District\n Judge-12(Central):Delhi.\n\n (Old Case)\n\nLac No. 03/13/04\n\n Award No: 02 of 2003-04,\n Announced on: 11.11.2003\n Area: 4-B, Rajendra Park,\n Pusa Road, New Delhi.\n\nIn the matter of:\n 1. Sh. C. P. Aggarwal,\n S/o Late Sh. Nand Lal Agrawal\n\n 2. Smt. Meera Agrawal\n W/o Sh. C. P. Agrawal\n\n Both R/o 4-B, Rajendra Park,\n Pusa Road, New Delhi-60. ......Petitioners.\n\n\n Versus\n\n 1. Union of India,\n Through Land Acquisition Collector\n Central District, 14, Darya Ganj,\n New Delhi-110002.\n\n 2. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.\n Nbcc Place, Bhishmah Pitamah Marg,\n Pragati Vihar, New Delhi-3. ......Respondents.\n\nDate of filing of Reference: 28.04.2004\nDate of assignment to this court: 25.04.2013\nDate of arguments: 19.07.2014\nDate of decision: 01.08.2014\n\nLac-03/13/2004 Page:-1/19\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 25,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 453,
"end": 467,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 517,
"end": 530,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 718,
"end": 732,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 846,
"end": 874,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Hemani Malhotra, Additional:Sessions Judge-05\n (Central), Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi\nCa No.24/14\nUnique Id No.0240IR0059942014\nSukhjot Sodhi & Others Vs Sebi\n\n\n (1) Sukhjot Sodhi,\n S/o Asdev Singh Sodhi\n R/o 2282, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh\n\n (2) Kamaljeet Sodhi,\n W/o Sukhjot Sodhi,\n R/o 2282, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh\n .............Appellants\n\n Versus\n\n\n Securities and Exchange Board of India,\n Having registered office at 32, Rajendra Bhawan,\n Rajendra Place, New Delhi.\n\n ...............Respondent\n\n\n Date of institution :03.02.2014\n Date of conclusion of arguments/\n reservation of Judgment :23.09.2014\n Date of pronouncement of judgment :10.10.2014\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 144,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 200,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 241,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 339,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:-\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran\n\n Friday,The 7Th Day Of February 2014/18Th Magha, 1935\n\n W.P.(C).No.22693 of 2013 (J)\n ---------------------------------------------------\n\nPetitioner(S):-\n--------------------------\n\n Remesh Kumar, Aged 35 Years, S/O Pazhani Swami,\n 4/382, Thekkamukkiyoor House,\n Agali P.O, Kottathara, Mannarkad,\n Palakkad District.\n\n By Adv. Sri.M.Jithesh Menon.\n\n\nRespondent(S):-\n----------------------------\n\n 1. Regional Transport Authority,\n Palakkad, Pin - 678 001.\n\n 2. The Secretary,\n Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad, Pin - 678 001.\n\n 3. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation,\n Represented By Its District Transport Officer,\n Palakkad, Pin - 678 008.\n\n R1 & R2 By Government Pleader Smt.R.Rema.\n R3 By Standing Counsel Sri.P.C.Chacko.\n\n\n This Writ Petition (Civil) Having Been Finally Heard On\n03.01.2014, Along With W.P.(C).No.28394 Of 2013-Y, The Court On\n07-02-2014 Delivered The Following:-\n\f\nWP(C).No.22693 of 2013 (J)\n---------------------------------------\n\n Appendix\n\nPetitioner(S)' Exhibits:-\n---------------------------------------\n\nExhibit P1 True Copy Of The Regular Permit Of The Petitioner\n Valid Till 02-01-2016.\n\nExhibit P2 True Copy Of The Timings Dated 19-06-2001.\n\nExhibit P3 True Copy Of The Request Submitted By The Petitioner\n Before The 2Nd Respondent Dated 10-08-2013.\n\nExhibit P4 True Copy Of The Request Submitted By The Petitioner\n Before The 3Rd Respondent Dated 10-08-2013.\n\nExhibit P5 True Copy Of The Objection Filed By The Petitioner\n Dated 22-08-2013.\n\n\nRespondent(S)' Exhibits:-\n-----------------------------------------\n\nExhibit R3(a) - True Copy Of The Permit NO.P.Tem.9/1323/2013\n Dated 07.09.2013 Issued By The 1St Respondent.\n\nExhibit R3(b) - True Copy Of The Permit Issued To The 3Rd\n Respondeent Dated 01.08.2013 Vide\n NO.P.Tem.9/1039/2013.\n\nExhibit R3(c) - True Copy Of The Permit Dated 31.05.2013\n Vide NO.P.St.9/1631/2013.\n\nExhibit R3(d) - True Copy Of The Permit Dated 02.09.2011\n Vide NO.P.St.9/3640/2011.\n\n\nvku/- ( true copy )\n\f\n\n\n \"C.R.\"\n\n K. Vinod Chandran, J\n ------------------------------------------------------------\n W.P.(C).Nos.22693 of 2013 & 28394 of 2013\n -------------------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 07th day of February, 2014\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 160,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 425,
"end": 437,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 613,
"end": 628,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 689,
"end": 717,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 772,
"end": 848,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 866,
"end": 905,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1091,
"end": 1101,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2793,
"end": 2810,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At\n Jodhpur\n\n1. Ram Kumar Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.\n (D.B.Civil Special Appeal(W) No. 1023/98)\n2. Radhey Shyam & Ors. Vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.\n (D.B.Civil Special Appeal(W) No. 1022/98)\n3. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Badam Bai\n (D.B.Civil Special Appeal(W) No. 1108/98)\n4. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Lahar Bai\n (D.B.Civil Special Appeal(W) No. 1109/98)\n5. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Panch Kansaram\n (D.B.Civil Special Appeal(W) No. 1110/98)\n6. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Moti Lal\n (D.B.Civil Special Appeal(W) No. 1111/98)\n7. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Shri Chandan Mal\n (D.B.Civil Special Appeal(W) No. 1120/98)\n\n Judgment\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 92,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 106,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 129,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 199,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 229,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 305,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 331,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 382,
"end": 400,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 417,
"end": 426,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 477,
"end": 495,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 507,
"end": 521,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 572,
"end": 590,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 602,
"end": 610,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 661,
"end": 679,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 696,
"end": 707,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order\n\n 1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No.2287 Of 2009\n\n\n\n\n \n Prashant S. Joshi, A-201, Morning Glory Society,\n Thakkar Park, Aaram Society Road, Vakola,\n\n\n\n\n \n Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400 055. ..Petitioner.\n\n V/s.\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. The Income-tax Officer Ward 19(2)(4),\n Room No.310, 3rd Floor, Piramal Chambers,\n \n Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400 012.\n \n 2. Union of India, Aaykar Bhavan,\n M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400 020. ..Respondents.\n \n\n\n With\n \n\n\n\n Writ Petition No.59 Of 2010\n\n\n Dattaram Shridhar Bhosale,\n\n\n\n\n\n R/at 159/1273, Motilal Nagar No.1,Road No.4,\n Goregaon (west), Mumbai - 400 055. ..Petitioner.\n\n V/s.\n\n\n\n\n\n 1. The Income-tax Officer Ward 19(2)(1),\n Room No.312, 3rd Floor, Piramal Chambers,\n Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai - 400 012.\n\n\n 2. Union of India, Aaykar Bhavan,\n M.K. Road, Churchgage, Mumbai - 400 020. ..Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order\n\n 2\n\n Mr. P.J. Pardiwalla, senior advocate with Nishant Thakkar & Rajesh Pujari i/b.\n Mint & Conferers for petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. K.R. Chaudhari for respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram : Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud And J.P.Devadhar, Jj.\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 137,
"end": 171,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 446,
"end": 463,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 782,
"end": 938,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 978,
"end": 992,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1227,
"end": 1252,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1440,
"end": 1570,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1585,
"end": 1599,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1898,
"end": 1913,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1936,
"end": 1951,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1954,
"end": 1967,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2107,
"end": 2121,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2227,
"end": 2242,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2247,
"end": 2259,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice T. Sunil Chowdary \n\nMacma No.1388 Of 2010 \n\n16-02-2015 \n\nSmt. Chakali Swaroopa & 5 Others....Appellants \n\nMohd. Ghouse & Another...Respondents \n\nCounsel for Appellants:Sri C. Pratap Reddy\n Sri Palle Srihari Nath\n \nCounsel for Respondent No.1: None appeared \n Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy \n Standing Counsel for Bajaj Allianz \n General Insurance Co. Limited\n\nHead Note: \n\n\n? Cases referred\n\n 2004 (4) Ald 444\n2 2013 (2) Alld 659 \n3 2014 (2) Ald 133 (S.C)\n4 (2014) 4 Scc 511 \n5 2013 Acj 1403 \n6 2014 Acj 1388 \n7 2013 Acj 2733 \n8 2009 Acj 1298 (Sc) \n9 2007 Acj 2816 \n10 2008 Acj 2144 \n11 2010 (5) Alt 105 \n12 (2009) 11 Scc 356 \n13 2008 Acj 2161 \n14 2006 Acj 1336 \n15 (2008) 3 Scc 464 \n16 (2004) 3 Scc 297 \n17 (2013) 7 Scc 62 \n18 2014 Acj 2873 \n\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice T. Sunil Chowdary\nMacma No.1388 Of 2010 \nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 114,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 154,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 225,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 272,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 390,
"end": 410,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 981,
"end": 998,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated: 28/01/2010\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice C.T.Selvam\n\nCrl.A.Nos.172 of 2002\nCrl.A.Nos. 173, 174, 192,\n215 and 224 of 2002\n\nCrl. A. No.172 of 2002:-\n\nK. Sulochana\t\t\t \t ...Appellant/Accused- 3\n\nvs.\n\nState rep. by the\n Inspector of Police\nVigilance and Anticorruption\nNagercoil.\t\t\t\t ...Respondent/Complainant\n\nPrayer in Crl. A. No.172 of 2002\n\nThese Criminal Appeals are filed under\nSection 374 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment and conviction of the\nappellants/ accused passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Special Judge,\nNagercoil in S.C.No.1 of 1991 dated 31.01.2002.\n\n!For Appellants ...Sri.S. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Counsel\n \t \t for M/s.S. Palanivelayutham\n^For Respondent ...Sri.P. Rajendran, Ga\t\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 217,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 261,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 678,
"end": 689,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 764,
"end": 776,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh.Suresh Chand Rajan\n Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge(Ndps)\n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi\n\n\nCrl. Appeal No.76/13\n\n\nSarita \nW/o Sh Ram Kumar\n ....Appellant\nVs. \n\n1. Ram Kumar s/o Prabhu Dayal\n2. Prabhu Dayal\n3. Smt. Nandi Devi w/o Prabhu Dayal\n4. Shyam Kumar s/o Prabhu Dayal\n5. Baby d/o Prabhu Dayal\n6. Nisha d/o Prabhu Dayal\n7. Anil Kumar s/o Prabhu Dayal \n8. The State\n ...... Respondent \nDate of Institution : 07.09.2013\nReserved for order on : 23.05.2014\nDate of Pronouncement: 30.05.2014\n\n\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 153,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 287,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 320,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 339,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 371,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 392,
"end": 396,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 417,
"end": 422,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 443,
"end": 453,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 479,
"end": 484,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Csa No.250/14 - Om Prakash vs. Devendra Kumar\n Judgment dt: 12/1/2015\n\n 1/14\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At\n Jodhpur\n Judgment\n\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 31,
"end": 45,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 287,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ajn\n 1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No.18 Of 2009\n\n Govind Sakharam Ubhe, aged )\n 49 years, residing at 37/40, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Manish Nagar, Four Bungalow, )\n Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400 ) ... Appellant\n 053.\n\n\n\n\n \n Vs.\n \n The State of Maharashtra )\n (At the instance of Dcb, Cid, )\n \n Unit Iv, Mumbai). ) ... Respondent\n\n Mr. Amit Desai, senior counsel with Mr. Prakash Naik and\n Mr. Gopalkrishnan Shenoy for the petitioner.\n \n\n\n Mr. S.R. Borulkar, Public Prosecutor with Ms. V.R.\n \n\n\n\n Bhonsale, A.P.P. for the State.\n\n\n Coram : Smt. Ranjana Desai &\n\n\n\n\n\n R.G. Ketkar, Jj.\n Date On Which The Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 89,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 328,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 620,
"end": 640,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 773,
"end": 783,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 809,
"end": 821,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 834,
"end": 854,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 894,
"end": 907,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 956,
"end": 982,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1041,
"end": 1054,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1090,
"end": 1101,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 19/11/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice N.V.Balalsubramanian\nAnd\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice K.Raviraja Pandian\n\n\nT.C.No.250 Of 1998\n(Reference No. 219 of 1998)\n\n\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax\nTamil Nadu-IV, Madras. ... Applicant\n\n-Vs-\n\nM/s. Pooshya Exports (P) Ltd.,\nB-254, 50th Street, Madras 83 ... Respondent\n\n\n!For Applicant: Mrs.Pushya Sitharaman\n Sr.Standing Counsel for\n Income-tax cases.\n\nFor Respondent: Mr.Philip George\n\n\n Prayer: Statement of the Case in R.A.No.704/Mds/1997\n(I.T.A.No.2836/Mds/1990) for the assessment year 1988-89 on the file of the\nIncometax Appellate Tribunal, B-Bench, Madras forwarded for decision of the\nHigh Court.\n\n:Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 112,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 158,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 262,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 362,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 410,
"end": 427,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 520,
"end": 533,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 694,
"end": 739,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n\n Writ Petition No.198/1999\n\nMansukh Lal Saraf .....Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\nArun Kumar Tiwari & others ....Respondents\n\n\n=============================================\nCoram:\n\nHon'ble Shri Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice\nHon'ble Shri Justice K.K.Trivedi,\n\nWhether approved for reporting? : Yes\n=============================================\n\n Shri Vibhudhendra Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.\n Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Deputy Advocate General for the\nrespondents No.2 to 4.\n\n=============================================\nReserved On : 01.07.2015\nDate of Decision : 06.08.2015\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 113,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 212,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 347,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 384,
"end": 395,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 493,
"end": 512,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 553,
"end": 569,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-1-\n\n In The Court Of Sh. J. R. Aryan, District & Sessions Judge-\n Cum-Additional Rent Control Tribunal, (North-East)\n District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\nRct No.34/13\nUnique Id no. 02402C0354102013\n\n\nGopal Dass S/o Sh. Niranjan Lal,\nShop At D-1/232, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.\n\n .........................Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n\nAnil Kumar S/o Late Sh. Hem Chand,\nR/o D-1/232, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093.\n\n .........................Respondent\n\nDate of institution of the case: 29.10.2013\nDate of reserving the case for order: 21.02.2014\nDate of passing of judgement: 01.03.2014\n\nO R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 170,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 229,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 400,
"end": 410,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated:13/09/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice P.K. Misra \nAnd \nThe Honourable Mr. Justice N. Kannadasan \n\nC.M.P.No.14141 Of 2001 \nAnd \nLPA.No.18 Of 2005 \n\nK. Shankar \nS/o.M. Kannappa Naicker \nNo.4, Hospital Road,\nKancheepuram 2. .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,\n Rep. by its Divisional Manager,\n Vallal Pachaiyappan Street,\n Kancheepuram. \n\n2. P. Mohan \n S/o. Desaveli Mudaliar\n 7/, Mahendra Pallavan Street,\n Mamalla Nagar,\n Kancheepuram. \n\n3. N. Palani,\n S/o. Narayanasamy, \n No.2/9, Kumaresan Street,\n Meenambakkam, \n Chennai 600 027. .. Respondents\n\n Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the\norder of the learned single Judge dated 12.2.1999 made in CMA.No.926 of 19\n91.\n\n!For Appellant : Mr.M. Sriram\n\n^For Respondent-1: Mr.K.S. Narasimhan \n\nRespondent-2 : Mr.A.V. Munusamy \n - - -\n\n:J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 122,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 178,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 257,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 390,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 488,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 589,
"end": 598,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 894,
"end": 903,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 928,
"end": 943,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 969,
"end": 982,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-1- F.A.No.444/2003\n\n A.F.R.\n\n\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur\n\n\n First Appeal No.444/2003\n\n\nAppellant : Hafizulla,\n S/o Late Sheikh Barkatullah,\n aged about 65 years,\n Occupation Advocacy, R/o H. No.828,\n Badi Omti, Jabalpur (M.P)\n\n Versus\n\nRespondent : Shri Inder Kumar Jain,\n S/o Late Sheikhar Chand Jain,\n Aged about 55 years, Occupation-\n Businessman, R/o H.No.458,\n Hanumantal Ward, Behind City Kotwali,\n Jabalpur (M.P)\n\n\nDb : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon, Acting\n Chief Justice.\n Hon. Shri Justice Anurag Shrivastava, Judge\n\n\n\nAppellant in person.\nShri Pranay Verma, Advocate for the respondent.\n\n\n\nWhether approved for reporting: Yes/No.\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 86,
"end": 124,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 201,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 483,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 778,
"end": 792,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 844,
"end": 862,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 899,
"end": 911,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Puneet Pahwa \n Metropolitan Magistrate \u00ad 01 (N.I. Act)\n Patiala House Courts : New Delhi\n\n\n\nSh. Paras Bajaj\nThrough Attorney:\nSanjeev Bajaj,\nS\u00ad1, Budh Vihar, Phase\u00ad1,\nNew Delhi.\n ....................... Complainant\n\n\n Vs.\n\n\nSh. Manish Tuli,\nProprietor of M/s Chaudhary Associates,\nHotel Eureka Crowne,\n4/70, Krishna Market, Saraswati Marg,\nW.E.A, Karol Bagh, \nNew Delhi. \n ................................Accused\n\n\n\nCase Number. : 1149/1 & 1303/1\n\n\nDate of Institution of Present Case. : 14.12.2005 & 16.07.2005 \n respectively.\n\n\n\nCase No. 1149/1 & 1303/1 Page 1 of 30\n Offence Complained Of. : U/s 138 Ni Act\n\n\nPlea of the Accused. : Not Guilty\n\n\nArguments Heard On. : 27.03.2014\n\n\nFinal Order. : Convicted\n\n\nDate of Judgment. : 05.05.2014.\n\n\n\n - :: Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 137,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 156,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 390,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n Dated This The 9Th Day Of August 2012\n Before\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana\n CRL.A.No.251/2005 (C)\n\nBetween:\n\nAnnaiah S/o Narayana,\nAged about 26 years,\nResiding at Gandatturu Village,\nH.D.Kote Taluk,\nMysore District. ... Appellant\n\n[By Sri.M.S.Rajendra Prasad, Senior Counsel]\n\n\nAnd :\n\nState of Karnataka,\nBy Beechanahalli Police,\nRepresented by State Public Prosecutor,\nHigh Court Building,\nBangalore-560 001. ... Respondent\n\n[By Sri.G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, Government Pleader]\n\n This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374\nCr.P.C. praying against the judgment dated 17.12.2004\npassed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III,\nMysore in S.C.No.53/2001-convicting the\nappellant/accused for the offence punishable under\nSection 376 of Ipc and sentencing him to undergo R.I.\nfor 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000 in default to\nundergo R.I. for 1 year for the offence punishable under\nSection 376 of Ipc.\n\n This Criminal Appeal coming for hearing on this\nday, the court delivered the following:\n 2\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 172,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 230,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 378,
"end": 397,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 424,
"end": 442,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 591,
"end": 610,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Reserved on: 7th January, 2013\n Pronounced on: 24th January, 2013\n+ Crl.A. 605/2012\n\n Rattan @ Ratan Singh ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Atul Kumar, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n\n State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) ..... Respondent\n Through: Ms.Rajdipa Behura, App for State\n\n+ Crl.A. 1239/2012\n\n Bilal ...... Appellant\n Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, Adv.\n\n versus\n\n\n State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) .... Respondent\n Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, App for the State.\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice G.P.Mittal\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 283,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 361,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 448,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 523,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 576,
"end": 581,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 703,
"end": 716,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 771,
"end": 799,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 863,
"end": 877,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 944,
"end": 954,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Rakesh Syal, Special Judge, (Pc Act) &\n (Cbi)-03, South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi\n\n Crl. Revision No. 04/14\n\nIn re:\n\nNarender Sharma,\nS/o Sh. Surender Sharma,\nR/o A-66/67, Chanakya Place,\nPart - I, 40 Ft. Road,\nNew Delhi.\n ............... Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n1. The State,\n(N.C.T. of Delhi),\nNew Delhi.\n\n2. Joginder Kumar,\nS/o Sh. Charan Dass,\nR/o 189, Ground Floor,\nBlock-B, Type-A,\nDda Flats, Binda Pur,\nNew Delhi.\n ............... Respondents\n\nDate of Institution : 02-08-2014\nDate on which Order reserved : 01-09-2014\nDate on which Order passed : 02-09-2014\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 31,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 117,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 218,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 439,
"end": 474,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 494,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur.\n Writ Petition No.11816/2010(S)\n\n Dr. Geeta Rani Gupta\n\n Vs\n State of M.P. and others.\n\n\nPresent :\n\nHon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J.\n\n\n\n Shri Siddharth Gulati, learned counsel for the\n petitioner.\n Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for the\n respondent No.1 and 2.\n Shri V.S. Shroti, learned Senior counsel assisted by\n Shri Vikram Johri, for the respondent No.4.\n\n\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 138,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 218,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 277,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 315,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 376,
"end": 389,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 468,
"end": 479,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 530,
"end": 542,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-: 1 :-\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Sanatan Prasad,\n Civil Judge\u00ad04(W), Tis Hazari Courts Delhi.\n\n\n Cs No.261/2013\n\n\n Sh. Shekhar Kumar,\n S/o Sh. Ganga Ram,\n R/o C\u00ad50\u00adA, New Slum Flats,\n Dsidc, Paschim Puri,\n New Delhi - 110063. ..... Plaintiff\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n Sh. Ganga Ram,\n S/o Sh. Heera Lal,\n R/o C\u00ad50\u00adA, New Slum Flats,\n Dsidc, Paschim Puri,\n New Delhi - 110063. ..... Defendant\n\n\n\n Suit For Permanent Injunction\n\n\n\nDate of Institution : 14.11.2011\nDate of reserving judgment : 27.11.2015\nDate of Decision : 28.11.2015\n\n\nPresent: Ld. Counsel/(s) for the parties.\n -: 2 :-\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 53,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 100,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 144,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 344,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Nm-8\n\nPgk\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n O.O.C.J.\n\n\n\n\n \n Notice of Motion No.8 of 2010\n In\n Suit No.16 of 2008\n\n\n\n\n \nMrs.Havovi Kersi Sethna ... ... Plaintiff\n v/s.\nMr.Kersi Gustad Sethna ... ... Defendant\n\n\n\n\n \nMr.Narayan Suvarna i/by Mrs.Ansuya Dutt for Plaintiff.\n \nMs.Taubon F. Irani for Defendant.\n -----\n \n Coram : Smt.Roshan Dalvi, J.\nDate of reserving the order : 14th January 2011\n \n\nDate of pronouncing the order : 28th January 2011\n \n\n\n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 495,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 560,
"end": 579,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 680,
"end": 695,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 705,
"end": 716,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 763,
"end": 778,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 885,
"end": 897,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 1070 of 2004()\n\n\n1. Prakash @ Ajayan,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Shabu Sreedharan\n\n For Respondent : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.T.Sankaran\n\n Dated :06/02/2009\n\n O R D E R\n K.Balakrishnan Nair &\n K.T.Sankaran, Jj.\n -------------------------------------------------------------\n Crl.A.Nos.1070 & 1071 Of 2004\n -------------------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 6th February, 2009\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 88,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 177,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 277,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 371,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 396,
"end": 408,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 466,
"end": 485,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 518,
"end": 530,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl Rev Pet No. 4126 of 2006(A)\n\n\n1. Kuriachan Chacko,\n ... Petitioner\n2. Achamma Chacko,\n3. Linu Joy, W/O.Joy John,\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.O.V.Maniprasad\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\n\n Dated :19/07/2007\n\n O R D E R\n\n\n\n\n\n\n R. Basant, J.\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n CRL.R.P.NOs.4126, 4132 4133/2006\n\n & 1290, 1291 & 1292/07\n\n ------------------------------------------------------\n\n Dated this the 19th day of July, 2007\n\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 95,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 152,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 165,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 230,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 328,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 414,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 481,
"end": 490,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated :16.04.2012\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.Venugopal\n\nS.A.No.1597 of 1995\n\nRamalingam\t\t.... Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t Vs.\n\n1.Government of Tamil Nadu\n through Collector,\n Thanjavur.\n\n2.The Commissioner,\n Keevalur Panchayat Union,\n Keevalur, Q.M. District.\n \t\t... Respondents/Appellants/Defendants\n\n\tAppeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.09.1993 in A.S.No.233 of 1992 on the file of the Learned Additional District Judge, Nagapattinam, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 18.09.1990 in O.S.No.214 of 1982 on the file of the Learned District Munsif, Nagapattinam.\n\n\t\tFor Appellants\t\t: Mrs.Chitra Sampath\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t For Mr.R.Sunil Kumar\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\tFor Respondents\t\t: Mr.Muthiayan\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t Government Advocate\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 139,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 220,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 329,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 730,
"end": 754,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 761,
"end": 774,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 804,
"end": 813,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n O. O. C. J.\n\n\n\n\n \n Income Tax Appeal (Lodg.) No.2887 Of 2009\n\n The Commissioner of Income Tax-13\n Ayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,\n\n\n\n\n \n Mumbai 400 020. ..Appellant.\n\n Vs.\n\n\n\n\n \n Kalpataru Colours and Chemicals\n 110, Mandavi Navjivan Bldg., \n 121/127, Kazi Sayyed Street,\n Mumbai 400 003. ..Respondent.\n ....\n \n Mr. Vimal Gupta with Mr. Suresh Kumar, Ms Padma Divakar, Mr. \n A.S. Shivsharan and Mr. D.K. Kamwal for the Appellant.\n\n Mr. J.D. Mistri, Senior Advocate with Mr. A.D. Shetty, Mr. R.V. \n \n\n\n Shetty and Ms. Rita Joshi for the Respondent.\n \n\n\n\n .....\n\n Coram : Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud &\n J.P.Devadhar, Jj.\n 28 /29 June 2010. \n\n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 484,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 623,
"end": 740,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 869,
"end": 880,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 892,
"end": 904,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 909,
"end": 922,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 934,
"end": 949,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 958,
"end": 969,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1000,
"end": 1013,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1052,
"end": 1065,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1075,
"end": 1106,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1116,
"end": 1126,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1263,
"end": 1278,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1338,
"end": 1350,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Mm\u00ad07, \n South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi\n\n\nCc No. 349/2/14\nU/S 138 Ni Act \n\nMr. Prakash Chand Nimboria\nS/o Sh. Hukam Chand,\nR/o Vpo\u00ad Smalaka,\nNew Delhi. .......................Complainant\n Versus \nMr. Rahimuddin\nProprietor of R.K. Meet Shop,\nAt Rz\u00ad3/23, Shahnagar,\nManglapuri, Palam,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110045. .............................. Accused\n\n\nOffence Complaint off or proved. : Section 138 of Negotiable \n Instrument Act. \nPlea of accused : Pleaded not guilty\n\nDate of Institution : 19.02.2003\n\nDate of Reserving order : 02.05.2014\n\nFinal order : Convicted\n\nDate of pronouncement : 26.05.2014\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 31,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 102,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 165,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 291,
"end": 301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 15.03.2013\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.Manikumar\n\nC.M.A.No.3711 of 2012\nM.P.No.1 of 2012\n\t\t\t\t\nM/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nD.O.Ii, Balaji Tower, Ii Floor, R.K.Road,\nSalem-7.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\t\t\t\t\t\nv.\n\nP.Alagesan\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondent\t\n\n\t\n\t\t\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Sankari, made in M.C.O.P.No.17 of 2010, dated 23.09.2011.\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFor Appellants \t:\tMr.G.Udayasankar\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 236,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 288,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 440,
"end": 499,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 586,
"end": 599,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\nIn The High Court Of Karnataka At Bengaluru\n\n Dated This The 27Th Day Of April 2015\n\n Present\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.D.H.Waghela, Chief Justice\n\n And\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Ram Mohan Reddy\n\n Writ Appeal Nos. 2932 Of 2014 & 3507 Of 2014 (Mv)\n\nBetween :\n\nK. Jagadeesh Reddy\nAged About 47 Years\nS/O Late T.N Ramalinga Reddy,\nProprietor, Madanapalli Motors\nMadanapalli,Chittur District\nAndhra Pradesh - 517 325.\n ... Appellant\n\n(By Sri. P.S. Rajagopal, Sr. Adv., For\nSri. M.E Nagesh, Adv.,)\n\nAnd\n\n 1. Karnataka State Transport Authority\n Presently At Bmtc Building,\n K H Road,\n Bangalore - 560 027.\n By Its Secretary\n 2\n\n\n\n\n 2. Karnataka State Road Transport\n Corporation, Central Office\n K H Road, Shantinagar,\n Bangalore - 560 027.\n By Its Managing Director\n\n 3. G.V Chandrashekar\n S/O G.T Venkataswamy Reddy,\n Age Major, Proprietor,\n Vinayaka Motor Service,\n A.V Road, Kalasipalyam\n Bangalore - 560 002.\n ... Respondents\n\n(By Sri. R. Devdas, Prl. Govt. Adv. A/W\nSmt. Shwetha Krishnappa, Hcgp For R1;\nSri. S. Prakash Shetty, Adv., For C/R-2;\nR3 Served Through Hand Summons -\nUnrepresented)\n\n -0-0-0-0-0-\n\n These Writ Appeals Are Filed U/S 4 Of The\nKarnataka High Court Act Praying To Set\nAside The Order Passed In The Writ Petition\nNo.3910/2005 Dated 10/10/2014 And Etc.,\n\n\n These Writ Appeals Having Been Heard\nAnd Reserved For Judgment, This Day, Ram\nMohan Reddy J., Delivered The Following:\n 3\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 49,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 153,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 239,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 322,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 524,
"end": 538,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 559,
"end": 569,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 589,
"end": 624,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 759,
"end": 806,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 913,
"end": 930,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1131,
"end": 1140,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1167,
"end": 1185,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1205,
"end": 1222,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1580,
"end": 1591,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'Ble The Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose And The Honble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar \n\nWrit Petition No.32542 of 2011\n\n5.10.2012 \n\nV. Venkateswar Rao (V.V. Rao) \n\nThe Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration Department Represented \nby its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others.\n\nCounsel for the Petitioner: Sri G. Mohan Rao\n\nCounsel for Respondents: Advocate General Head Note: \n?Cases referred:\n1. (2001) 7 Scc 126 \n2. (2004) 8 Scc 788 \n3. (2005) 2 Scc 92 \n4. (2006) 2 Scc 1\n5. Air 1994 Sc 1918 = (1994) 3 Scc 1 \n6. (2006) 8 Scc 200 \n7. (2011) 4 Scc 1\n8. (2010) 11 Scc 374 \n9. 1982 An.WR 258 \n10. Air 1952 Cal.799 \n11. Air 1965 Allahabd 301 \n12. Air 1965 Patna 321 \n13. Air 1970 Sc 1102 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 61,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 109,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 191,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 238,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 372,
"end": 384,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Letters Patent Appeal No. 433 of 2000\n In\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10561 of 1999\n=========================================\nThe Controller of Examination, Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination, 1999, I.A.S. Association Building, near Patna Airport, P.O.-Vetenary College, Patna. \n\n .... .... Respondent No.2/Appellant Versus\n1. Nidhi Sinha, D/o Surendra Nath Sinha, Sinha Lab; Nala Road, near B.K. Mission, Patna. \n\n .... .... Petitioner/Respondent 1st Set\n2. The State of Bihar. \n\n .... .... Respondent/Respondent 2nd Set ========================================= Appearance :\nFor the Appellant : Mr. Vikash Kumar, Adv. \n\nFor the Respondent/s :\n========================================= Coram: Honourable The Acting Chief Justice And Honourable Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh And Honourable Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 400,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 462,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 587,
"end": 601,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 725,
"end": 737,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 881,
"end": 902,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 930,
"end": 954,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "M.A.\u00a0No.\u00a02398/2003\n -1-\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Jabalpur\n\n Sb: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.K. Gupta\n\n\n M.A. No. 2398/2003\n\nM/s Acme Papers Limited : Appellant\n\n -Versus-\nM.P. Financial Corporation : Respondents\nand another\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Pancholi, Advocate\nFor the Respondent No.1 : None present\nFor the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ravish Agrawal, Sr. Advocate\n with Mr. K.S. Jha, Advocate\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 107,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 160,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 237,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 373,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 578,
"end": 593,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 673,
"end": 687,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 752,
"end": 760,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Criminal Appeal No. 52/14 & 72/14\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Pulastya Pramachala\n Additional Sessions Judge\n Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\nCriminal Appeal No. 52/14\nUnique I.D. No. : 02402R0136672014\n\nIn the matter of :-\n Smt. Nisha Gupta\n W/o. Sh. Amit Gupta,\n D/o. Sh. Bishamber Dayal Gupta,\n R/o. C-130, Amar Colony, East Gokapur,\nDelhi-110094. .....Appellant\n Versus\n Sh. Amit Gupta\nS/o. Sh. Ravinder Gupta,\nR/o. A-302, Gali no.14, Anand Nagar, Gaurav Nagar,\nPrem Nagar-II, Nangloi, Delhi-110086. ...... RespondentDate of Institution : 07.05.2014\nDate of receiving the case in this court : 08.05.2014\nDate of reserving order : 27.08.2014\nDate of pronouncement : 05.09.2014\n\n .............And...............\n\nCriminal Appeal No. 72/14\nUnique I.D. No. : 02402R0166322014\n\nIn the matter of :-\nSh. Amit Gupta\nS/o. Sh. Ravinder Gupta,\nR/o. A-302, Gali no.14,\nAnand Nagar, Gaurav Nagar,\nPrem Nagar-II, Nangloi, Delhi-110086. .....Appellant Versus Smt. Nisha Gupta W/o. Sh. Amit Gupta, D/o. Sh. Bishamber Dayal Gupta, R/o. C-130, Amar Colony, East Gokapur, Delhi-110094. ...... Respondent (Pulastya Pramachala) Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Page 1 of 11 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 52/14 & 72/14 Date of Institution : 30.05.2014 Date of receiving the case in this court : 31.05.2014 Date of reserving order : 27.08.2014 Date of pronouncement : 05.09.2014 Decision : Both Petitions are dismissed. \n\nCommon Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 86,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 185,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 286,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 511,
"end": 521,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1057,
"end": 1067,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1209,
"end": 1220,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh,\n\n Principal Seat, Jabalpur\n\n Single Bench\n\n\n\n Present: Hon'Ble Justice Shri N. K. Gupta\n\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1389/1996\n\n Brijmohan\n\n Vs.\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n...........................................................................................................\n\nFor the appellant : Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate.\nFor the respondent: Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Public Prosecutor\n...........................................................................................................\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 211,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 321,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 412,
"end": 435,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 594,
"end": 603,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 664,
"end": 677,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 27.11.2006\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice P.Sathasivam\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice S.Tamilvanan\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No.639 of 2006\n\n\n= = = = = \n\nV.N.Devadoss\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\n\n\tvs.\n\n\n1. The Chief Revenue Control Officer\n Cum Inspector General of Registration,\n Chennai 600 028.\n\n2. The District Revenue Officer\t(Stamps),\n Office of the District Collector,\n Chennai 600 001.\n\n3. The Sub Registrar,\n Ambattur, \n Chennai.\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents\n\n= = = = = \n\n\n\tAppeal filed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act as against the order made by the Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-28, the 1st respondent herein, in his proceedings Pa.Mu.No.22947/NI/2005, dated 8.2.2006, confirming the order of the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Office of the District Collector, Chennai 600 001, the 2nd respondent herein, in his proceedings Na.Ka.C.Pa.244/2004/A4, dated 11.04.2005.\n\n\n* * * * * \nFor Appellant\t: Mr.R.Gandhi, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.G.Narendhiran.\n\nFor Respondents\t: Mr.R.Viduthalai, Advocate General \n assisted by Mr.V.Srikanth, Addl. Govt. Pleader (Cs).\n* * * * * \n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 108,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 152,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 222,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 348,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 358,
"end": 448,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 458,
"end": 498,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1025,
"end": 1033,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1057,
"end": 1072,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1096,
"end": 1108,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1161,
"end": 1171,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 1914 of 2006()\n\n\n1. Shajahan T.M., S/O.Moula Rawther,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. P.J.Abraham, Puthenpurayil House,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State Of Kerala,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.S.Sreekumar\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Liju.V.Stephen\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K.Mohanan\n\n Dated :17/05/2010\n\n O R D E R\n V.K.Mohanan, J.\n --------------------------------------------------\n Crl.A.Nos.1914,1917, 1918 & 1919 Of 2006\n --------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 85,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 189,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 275,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 326,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 379,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 405,
"end": 416,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 478,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice T. Sunil Chowdary \n\nC.M.A.No.872 Of 2005 \n\n14-10-2015 \n\nThe United India Insurance Co. Ltd Appellant\n\nSri Mohd. Khaleel Khan & Others ....Respondents \n\nCounsel for Appellants: Sri V Sambasiva Rao \n\nCounsel for the respondents: Sri G. Narender Reddy\n \nHead Note: \n\n\n? Cases referred\n\n 2011 (4) Ald 215\n2 2004 (4) Ald 15 \n3 2007 Acj 64 \n4 2007 Acj 1617 \n5 2005 (5) Ald 185 \n6 2003 Acj 1274 \n7 Air 2004 Sc 1531 \n8 2001 Acj 538 \n9 2014 Acj 2873 \n10 (2013) 7 Scc 62 \n11 (1999) I Clr 1192\n12 2009 Acj 1049 \n13 2006 Acj 40 \n14 2004 Acj 900 \n15 2004 (2) Lln 469 \n16 2006 (108) Flr 467 : 2006 Acj 1357 \n17 2009 Acj 2458 \n18 2005 (5) Ald 137 \n\n\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice T. Sunil Chowdary \n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No.872 Of 2005 \n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 124,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 159,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 230,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 283,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 771,
"end": 788,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Pitamber Dutt;Adj(Central)-11, Delhi\n\nSuit No. 927/08\nUnique I.D No. 02401C0517582007\n\n 1. Rajan Rattan\n S/o Sh. Sanjay Rattan\n 2. Hunny Rattan\n S/o Sh. Sanjay Rattan\n 3. Usha Rattan\n W/o Sh. Sanjay Rattan\n All Residents of\n House No. A-1/78, Sector-4,\n Rohini, Delhi\n .......P l a i n t i f f s\n Versus\n\n 1. Sh. Kunti Nandan Sharma\n S/o late Sh. Chunni Lal\n R/o L-86-A, Malviya Nagar,\n New Delhi\n 2. Smt. Jyoti\n W/o Sh. Rajesh Sharma\n House no. 12, Biharipur,\n Krolan, Bareilly,\n U.P.\n ......D e f e n d a n t s\n\nDate of Institution of Suit : 19.05.2007\nDate when reserved for orders : 10.12.2013\nDate of Decision : 18.12.2013\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 126,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 175,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 224,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 493,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 588,
"end": 593,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ajn\n 1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No.837 Of 2003\n\n\n Ms. Leena Balkrishna Nair, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Yerawada Central Prison )\n (Female), Pune - 411 006. ) ... Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n\n\n\n \n \n The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent\n \n Ms. Latika Newarekar, appointed advocate for the\n appellant.\n\n Mr. H.J. Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State.\n \n \n\n\n\n Coram: Mrs. Ranjana Desai &\n Mrs. V.K. Tahilramani, Jj.\n Date On Which The Order Is Reserved : 12Th April, 2010. \n\n Date On Which The Order Is Pronounced: 13Th April, 2010. \n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 92,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 358,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 617,
"end": 641,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 897,
"end": 910,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 946,
"end": 962,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Fa-310-2015\n (Sasan Power Limited Vs North American Coal Corporation India Private\n Limited)\n\n\n11-09-2015\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : At\n\n Jabalpur\n\n\n First Appeal No : 310 of 2015\n Sasan Power Limited\n - V/s -\n North American Coal Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.\n\nPresent : Hon\u00e2\u0080\u0099ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.\n Hon\u00e2\u0080\u0099ble Shri Justice Sushil Kumar\n Gupta.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri V.K. Tankha, Senior Advocate, with Shri\n Varun K. Chopra, Shri Paras Anand, Shri R.\n Gupta\n and Shri Alok Hoonka, counsel for the\n appellant.\n\n Shri Anirudh Krishnan and Shri Ankit Agrawal,\n Counsel for the respondents.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nWhether approved for reporting: Yes / No.\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 130,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 231,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 301,
"end": 320,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 407,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 442,
"end": 456,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 495,
"end": 523,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 634,
"end": 645,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 690,
"end": 705,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 712,
"end": 723,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 730,
"end": 746,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 772,
"end": 783,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 842,
"end": 858,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 868,
"end": 881,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 10316 of 2008(C)\n\n\n1. Infopark Kerala, Kakkanad\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Asistant Commissioner Of Income Tax\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Commissioner Of Income Tax\n\n3. Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.B.S.Krishnan (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Abraham Thomas, Cgc\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M.Joseph\n\n Dated :06/10/2008\n\n O R D E R\n K.M.Joseph, J.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Wp.(C) No. 10316 of 2008\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 100,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 252,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 283,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 323,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 374,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 419,
"end": 433,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 464,
"end": 474,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 540,
"end": 550,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "A.F.R.\n\n\n Judge\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur\n Criminal Appeal No.118/2001\n Samar Jeet Singh and others.\n Vs.\n State of Madhya Pradesh.\n\n\nFor the Appellants : Shri Aditya Adhikari, Senior Advocate\n with Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate.\nFor the State : Shri Yogesh Dhande, Govt. Advocate.\n\n Present : Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ajit Singh\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Gupta, Jj.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 192,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 280,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 325,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 391,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 442,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 506,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 542,
"end": 551,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri P.S. Teji : District & Sessions \n Judge (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\nSc No.13/2011\nUnique Case Id No.02402R0045182011\n\nFir No.150/2010\nPolice Station Crime Branch\nUnder Section 186/353/307 Ipc &\nU/s 25/27/54/59 Arms Act\n\nState Versus Sandeep Chaudhary\n S/o Sh. Jayant Singh\n R/o Village Khairpur,\n Ps B.B. Nagar, District\n Bulandshahar, U.P.\n\nDate of Institution : 21.04.2011\nDate of judgment reserved : 28.03.2014\nDate of judgment : 11.04.2014\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 30,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 98,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 257,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 317,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 arbp-1283-10.sxw\n\n\n dgm\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n Arbitration Petition No. 1283 Of 2010\n\n\n\n\n \n Sahyadri Earthmovers .... Petitioners\n vs\n\n\n\n\n \n L & T Finance Limited & anr. .... Respondents\n \n Mr. U. S. Samudrala for the petitioners.\n \n Ms. S.I. Joshi i/by M/s.S.I.Joshi & Co. for respondent no.1. \n\n\n Coram: Anoop V. Mohta, J.\n Date : March 28, 2011 Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 161,
"end": 195,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 432,
"end": 452,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 598,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 695,
"end": 710,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 768,
"end": 778,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 873,
"end": 887,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Pawan Kumar Matto\n Additional District Judge\u00ad01 (East)\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.\n\nExecution No.2/2014\n\nIn the matter of :\u00ad\n\nLaxmi Garg .....Decree Holder\n\n Versus\n\nUnion of India & Anr. .....Judgment Debtors\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 132,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 187,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 298,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3081 of 2014\n ======================================================\n 1. Raj Narayan Rai S/O Gaya Rai\n 2. Kalawati Devi D/O Jhulan Rai And W/O Raj Narayan Rai Both Are\n Resident Of Village- Pohiya, P.O- Bhaismara, Police Station- Garkha,\n District- Saran ( Chapra)\n\n .... .... Petitioner/s\n Versus\n 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra\n 2. The Additional Collector, Saran, Chapra\n 3. The Chairman, The Bihar Land Tribunal, Patna.\n 4. Ram Pujan Rai S/O Late Sobhnath Rai\n 5. Lal Babu Rai S/O Ram Pujan Rai 4 And 5 Are Resident Of Village-\n Pohiya, P.O- Bhaismara, Police Station- Garkha, District- Saran ( Chapra)\n\n .... .... Respondent/s\n ======================================================\n Appearance :\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra\n For the State : Mr. Nirbhay Kr. Singh, G.P.26\n For Respondents 4 & 5 : Mr. Brij KishorMishra\n Mr. Sachida Nand Rai, Advocates.\n ======================================================\n Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey\n Oral Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 222,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 268,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 619,
"end": 633,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 706,
"end": 741,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 765,
"end": 805,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 826,
"end": 839,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 881,
"end": 893,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1269,
"end": 1287,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1333,
"end": 1350,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1403,
"end": 1420,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1466,
"end": 1482,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1612,
"end": 1626,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\nDated : 11.03.2015\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.Sathyanarayanan\n\nCriminal Appeal (MD)No.256 of 2013\n\n1. A.Abdul Rahim\n2. Sheik Babu @ S.K.Babu\t\t\t... Appellants/\n\t\t\t\t \tAccused Nos.1 and 2\n Vs.\nState represented by\nThe Intelligence Officer,\nNarcotics Control Bureau,\nSouth Zonal Unit,\nChennai, O.R.No.48/1/7/2006-\nN.C.B. Madras. \t\t\t... Respondent/\n\t\t\t\t\tComplainant\n\nPrayer : Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,\nto call for the records relating to judgment in C.C.No.523 of 2006, dated\n27.04.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge for Principal\nSpecial Judge for N.D.P.S. Act Cases, Madurai and to set aside the conviction\nand sentence passed by the trial Court.\n\n!For Appellants: Mr.M.Ramu\n\t\t\tfor Mr.B.Pandiarajan\n\t\t\t\t\n^For Respondent: Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar\n\t\t\tSpecial Public Prosecutor for Ncb\n\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 114,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 168,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 193,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 251,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 645,
"end": 700,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 795,
"end": 801,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 812,
"end": 825,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 852,
"end": 874,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n W.P.(Crl.) No. 1/2011\n\n\n\n\n The High Court Of Sikkim At Gangtok\n (Criminal Writ Jurisdiction)\n\n\n Dated : 26.07.2013\n\n\n\n Coram\n\n Hon'Ble The Chief Justice\n Mr. Justice Pius C. Kuriakose\n\n\n W.P. (Crl.) No. 1 of 2011\n\n Radhey Shyam Swami,\n S/o Late Lakman Ram Swami,\n Prop. Apsara Saree Centre,\n Sitla Bazaram, P.O. Soodulpur,\n Distt. Churu,\n Rajasthan.\n .... Petitioner.\n\n - versus -\n\n\n 1. Amrit Singhi,\n S/o Late Amar Singh Singhi,\n R/o Lall Market Road, Gangtok\n Pl.O. & P.S. Gangtok,\n (East Sikkim)\n Pin - 737 101.\n\n 2. State of Sikkim,\n Through the Chief Secretary,\n Government of Sikkim,\n Gangtok,\n Sikkim.\n ..... Respondents.\n\n\nFor Petitioner : Mr. Eklovya Rai Nagpal, Advocate.\n\nFor Respondents : M/s. A. Moulik, Sr. Advocate with K. D.\n Bhutia, Manish Kr. Jain, Pujan Kharka and\n 2\n\n\n W.P.(Crl.) No. 1/2011\n\n\n\n\n Ranjit Prasad, Advocates for respondent\n No.1.\n\n\n\n M/s. Karma Thinlay, Sr. Govt. Advocate and\n S. K. Chettri, Asstt. Govt. Advocate for the\n State-respondent No. 2.\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 107,
"end": 138,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 378,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 453,
"end": 471,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 825,
"end": 837,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1111,
"end": 1126,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1421,
"end": 1439,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1490,
"end": 1499,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1519,
"end": 1564,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1566,
"end": 1581,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1583,
"end": 1595,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1756,
"end": 1769,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1868,
"end": 1881,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1935,
"end": 1948,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Sugandha Aggarwal,\nAddl. Rent Controller : North\u00adWest : Rohini : Delhi\n\nE. No.146/2011\nPetition U/s 14 (1) (e) of Drc Act \nUnique Case Identification No. 02404C0320952011\n\nShri Jai Bhagwan Sharma,\nSon of Late Shri Parshu Ram Sharma,\nResident of House No.3045, Street No.223,\nTri Nagar, Delhi - 110035 ...Petitioner\n\n Versus \nSmt. Bimla Devi,\nWidow of Late Shri Shiv Dutt Sharma,\nShop A (Corner) in \nHouse No.3045, Street No.223,\nTri Nagar, Delhi - 110035 ...Respondent\n\nDate of petition : 16.11.2011.\nDate of arguments : 30.1.2013\nDate of order : 22.2.2013 \n\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 215,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 423,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh\n ASJ/Special Judge : Ndps (N-W) : Rohini Courts : Delhi\n\n\n In the matter of :\n Sc No. 112/11\n State Vs. Mohd. Aslam & anr.\n Fir no. 184/11\n Ps Crime Branch\n U/s 20/25/29 Ndps Act, 1985\n\n State\n\n Versus\n\n1) Mohd. Aslam\n S/o Late Sh. Mohd. Yameen\n R/o H.No. - 523, Gali no-2,\n Kardam Puri, Shahdara, Delhi.\n2) Mohd. Salamuddin\n S/o Sh. Abdul Kalam\n R/o H. No. 98A,\n Jait Pur Extension, Part-II,\n Badarpur, Delhi.\n\n\n Date of receipt : 31.10.2011\n Date of arguments : 17.09.2014\n Date of announcement : 25.09.2014\n\n\n\n\n Sc no. 112/11 Dtd.. 25.09.2014 Page 1 of 54\n 2\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 64,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 126,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 251,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 269,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 479,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 515,
"end": 526,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 631,
"end": 647,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\nIn The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 30Th Day Of May, 2013\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice B.V.Pinto\n\n Criminal Appeal No.203/2006\n\nBetween:\n\nSri.Prakasha @\nPrakash Nandavar,\nS/O. Chandrashekhat Bhat,\nAged About 35 Years,\nR/At. Belve Village,\nKundapur Taluk,\nUdupi District. ...Appellant\n\n (By Sri.V.G.Ravindra And Sri.B.V.Krishnappa,\n Advs. )\n\nAnd:\n\nState Of Karnataka,\nBy Hebbagodi Police. ...Respondent\n\n (By Sri.G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, Hcgp)\n\n\n This Criminal Appeal Is Filed Under\nSection 374(2) Of Cr.P.C. Against The Judgment\nDated 30.12.2005 Passed By The Additional\nDistrict And Sessions Judge, Ftc-Iv, Bangalore\nRural District, Bangalore In Sc No.56/2004\nConvicting The Appellant-Accused No.1 For\n 2\n\nThe Offence Punishable Under Section 498-A\nAnd 304-B Of Ipc And Sentencing Him To\nUndergo R.I. For A Period Of 8 Years For The\nOffence Under Section 304-B Of Ipc And The\nAppellant Accused Prays That The Above\nOrder May Be Set Aside.\n\n This Appeal Is Coming On For Dictating\nJudgment This Day, The Court Delivered The\nFollowing:-\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 46,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 162,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 244,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 403,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 412,
"end": 426,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 464,
"end": 482,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 550,
"end": 569,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 698,
"end": 781,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCentral Bureau Of Investigation\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nV.C. Shukla & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 74,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 6202 Of 2008\n (Arising out of Slp(C) No.13424 of 2007)\n\n\nSahiti and others ... Appellants\n\n Versus\n\nThe Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University\nOf Health Sciences and others ... Respondents\n\n\n With\n\n\n Civil Appeal Nos.6203,6204, 6206-6211 and 6212 Of\n 2008\n (Arising out of Slp(C) Nos.13525/2007, 14281/2007,\n 18798-18803/2007 and 21051/2007)\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 194,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 337,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nDelhi Cloth & General Mills Co.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nLudh Budh Singh\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 78,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-:1:-\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Manu Vedwan, Ld. Metropolitan \n\n Magistrate : Special Court - 05 (Ni Act) : Dwarka : Delhi\n\n\n\n Complaint Case No. : 126/14\n P.S. : Dwarka Sector 23\n U/s. : 138 N.I.Act\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-1-\n\n\n\n\n In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh : Asj : Spl. Judge\n Ndps (Nw) : District Courts : Rohini:Delhi\n\n In the matter of:\n\n Sc No. : 18/13\n Fir No. : 110/13\n Ps : Crime Branch\n State Vs. : Raju\n U/s : 21(b) of Ndps Act\n State\n\n Versus\n\n Raju\n S/o Late Sh. Nakul\n R/o H-1/17-18, Lal Quarter,\n Vijay Vihar, Sector-4,\n Rohini, Delhi.\n\n Date of receipt : 24.10.2014\n Date of arguments : 30.05.2014\n Date of announcement : 07.06.2014\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 54,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 135,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 418,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 439,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 535,
"end": 540,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 589,
"end": 593,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 7988 of 2004\n\nPetitioner:\nM/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd.\n\nRespondent:\nM/s. Federal Motors Pvt. Ltd.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 85,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 128,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n\n Date of Reserve: 16th August, 2010\n\n Date of Order: September 16, 2010\n\n + Crl. Appeal No.617/2004\n% 16.09.2010\n Union of India ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n Victor Nnamdi Okpo ...Respondent\n\nCounsels:\n\nMr. Satish Aggarwala with Mr. Shirish Aggarwal for appellant\nMr. Ankit Khetarpal for respondent.\n\n\n Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra\n\n1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.\n\n2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.\n\n3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 385,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 488,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 559,
"end": 575,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 585,
"end": 601,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 620,
"end": 635,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 671,
"end": 691,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 06/12/2004 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Honourable Mr.MARKANDEY Katju, Chief Justice \nand \nThe Honourable Mrs.Justice Prabha Sridevan \n\nTax Case (Appeal) No. 983 of 2004 \n\nCommissioner of Income Tax - Ii,\nChennai. ... Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\nG.V.Venugopal \n40, Eldams Road, \nSwarna Flats,\nChennai. ... Respondent\n\n\n Appeals presented to the High Court against the order of the Income\nTax Appellate Tribunal, Madras \"C\" Bench dated 14.06.2004 in Ita\nNos.197/Mds/2004. \n\n!For Appellant ... Mrs.Pushya Sitaraman\n\n^For Respondent ... ---\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 184,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 268,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 343,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 646,
"end": 662,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAbhinandan Jha & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nDinesh MISHRA(With Connected Appeal)\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 71,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nFertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri Andother\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 63,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 106,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n Civil Appeal No.6662 Of 2004\n\n\nRamjas Foundation and another ........Appellants\n\n Versus\n\nUnion of India and others .......Respondents\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 60,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 180,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 297,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka\n Circuit Bench, Gulbarga\n\n Dated This The 14Th Day Of September, 2012\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar\n\n Writ Petition Nos.85442-452/2012(EDN-AD)\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Kumar Sonal\n S/O Suryakant Kambale\n Ageg About 20 Years, Occ: Student\n R/O Kamble Nivas, H.No.35-151\n Rena State, Behind Police Station\n Tq. Basavakalyan, Dist. Bidar - 585 401\n\n2. Kumar Sadanand\n S/O Shivaraj Tamasange\n Aged About 19 Years\n Occ: Student\n R/O Janata Colony\n Near Karanja Office\n Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar - 585 401\n\n3. Kumar Vinodkumar\n S/O Shivaraj Warad\n Aged About 19 Years\n Occ: Student\n R/O Behind Government High\n School, Basaveshwar Circle\n Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar - 585 401\n\n4. Kumar Shivanand\n S/O Udayaraj Biradar\n Aged About 21 Years\n Occ: Student\n R/O Behind Water Tank\n Lecturer Colony, Tq. Bhalki\n 2\n\n\n\n\n Dist. Bidar - 585 401\n\n5. Kumar Ravikumar\n S/O Kashinath Devane\n Aged About19 Years\n Occ: Student\n R/O Behind Water Tank\n Lecturer Colony, Tq. Bhalki\n Dist. Bidar - 585 401\n\n6. Kumar Huleppa\n S/O Mallappa Shidanur\n Aged About 19 Years\n Occ: Student\n R/O Hanamanth Wadi\n Post Rajeshwar\n Tq. Basavakalyan\n Dist. Bidar - 585 401\n\n7. Kumari Hiranayak Pooja\n D/O Sudhakar\n Aged About19 Years\n Occ: Student\n R/O Sahu Nagar\n Near Lecturer Colony\n Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar - 585 401\n\n8. Kumari Arati Hiranaish\n D/O Sudhakar H.\n Aged About 19 Years\n Occ: Student\n R/O Sahu Nagar\n Near Lecturer Colony\n Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar - 585 401\n\n9. Kumar Ajaykumar\n S/O Jagannath Sulugunte\n Aged About 19 Years\n Occ: Student\n R/O Near Water Tank\n Khb Colony, New Gunj\n Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar - 585 401\n\n10. Kumar Praveenkumar\n 3\n\n\n\n\n S/O Dhulappa Anadure\n Aged About 19 Years\n Occ: Student\n R/O At Post: Karadayal\n Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar - 585 401\n\n11. Kumar Shivakumar\n S/O Basavaraj Wale\n Aged About 20 Years\n Occ: Student\n R/O Hiremath Galli\n Old Town, Tq. Bhalki\n Dist. Bidar - 585 401\n ... Petitioners\n\n(By Sri S.S.Mamadapur, Advocate)\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. State Of Karnataka\n Represented By Secretary\n Technical Education Examination\n Board, Multi-Storied Building\n Bangalore - 01\n\n2. The Director\n Technical Education Department\n Seshadri Road, Bangalore - 01\n\n3. The Principal\n Government Polytechnic College\n Bidar - 585 401\n\n4. The Principal\n Jawaharal Nehru\n Polytechnic College\n Thana Kusnoor\n Tq. Aurad(B)\n Dist. Bidar - 585 401\n\n\n5. The Principal\n Haralayya Polytechnic\n 4\n\n\n\n\n College, Tq. Bhalki,\n Dist. Bidar - 585 401\n ... Respondents\n\n(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, R1 & R2,\n Notice To R3 To 5 Dispensed With)\n\n\n These Writ Petitions Filed Under Articles 226\nAnd 227 Of Constitution Of India Praying To Issue\nCertiorari Quashing Annexure-B i.e., Circular Vide Dte\n22 Acm (2) 2012-13 Issued By The Second Respondent.\nDirect The Respondents To Continue The Carry Over\nSystem As Per Circular Dated 2/08/2010 Vide Dte 31\nAcm (2) 2010-11 i.e., Annexure-A Issues By The Second\nRespondent And Etc.\n\n These Writ Petitions Coming On For Preliminary\nHearing This Day, The Court Made The Following:\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 204,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 275,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 469,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 620,
"end": 636,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 799,
"end": 814,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 998,
"end": 1013,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1161,
"end": 1174,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1328,
"end": 1350,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1488,
"end": 1510,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1652,
"end": 1667,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1823,
"end": 1841,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2003,
"end": 2019,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2221,
"end": 2234,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2257,
"end": 2275,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2398,
"end": 2473,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2482,
"end": 2544,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2553,
"end": 2662,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2672,
"end": 2788,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2854,
"end": 2873,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "arbp778-12\n\nvai\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Arbitration Petition No.778 Of 2012\n\n\n National Insurance Company Limited,\n\n\n\n\n \n a Company duly incorporated under\n the provisions of Companies Act, 1956,\n and a Government of India Undertaking\n having its Registered Office at 3,\n\n\n\n\n \n Middletown Street, Kolkatta - 700 001\n and inter-lia its Unit No.260201 (Dab-Ii)\n at 1st Floor, Sterling Cinema Building,\n \n 65, Marzbhan Street, Fort, Mumbai - 400 001. ...Petitioners\n\n ..Versus..\n \n Opera Clothing,\n a Partnership Firm constituted under the\n provisions of Indian Partnership Act, 1932,\n \n\n having its Office at A/2, Shah & Nahar\n Industrial Estate, Lower Parel (West),\n \n\n\n\n Mumbai - 400 013. ...Respondents\n\n\n Mr.A.M. Vernekar with Mr.Samarth Pai i/b Narichania & Narichania\n for the Petitioners.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr.Chetan Kapadia with Ms.Rachita Romani i/b India law for the\n Respondents.\n\n Coram : R.D. Dhanuka, J.\n Reserved On : 6Th February, 2015 Pronounced On : 13Th March, 2015 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 122,
"end": 156,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 369,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 960,
"end": 974,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1280,
"end": 1293,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1302,
"end": 1313,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1383,
"end": 1397,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1406,
"end": 1420,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1503,
"end": 1515,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe United Commercial Bank Ltd.,Calcutta\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West Bengal\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 52,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 114,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Ravinder Singh\u00adIi\n Metropolitan Magistrate\n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi\n\nCase No. : 4339/14\nUnique Case Id No. : 0240Sr0126322013\n\n\nSmt Pushpa\nW/o Sh. Parveen Kumar\nR/o Flat No\u00ad122, Pocket 13, Phase\u00adI\nDwarka, Near Mangla Puri Dda Office\nNew Delhi\u00ad110045. ...................................Complainant\n\n Versus\n\nSmt. Bandana Jha\nW/o Sh. Mihir Kumar Jha\nR/o Flat No\u00ad191, Pocket 13, Phase\u00adI\nDwarka, Near Mangla Puri Dda Office\nNew Delhi\u00ad110045. ....................................Accused\n\n\nDate of Institution: 15.05.2013\nPlea of the accused: Pleaded Not Guilty\nDate of Reserving Judgment: 03/05/2014\nSentence or final Order: Convicted\nDate of Judgment: 03/05/2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 141,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 212,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 446,
"end": 457,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\u00ad: 1 :\u00ad\n\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Manu Vedwan, Ld. Metropolitan \nMagistrate : Special Court - 09 (Ni Act) : Dwarka : Delhi\n\n\n Atul Kumar Singh Vs. B.N. Singhvi\n\n\n\n Complaint Case No. : 3662/13\n P.S. : Dwarka Sector\u00ad23\n U/s. : 138 N.I.Act\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 46,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 123,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 157,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 174,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\nIn The Court Of Shri D.K.Malhotra; Addl. District Judge;\n Central-14; Delhi.\n\nOriginal Suit No. 2398 of 1987\nNew Suit No. 93/14\n\n 1. Delhi Dayalbagh Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd. \n\n Having its office at Soami Nagar, New Delhi. \n\n 2. Dayalbagh Soami Nagar Residents Society having its office at Soami Nagar, New Delhi. \n\n ..............Plaintiffs Vs. \n\n Delhi Municipal Corporation, Town Hall, Delhi. \n\n ..............Defendant Date of Filing: 4.11.1987 Date of Decision: 31.01.2014 Suit For Declaration And Perpetual Injunction Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 95,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 212,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 306,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 387,
"end": 414,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Jagdish Kumar\n Adj-06 (West): Delhi\n\nCivil Suit No. : 182/14\nUnique Case Id No : 02401C0092882005\n\nIn the matter of:\n\nSh. Ram Rattan\nS/o Late Sh. Deep Chand\nR/o J-6/94, Rajouri Garden\nNew Delhi - 110027 .............. Plaintiff\n\n Versus\n\n1. Sh. Surender Kumar\n S/o Sh. Ram Saran\n on Shop no. 52, Main Market\n Subhash Nagar\n New Delhi\n\n2. Sh. Bittoo\n S/o Sh. Ram Saran\n on Shop no. 52, Main Market\n Subhash Nagar\n New Delhi\n\n3. Smt. Prem\n D/o Sh. Ram Saran\n W/o Sh. Devinder Dhawan\n R/o 1827/28, Faridabad\n Haryana\n\n4. Ms. Madhu\n D/o Sh. Ram Saran\n on Shop no. 52, Main Market\n Subhash Nagar\n New Delhi\n\n\nCs No. 182/14 Page 1 of 17\n 5. Smt. Neelam\n D/o Late Sh. Ram Saran\n W/o Sh. J.R.D. Arora\n R/o M-151, Vikaspuri\n New Delhi.\n\n6. Smt. Shanti Devi\n Wd/o Late Sh. Ram Saran\n on Shop no. 52, Main Market\n Subhash Nagar\n New Delhi\n ............ Defendants\n\n\nDate of institution of the Suit : 10.02.2005\nDate of arguments : 04.07.2014\nDate of decision : 05.07.2014\n\n Suit For Possession, Declaration And Cancellation And\n Recovery Of Damages And Permanent Injunction\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 76,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 204,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 365,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 456,
"end": 462,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 554,
"end": 558,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 652,
"end": 657,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 817,
"end": 823,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 921,
"end": 932,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSynthetics & Chemicals Ltd. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of U.P. And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 44,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nUnion Of India & Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nK.S. Subramanian\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 14/11/2003 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar \nand \nThe Honourable Mr. Justice M. Thanikachalam \n\nH.C.P. No.1038 of 2003 \nand H.C.P.Nos. 1101, 1118, 1119, 1120, 1121 \n1122, 1123, 1085, 1170 and 1226 Of 2003 \n\n\nH.C.P. No.1038 Of 2003: \n\nPremavathy @ Rajathi \npresently interned at\nSpecial Camp for \nSrilankan Refugees \nChengalpattu ..... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. State of Tamil Nadu\n rep. by Secretary to Government\n Public (Sc) Department\n Chennai 600 009\n\n2. The District Collector\n Kancheepuram District\n Kancheepuram \n\n3. The Camp Officer\n Special Camp for Srilankan\n Chengalpattu ..... Respondents\n\n\n Petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution, praying for Writ of\nHabeas Corpus as stated in the petitions\n\nFor Petitioners :: Mr. B. Kumar, Senior Counsel\n for Ms. Sudha Ramalingam\n Mr. P.V.S. Giridhar\n\nFor Respondents :: Mr. I. Subramanian\n Public Prosecutor/Sr. Advocate\n\n\n:Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 127,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 180,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 348,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 489,
"end": 508,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 601,
"end": 662,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 673,
"end": 733,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 932,
"end": 941,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 991,
"end": 1007,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1037,
"end": 1053,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1083,
"end": 1098,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nDevi Das Gopal Krishnan & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Punjab & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nUnion Of India\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMaj. I. C., Lala Etc.\tEtc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 63,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 06/04/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. A.P.Shah, Chief Justice \nand \nThe Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Prabha Sridevan \n\nO.S.A.No.86 of 2006 \n----------\n\n1. R.Rajagopal @ R.R.Gopal @ Nakkheeran Gopal \n2. A.Kamaraj .... Appellants.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. J.Jayalalitha\n2. Mrs.N.Sassikala ..Respondents.\n\n\n Prayer: Appeal against the ad interim injunction order passed by a\nlearned single Judge of this Court dated 15.03.2006 in\nOriginal Application No.599 of 2003 in C.S.No.477 of 2003.\n-----------\n\n!For Appellants :: Mr.P.T.Perumal\n\n^For Respondents :: Mr.N.Jothi\n\n-----------\n\n:J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 109,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 178,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 269,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 286,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 340,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 359,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 627,
"end": 638,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 671,
"end": 678,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Reetesh Singh,\n Additional District Judge-01 (North-East),\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.\n\n Cs No. 125/2009\nDate of institution of the case :- 20.03.2009\nDate on which Judgment was reserved :- 04.02.2014\nDate on which Judgment was pronounced :- 25.03.2014\nI.D. No. : 02402C0089152009\n\nIn The Matter Of:-\n\n Smt. Rajjo Devi\n W/O Shri Bhule Singh\n R/O K-94, Karawal Nagar,\n Delhi-110094.\n .....Plaintiff\n\n Versus\n Shri Raeesuddin\n S/O Shri Faeemuddin\n R/O 4928/A-40-B, Gali No. 4,\n Old Seelampur,\n Delhi-110031.\n ......Defendant\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 148,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 565,
"end": 575,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 824,
"end": 834,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Principal Seat At Jabalpur\n M.Cr.C.No.11246/2014\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------\n --------\n Dwarka Prasad\n Vs.\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a6...............................................................................................\n...............\nPresent:- Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar\n...................................................................................................\n...............\nShri Pramod Kumar Thakre, counsel for the\npetitioner/accused.\nShri Pramod Kumar Pandey, Government Advocate for the\nrespondent State.\n...................................................................................................\n...............\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 81,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 307,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 382,
"end": 405,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 566,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 688,
"end": 707,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 750,
"end": 769,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated : 29..02..2008\n\nC O R A M\n\nThe Honourable Mr. A.P. Shah, Chief Justice\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla\n\nO.S.A. Nos.64 to 67 of 2008\n\n1.\tWipro Limited, \n\tSp-26, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate,\n\tGuindy, Chennai-32, rep. by its\n\tLegal Manager Vishal Mittal.\n\n2.\tWipro Chandrika Limited,\n\tDoddakannelli,\n\tSarjapur Road, Bangalore-560 035,\n\tRep. by its Authorised Signatory\n\tVishal Mittal\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellants\n \t\t\t\t\tversus\n1. \tOushadha Chandrika Ayurvedic India (P) Limited,\n\tRep. by its Managing Director K.S. Kochumon,\n\tAzad Road, Irinjalakuda-680 125, Kerala.\n\n2.\tOushadha Chandrika Research Centre,\n\tAzad Road, Irinjalakuda-680 125, Kerala.\n\n3.\tNarayana Stores,\t\t\t\t\t}\n\tJaihind Market Building,\t\t\t\t}\n\t'C' Block, Room No.19, \t\t\t\t}\t.. Respondents in \n\tMarket Road, Thrissur-680 001.\t\t\t}\tOSAs.64 & 67/2008\n\n\nPrayer : Appeals filed on the Original Side of this Court against the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge dated 24.1.2008 passed respectively in O.A. Nos.1246 of 2007; Application No.7854 of 2007 in C.S. No.996 of 2007; Application No.7536 of 2007 and Application No.1131 of 2007 in C.S. No.874 of 2007.\n- - - - -\n\t For Appellants \t: Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, \n\t\t\t\t Senior Counsel for Ms. Gladys Daniel \n\n\t For Respondents \t: Mr. Madan Babu for M/s. Sathish Parasaran\n- - - - -\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 104,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 172,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 219,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 351,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 494,
"end": 540,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 634,
"end": 668,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 716,
"end": 731,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1232,
"end": 1250,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1284,
"end": 1297,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1330,
"end": 1340,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1350,
"end": 1367,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nS. L. Kapoor\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nJagmohan & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 52,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nV. Dhanapal Chettiar\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nYesodai Ammal\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 65,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nVishaka & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Rajasthan & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 19,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 64,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMaharashtra Tubes Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Industrial And Investment Corporation Ofmaharashtra Lt\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 34,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 114,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Criminal Appeal (Sj) No.414 of 2012\n\n===================================================\n1. Raghuvar Prasad Patel, son of Mahadeo Patel, resident of village- Jeetpur Semra, P.S.-Bara, District-Bara (Nepal). \n\n2. Shiv Nashan Das, S/o Kangal Das, r/o - Parsauni Klaya, P.S.-Bara, District-Bara (Nepal). \n\n .... .... Appellant/s Versus\n\n1. The State of Bihar. \n\n2. Union of India .... .... Respondent/s =================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Appellant/s : Mr. Rudal Prasad, Advocate For the Union of India: Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, C.G.C. =================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 171,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 285,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 413,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 434,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 549,
"end": 561,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 600,
"end": 618,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 709,
"end": 728,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n + MAC.APP.No.672/2012\n\n % Date of decision : 7th December, 2012\n\n Ritu Minor Thr. Her Father & Ors. .... Appellants\n Through : Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan,\n Adv.\n versus\n\n Regional Manager Uttranchal State Road\n Transport Corpn. ..... Respondent\n Through : None.\n\nCoram :-\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 13,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 178,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 273,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 379,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 495,
"end": 505,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated: 05/01/2012\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar\nand\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.Devadass\n\nHabeas Corpus Petition (Md) No.635 of 2011\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011\n\nTharmar\t\t\t\t . . Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.\tThe State of Tamilnadu,\n\trep.by the Secretary to the Government,\n\tPublic (Sc) Department,\n\tFort St.George,\n\tChennai - 600 009.\n\n2.\tThe Union of India,\n\trep.by the Secretary to the Government,\n\tMinistry of Finance, Department of Revenue,\n\t(Cofeposa Unit),\n\tNew Delhi.\n\n3.\tThe Superintendent of Central Prison,\n\tSpecial Prison for Women,\n\tTiruchirapalli.\n\n4.\tThe Superintendent of Central Prison,\n\tSpecial Prison for Women,\n\tPuzhal, Chennai.\t\t \t. . Respondents\n\n\tThis Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution\nof India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus , calling for the\nthe records relating to the detention order in G.O.No.S.R.1/369-5/2011 dated\n12.7.2011 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and direct the\nrespondent to produce the body of the person of the detenu viz., Tharmar\nSamuthiram, aged about 58 years, wife of Tharmar, before this Court, now\ndetained under Section 3(1)(i) of the Cofeposa Act, in the Special Prison for\nWomen, Tiruchirapalli and set her at liberty.\n\n!For Petitioner\t\t ... Mr.S.Palanikumar\n^For Respondents 1,3 and 4... Mr.A.Ramar,\n\t\t\t Additional Public Prosecutor\nFor 2nd Respondent\t ... Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan\n\n:Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 119,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 160,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 234,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 291,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 404,
"end": 418,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 544,
"end": 620,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 630,
"end": 707,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1335,
"end": 1348,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1382,
"end": 1389,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1457,
"end": 1476,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 29.8.2006\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.JUSTICE S.Rajeswaran \n\nC.R.P.(Pd) No.89 of 2005\n\nN.Chinnasamy\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\n\tvs.\n\nP.S.Swaminathan\t\t\t\t.. Respondent\n\n\tRevision Petition filed against the order dated 1.11.2004, passed in I.A.No.1531/2004 in O.S.No.275/2004, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppur.\n\n\tFor Petitioner\t\t: M/s.M.M.Sundresh\n\tFor Respondent\t\t: Mr.S.K.Rakhunathan \n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 108,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 149,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 189,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 403,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 426,
"end": 441,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": ":: 1 ::\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Poonam A. Bamba:\n Special Judge (Pc Act) : Cbi - 03 :\n New Delhi District : Patiala House Court :\n New Delhi\nIn re :\nCc No. 09/12\nCase Id No. 02403R0041922012\nRc No. 18A/2011/Acb/Cbi/New Delhi\nu/Sec. 120B Ipc r/w Sec. 8 of Pc Act\n\nState (Cbi)\n\nVs\n\n1. Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi Jatav\n S/o Sh. Totta Ram\n R/o 9475, First Floor, Gali No. 11,\n Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi\n\n2. Sanjay Kumar Sharma\n S/o Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma\n R/o 185, Akash Darshan Apartment,\n Mayur Vihar Phase-I, Delhi-91.\n\nPermanent Address:\n Village Kachrot, P.O. Bhadkaun,\n Distt. Bulandsher, U.P. 245403\n\nCharge-sheet filed on - 02.07.2012\nCharges framed on - 19.11.2012\nArguments concluded on - 10.02.2014\nJudgment pronounced on - 22.02.2014\n\nAppearances:-\nFor prosecution: Sh. S. C. Sharma, Ld. Sr. Pp for the State (Cbi).\n\nFor Defence: Sh. R. C. Chopra, Advocate for A-1, Ravinder Kumar\n @ Ravi Jatav.\n Sh. P.S. Singhal, Advocate for A-2, Sanjay Kumar\n Sharma.\n\n\n\n\nCc No. 09/12 : Rc No. 8A/2011/Acb/Cbi/Nd\nCbi Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi Jatav etc. Page No. 1 of 123\n :: 2 ::\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 52,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 180,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 314,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 355,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 499,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 982,
"end": 994,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1058,
"end": 1070,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1090,
"end": 1142,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1173,
"end": 1185,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1205,
"end": 1249,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1296,
"end": 1299,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1304,
"end": 1331,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-:1:-\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Manu Vedwan, Ld. Metropolitan \n Magistrate : Special Court - 05 (Ni Act) : Dwarka : Delhi\n\n\n Apparel Exports Vs. Dutt C Arya Impex\n\n\n Complaint Case No. : 245/14\n P.S. : Naraina\n U/s. : 138 N.I.Act\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 45,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 161,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 183,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-:1:-\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Manu Vedwan, Ld. Metropolitan \n\n Magistrate : Special Court - 05 (Ni Act) : Dwarka : Delhi\n\n\n\n Ramakant Mittal Vs. M/s Mak Mangalam & \n another Complaint Case No. : 454/14\n P.S. : Najafgarh\n U/s. : 138 N.I.Act\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 125,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 184,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 205,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Wp 4834/2015\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Bench At Gwalior\n Justice Sujoy Paul.\n Writ Petition No. 4834/2015\n\n Brajesh Tiwari\n Vs.\n State of M.P. and others\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri Mahesh Goyal Advocate for the petitioner.\nShri Amit Bansal, Dy.GA for the respondent No.1/State.\nShri Vivek Jain, Advocate for respondents No. 2 to 5.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 125,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 169,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 262,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 336,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 447,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 482,
"end": 493,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 537,
"end": 547,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 29/09/2006 \n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon\u0012Ble Mr.Ajit Prakash Shah, Chief Justice\nThe Hon\u0012Ble Mr. Justice P.K.Misra\nThe Hon\u0012Ble Mr. Justice D.Murugesan\nThe Hon\u0012Ble Mrs. Justice Prabha Sridevan\nThe Hon\u0012Ble Mr. Justice M.Jaichandren \n\n\nWrit Appeal No.1573 of 1998 \n---------- \n\nK.Marappan\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Appellant \n\n\t\t\t\t\t\tVs. \n\n1. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies,\n Namakkal Circle,\n Namakkal - 636 001. \n\n2. The Special Officer,\n Vattur Co-operative Agricultural Bank,\n Vattur Post,\n Tiruchengode Taluk, \n Salem District. \t\t\t\t\t ..Respondents \n\n\nPrayer: Appeal filed under Clause - 15 of the Letters Patent against \nthe order of the learned single passed in W.P.No.1245 of 1989 dated 12.02.1998. \n\n----------\n\t\tFor Appellant\t\t:: Mr.N.G.R.Prasad\n\t\t\t\t\t\tFor M/s.Row & Reddy\n\n\t\tFor Respondent -1 \t:: Mr.R.Viduthalai, \n\t\t\t\t\t\tAdvocate General\n\t\t\t\t\t\tassisted by Mr.G.Sankaran, A.G.P.\n\n\t\tFor Respondent - 2 \t:: Mr.T.Senthilnathan \n\n-----------\n\t\t\t\t\t\nJ U D G M E N T \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 154,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 190,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 231,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 256,
"end": 269,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 325,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 454,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 465,
"end": 585,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 804,
"end": 816,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 871,
"end": 883,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 930,
"end": 940,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 978,
"end": 993,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 16/08/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V.Kanagaraj\n\nWrit Petition No.30841 of 2002\nand\nContempt Petition No.66 of 2003\nin\nW.P.M.P.No.45083 of 2002\nand\nW.V.M.P.No.362 of 2003\n\nW.P.No.30841 of 2002\nand\nCont.P.No.66 of 2003\n\nP.Jeya .. Petitioner in both petitions\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Union of India, rep.\n by the Joint Secretary\n (Revenue),\n Govt. of Pondicherry,\n Pondicherry.\n\n2. The Tahsildar,\n Taluk Office,\n Pondicherry. .. Respondents in Writ Petition\n\n\n1. Udiptha Ray\n Joint Secretary\n (Revenue),\n Govt. of Pondicherry,\n Pondicherry.\n\n2. Asokan,\n Tahsildar,\n Taluk Office,\n Pondicherry. .. Respondents in Cont. Petition\n\n\n Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of\nIndia, praying for the relief as stated therein.\n\n Contempt Petition filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the\nContempt of Courts (Act 70/71), praying for the relief as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan\n\nFor respondents: Mr.T.Murugesan,\n Govt. Pleader (Pondicherry).\n\n:O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 285,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 371,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 469,
"end": 511,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 563,
"end": 574,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 655,
"end": 661,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1067,
"end": 1082,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1105,
"end": 1116,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nKale & Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nDeputy Director Of Consolidation Ors\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 16,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRadhasoami Satsang, Saomi Bagh,Agra\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 47,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 95,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nP. Jayappan\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nS.K. Perumal, First Income-Tax Officer, Tuticorin\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 23,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 55,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr. Justice P.D.Rajan\n\n Wednesday, The 19Th Day Of March 2014/28Th Phalguna, 1935\n\n Crl.MC.No. 3846 of 2012 ()\n --------------------------\n\n Against The Order In Crl.MC 3157/2012 of High Court Of Kerala\n Dated 03-10-2012.\n\nAgainst The Order Dated 22-09-2012 In St 216/2009 And St.No.129/2010\n of J.M.F.C. Iv, Kottayam.\n\nPetitioner/Complainant:-\n----------------------\n\n Indira Gandhi Memorial General Marketing Society Ltd,\n (K-900), Meenadom P.O\n Kottayam Represented Byt Its Secretary Shiny Philip\n Veliyapunchal House, Meenadom P.O, Kottayam\n\n By Adv. Sri.M.J.Thomas\n\nRespondents/Accused And State:-\n-----------------------------\n\n 1. M/S. Abraham Varghese And Company,\n Meenadom, Represented By Its Managing Partner 686616\n\n 2. Roys Abraham,\n Maliekkal House, Managing Partner\n M/S Abraham Varghese And Company, M Meenadom\n Maliekkal House, Meenadom P.O, Kottayam 686510\n\n 3. The State Of Kerala,\n Represented By The Public Prosecutro\n High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n R2 By Adv. Sri.Nirmal V Nair\n R2 By Adv. Sri.Manu Tom Thomas\n R3 By Public Prosecutor Sri.Reji Joseph.\n\n This Criminal Misc. Case Having Been Finally Heard On\n 19-03-2014, The Court On The Same Day Passed The Following:\n\nKvs/-\n\f\n\n\n \"Cr\"\n P.D.Rajan, J.\n\n = = = = = = = = = = = =\n Crl.M.C.No.3846 of 2012.\n = = = = = = = = = = = =\n\n Dated this the 19th March, 2014.\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 134,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 582,
"end": 774,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 795,
"end": 805,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 888,
"end": 916,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 992,
"end": 1004,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1171,
"end": 1186,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1297,
"end": 1310,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1334,
"end": 1349,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1386,
"end": 1397,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1619,
"end": 1628,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nKishun Singh And Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Bihar\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n Dated : 26.08.2014\nCoram :\nThe Honourable Ms.Justice R.Mala\nC.R.P(PD).No.3015 of 2011\nand M.P.No.1 of 2011\n\nE.K.Palanisamy\t .. Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.Manonmani\n2.Paneer Selvi\n3.Kamalavalli\t \t \t\t\t .. Respondents\n\n\nPrayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and decreetal order dated 17.06.2011 made in I.A.No.51 of 2011 in O.S.No.208 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam. \n\n \t\tFor Petitioner : Mr.N.S.Sivakumar\n\n\t\tFor Respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran\n\t\t\t\t\t \nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 102,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 165,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 242,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 257,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 271,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 581,
"end": 594,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 621,
"end": 632,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 1176 of 2009()\n\n\n\n1. Babu.P.Benedict\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n1. Principal Motor Accidents Claims\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.K.Ramakumar (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Ramkumar\n\n Dated :21/12/2009\n\n O R D E R\n \"Cr\"\n V. Ramkumar, J.\n = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n Crl.Appeal.Nos.1176 & 1177 of 2009\n = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 88,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 191,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 285,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 379,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 499,
"end": 510,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Punjab (Now Haryana) And, Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nAmar Singh And Another\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nLila Dhar\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Rajasthan & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 59,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMaharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. Bombay\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 45,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 101,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMadhusudan Das\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSmt. Narayani Bai And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 63,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated :- 05.08.2008\n\nCoram :\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.Raviraja Pandian\nand\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.P.S.Janarthana Raja\n\nW.P.Nos.4387 of 2003, 6229, 7040, 7041, 15662, 35903 and 35699 of 2005,\n 6229, 15662, 24755, 24756, 25873, 31875, 37861 and 37862 of 2007, \n1719, 1720, 1800, 1801, 2338, 2339, 3880 and 3937 of 2008, and M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.1801 of 2008, W.P.M.P.Nos.5513 and 5514 of 2003 and connected M.P.Nos.1 of 2007 and 1 of 2008\n\nW.P.No.4387 of 2003:\n\nK.R.Palanisamy\t\t\t\t\t...\tPetitioner\nVersus\n\n1.The Union of India, rep.by the Secretary,\nFinance Department, North Block, Middle\nNew Delhi\n\n2.The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax\n Income Tax Building, Nungambakkam \n High Road, Chennai \u0016 600 034. \n\n3.The Income Tax Officer\n Tirupur. \t\t\t\t\t\t..\tRespondents For Petitioner in W.P.No.4387 of 2003: Mr.Chandran Karuppiah For Petitioner in W.P.Nos.25873 and : Mr.N.Devanathan 15662 of 2007 For Petitioner in W.P.Nos.1719, 1720, 1800 and 1801 of 2008 : Mr.V.Ramachandran,Sr. \n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Counsel for M/s.Dr.Anita \t\t\t\t\t\t\t Sumanth\n\n\n\tFor Petitioner in W.P.No.3880 of 2008: Mr.K.J.Chandran\n\n\tFor Petitioner in W.P.Nos.24755 of : Mr.Venkatanarayanan\n\t2007 and 3937 of 2008\t\t\t for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar\n\n\tFor Petitioner in W.P.No.2339 of 2008: Mr.Arvind P.Datar\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t Sr.Counsel for \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t M/s.V.S.Jayakumar\t \n\n\tFor Petitioner in W.P.No.2338 of 2008: Mr.V.S.Jayakumar\n\n\tFor Petitioner in W.P.Nos.7040, 7041 : Mr.K.Vaitheeswaran\n\tand 35903 of 2005\n\n\tFor Petitioner inW.P.No.39699 of 2005: Mr.N.L.Rajah\n\n\tFor Petitioner in W.P.Nos.37861,\t : Mr.J.Balachandar\n\t37862 and 31875 of 2007\n\n\tFor Petitioner in W.P.No.6229 of 2007: Mr.S.Raveendran\n\n\tFor Respondent \u0016 Income-tax Dept. : Mr.N.Muralikumaran,\n\tin all W.Ps\t\t\t\t\tSr.Standing Counsel and \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tMrs.Pushya Sitaraman\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSr.Standing Counsel\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\ton behalf of Income-tax Dept.\n\nCommon Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 121,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 173,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 523,
"end": 537,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 571,
"end": 585,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 666,
"end": 768,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 778,
"end": 807,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 873,
"end": 891,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 933,
"end": 945,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1025,
"end": 1039,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1154,
"end": 1166,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1216,
"end": 1232,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1267,
"end": 1282,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1330,
"end": 1344,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1391,
"end": 1404,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1453,
"end": 1466,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1513,
"end": 1528,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1593,
"end": 1602,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1653,
"end": 1666,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1738,
"end": 1750,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1797,
"end": 1812,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1867,
"end": 1883,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan And The Honblr Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy \n\nWrit Petition No.8665 of 2014 \n\n09-09-2014 \n\nM/s. Mark Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd..Petitioner \n\nThe Commercial Tax Officer, Vengalrao Nagar Circle, Abids, Hyderabad and four\nothers.. Respondents \n\nCounsel for the petitioner: Sri M.V.J.K. Kumar\n\nCounsel for respondents: Sri M. Govind Reddy, Learned Special\n Standing Counsel for the Commercial Taxes\n\nHead Note: \n\n?Citations:\n\n1) (1975) 3 Scc 31 \n2) (1996) 7 Scc 397 = 1996 (1) Ald (Crl.) 183 (Sc)\n3) 2007 (6) Alt 294 \n4) (2003) 7 Scc 175 = 2003 (2) Ald (Crl.) 780 (Sc)\n5) (2003) 9 Scc 401 \n6) (2010) 11 Scc 557 \n7) (1969) 1 Scc 110 \n8) (1977) 2 Scc 431 \n9) (1999) 1 Scc 271 \n10) (2003) 1 Scc 488 \n11) (2004) 7 Scc 166 \n12) (2010) 4 Scc 728 \n13) (1993) 4 Scc 317 \n14) 1993 Supp (2) Scc 20 \n15) (1994) 6 Scc 620 \n16) (1995) 1 Scc 242 \n17) (1997) 1 Scc 134 \n18) Air 1980 Sc 946 \n\n\n\nThe Honble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan \nAnd \nThe Honble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy \n\nWrit Petition No.8665 of 2014 \n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 92,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 192,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 276,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 357,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 404,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1092,
"end": 1110,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1153,
"end": 1176,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 3527 Of 2009\n (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 15927 of 2007)\n\nUnion of India ..Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nM/s Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills ..Respondent\n\n And\n\n Civil Appeal No. 3525 Of 2009\n (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 4078 of 2008)\n\nCommissioner of Customs and Central Excise ... Appellant\n\n\n Versus\n\nM/s. Lanco Industries Ltd. ...Respondent\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 55,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 233,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 374,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 570,
"end": 612,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 695,
"end": 716,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Tamil Nadu Through Superintendent Of Police,Cbi/Sit\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nNalini And 25 Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 98,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction \n\n Second Appeal No. 411 Of 1990\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. The State of Maharashtra, ) Appellant \n\n\n\n\n \n Orig.Defendant\n 2. Chairman, Surplus Lands )\n Determination Tribunal, )\n Ajara, District - Kolhapur. )\n\n\n\n\n \n 3. The Chairman, Lands Distribution\n ig )\n Tribunal, Ajara, Dist. - Kolhapur. )\n \n Versus\n\n\n 1. Shri Murarao Malojirao Ghorpade, )\n \n\n Age 56 years, Occu: Agri.& Service, )\n Gajendragad at Present Nipani, )\n \n\n\n\n District - Belagaum. )\n\n 2. Smt. Ashwanidevi W/o. Shanbhusing )\n Ghorpade, age 34, r/o - do- )\n\n\n\n\n\n 3. Shri Daulatrao Shambhusing Ghorpade,)\n Age 14, Minor, through G.A. L. )\n Plaintiff No.2. ).... Respondents\n (Org.Plaintiffs )\n\n\n\n\n\n --\n Along With Civil Application No. 2431 Of 1993 In Second Appeal No. 411 Of 1990\n\n \n 1. The State of Maharashtra, )\n\n \n 2. Chairman, Surplus Lands ) Determination Tribunal, ) Ajara, District - Kolhapur. )\n\n \n 3. The Chairman, Lands Distribution ig ) Tribunal, Ajara, Dist. - Kolhapur. ).. Petitioners Versus\n \n 1. Shri Murarao Malojirao Ghorpade, ) Age 56 years, Occu: Agri.& Service, ) Gajendragad at Present Nipani, ) District - Belagaum. )\n \n\n 2. Smt. Ashwanidevi W/o. Shanbhusing ) Ghorpade, age 34, r/o - do- )\n\n 3. Shri Daulatrao Shambhusing Ghorpade,) Age 14, Minor, through G.A. L./ ) Respondent/Plaintiff No.2. ).. Respondents (Org.Plaintiffs )\n --\n S/Shri R.M. Kadam, Advocate General, with A.A. Kumbhakoni, N.P. Deshpande, Agp and Ms G.P. Mulekar, Agp for the Appellants. \n\n S/Shri D.J. Khambatta, Additional Solicitor General, Amicus Curaie. \n\n Shri Shekhar Jagtap with Mrs. Manisha S. Jagtap and Shailesh Chavan i/by M/s. J. Shekhar & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. \n\n Shri S.P. Thorat for Respondent No.3. \n\n --\n Coram : Swatanter Kumar, C.J.,\n S.B. Mhase, A.M. Khanwilkar, \n\n\n\n\n \n A.S. Oka & R.M. Savant, Jj \n\n\n\n\n \n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 55,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 310,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 473,
"end": 601,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 663,
"end": 790,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 863,
"end": 889,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1075,
"end": 1086,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1172,
"end": 1202,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1542,
"end": 1562,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1619,
"end": 1697,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1746,
"end": 1813,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1867,
"end": 1893,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2005,
"end": 2016,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2076,
"end": 2085,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2216,
"end": 2226,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2251,
"end": 2266,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2268,
"end": 2282,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2295,
"end": 2307,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2343,
"end": 2357,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2412,
"end": 2426,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2437,
"end": 2454,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2459,
"end": 2474,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2538,
"end": 2549,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2611,
"end": 2626,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2668,
"end": 2678,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2680,
"end": 2695,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2787,
"end": 2795,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2798,
"end": 2809,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "KPPNair 1 Petition No. 885 of 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction \n\n Petition No. 885 Of 2011\n In\n Suit No. 2846 Of 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n SABMiller India Ltd. ...Petitioner\n (Orig. Plaintiff)\n\n\n\n\n \n Vs. \n M.P. Beer Products Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent\n (Orig. Defendant)\n \n Mr. H.W. Kane along with Mr. Hiren Kamod, instructed by W.S. Kane & Co., for \n the Petitioner. \n Mr. Rohit Kapadia, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. S.J. Khera for the Defendant.\n \n \n\n\n Coram: S.J. Kathawalla, J.\n Order reserved on: 13 December, 2013\n th\n \n \n\n\n\n Order pronounced on: 13 February, 2014\n th\n \n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 241,
"end": 275,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 671,
"end": 691,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 981,
"end": 1009,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1327,
"end": 1340,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1377,
"end": 1387,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1496,
"end": 1511,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nJodha Mal Kuthiala\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, Punjab, Jammu &Kashmir, Himachal\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 110,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Ravinder Singh Ii,Metropolitan\n Magistrate (Ni) Act - 11\n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.\n\n\n Case No. : 1331/12\n Unique Case Id No: Sr0978182008\n\n\n M/s Navitas Textiles International Ltd.\n Having registered office at\n Ashoka Complex 6/1/6241\n Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh\n New Delhi. .............Complainant\n\n Vs.\n\n M/s Yogesh Clothes Merchant\n Through its Proprietor\n Yogesh Gabha\n R/o 9/7136, Second Floor\n Singhal Market, Durga Gali,\n Gandhi Nagar,\n Delhi 110031. .....................Accused\n\n\n Date of Institution: 06.09.2008\n Plea of the accused: Pleaded Not Guilty\n Date of Reserving Judgment: 27/08/2013\n Date of Judgment: 16/12/2013\n Sentence/final Order: Convicted\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 38,
"end": 142,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 259,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 503,
"end": 526,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSukhdev Singh & Ors\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nBagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi And Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 84,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nPunjab National Bank And Ors.The Chief Personnel (Disciplina\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSh. Kunj Behari Misra, Sh. Shanti Prasad Goel\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 113,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Keralaat Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon\n &\n The Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran\n\n Wednesday, The 19Th Dayof October 2016/27Th Aswina, 1938\n\n RP.No. 614 of 2016 () In Maca.850/2016\n ----------------------------------------\n\n Against The Judgment In Maca 850/2016 of High Court Of Kerala\n Dated 31.3.2016\n\nReview Petitioners/Respondents 1 To 4:\n-----------------------------------------------------------------\n\n 1. Sheela O.K,\n W/O Late Ashokan, Karilpadickal House, Mannoor,\n Irupuram Village.\n\n 2. Ayana,\n D/O Lateashokan, Karilpadickal House,\n Mannoor, Irupuram Village.\n\n 3. Aswin,\n S/O Lateashokan, Karilpadickal House,\n Mannoor, Irupuram Village.\n\n 4. Narayani,\n W/O Late Kochikkoran, Ashokan,\n Karilpadickal House, Mannoor,\n Irupuram Village.\n\n By Adv. Sri.T.K.Koshy\n\nRespondent/Appellant.:\n---------------------------------------\n\n The New India Insurance Company Limited.\n Divisional Office, Aluva,\n Represented By The Administrative Officer,\n Regional Office, Kochi 683 101.\n\n By Sri.Rajan P.Kalliyath\n\n This Review Petition Having Been Finally Heard On 29.7.2016, The\nCourt On 19.10.2016 Passed The Following:\n\f\n\n\n \"Cr\"\n\n P.R. Ramachandra Menon & Anil K. Narendran, Jj.\n --------------------------------------------------\n R.P.No.614 of 2016\n in\n M.A.C.A.No.850 of 2016\n --------------------------------------------------\n Dated This The 19th Day Of October, 2016\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 169,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 282,
"end": 298,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 792,
"end": 802,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 934,
"end": 939,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1070,
"end": 1075,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1206,
"end": 1214,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1393,
"end": 1402,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1493,
"end": 1528,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1727,
"end": 1744,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1948,
"end": 1970,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1973,
"end": 1990,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMahalaxmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 45,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 65,
"end": 95,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated:20.12.2006\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice A. Kulasekaran\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice S. Tamilvanan\n\nW.P. No.39536 of 2005\nand\nW.P.M.P. No.42376 of 2005 & W.V.M.P. No.1536 of 2006\n\n\n\nUti Bank Ltd.,\n82 Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,\nChennai 600 004.\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\n\t\n\tvs.\n\n\n1. The Dy. Commissioner of Central Excise\n Chennai Ii Division\n R.40 Tnhb Complex\n Mogappair\n Chennai 600 037.\n\n2. The Secretary\n Ministry of Finance\n Government of India, \n South Block\n New Delhi.\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\n\n\n\tPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus as stated therein.\n\n\n\tFor petitioner : Mr. V.V. Sivakumar\n\n\tFor respondents : Mr. V.T. Gopalan, Addl. Solicitor General\n\t\t\t assisted by Mr. P.Wilson, Asst. Solicitor General\n\n\n\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 109,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 151,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 196,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 293,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 484,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 494,
"end": 579,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 754,
"end": 768,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 793,
"end": 805,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 852,
"end": 860,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honourable Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao \n\nC.C.C.A.No. 111 of 2009 And Batch \n\n22-04-2016 \n\nT.Pattabhi Rama Rao,...Appellant/Plaintiff\n\nY.Yadava Rao and others.Respondents/defendants \n\n!Counsel for the Appellant in both\n the appeals: Sri S.Agastya Sharma,\n\n^Counsel for respondents in both\n the appeals:Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy,\n Sri C.V.Bhasker Reddy,\n Sri C.V.Mahesh Raje\n\nHead Note : --- \n\n? Cases referred: :\n 2008(5) Ald 200\n2 Air 1989 Sc 193 \n3 Air 1987 Sc 1242 \n4 Air 1966 Sc 735, \n5 Air 1954 Sc 458 \n6 Air 1953 Sc 235 \n7 (2008)17 Scc 491 \n8 Air 1995 Sc 167 \n9 Air 1988 Sc 719(B)\n10 1991 (3) Scc 331 \n11 Air 1999 Sc 1441 \n12 Air 2005 Sc 439 = (2005)2 Scc 217 \n13 Air 2009 Sc 422 \n14 (2010)10 Scc 512 \n15 Air 1995 Sc 945 \n16 2006(7) Supreme 388 \n17 (1996)4 Scc 593 \n18 Air 2005 Sc 5303 \n19 2005(2) Ald 631 \n20 (2000)6 Scc 420 \n21 Air 1971 Sc 1238 \n22 (1999)6 Scc 337 \n23 (2008)5 Scc 676 \n24 Civil Appeal No.4841 of 2012, dt.03.07.2012\n25 (2012)1 Scc 656 \n26 (2008)7 Scc 310 \n27 (2008)1 Scc 45 \n28 (1996)5 Scc 589 \n29 2015 Law Suit (Sc) 636 \n30 (2005)7 Scc 534 \n31 Air 2008 Sc 1786 \n32 (2005)6 Scc 243 \n33 Air 2009 Sc 2157 \n34 (2011)1 Scc 429 \n35 (2004)6 Scc 649 \n36 (2002)5 Scc 481 \n37 (1995)5 Scc 115 \n38 Air 1997 Sc 1751 \n39 (1993)1 Scc 519 \n40 Air 1968 Sc 1413 \n41 Laws (Aph)-1970-3-33 \n42 (2010) 11 Scc 441 \n43 (2016) 2 Scc 569 \n44 (2012) 1 Scc 656. \n45 (2004)2 Scc-297 \n46 2008(1)Alt 10(Sc) \n47 Air 2000 Sc 573(1) \n48 2010(1) Ald 470 \n49 (1864) 10 Hic 672\n50 (1812) 3 Camp. 258 \n51 Air 1941 Lah.407(FB) \n52 Air 1937 Madras 714 \n53 Air 1917 Madras 880 \n\n\nHonourable Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao \n\nCccamp No.643 and 644 of 2015 in C.C.C.A.No. 112 of 2009 \nand \nC.C.C.A.Nos. 111 And 112 of 2009 \n\nCommon Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 126,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 162,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 296,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 376,
"end": 395,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 439,
"end": 456,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 500,
"end": 515,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1851,
"end": 1869,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nM. R. Balaji And Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Mysore\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 70,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nM. L. Sethi\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nR. P. Kapur & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 23,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 43,
"end": 54,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nA.L.Kalara\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Project & Equipment Corporation Of India Limited.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 22,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 94,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 19.03.2014\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.Manikumar\n\nC.M.A.No.763 of 2014\nM.P.No.1 of 2014\n\nM/s.Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nKscmf Building,\n3rd Floor, 3rd Block,\nNo.8, Cunningham Road,\nBangalore.\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\nvs.\n\n1.S.Kannadasan\n2.A.Mallayara\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents \n\t\t\t\t\t\n\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree, dated 12.09.2013, made in M.C.O.P.No.3984 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Third Court of Small Causes), Chennai.\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\tFor Appellant \t\t:\tMr.Kabir Das,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfor Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 262,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 303,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 317,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 522,
"end": 592,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 627,
"end": 636,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 652,
"end": 668,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Reetesh Singh,\n Additional District Judge-01 (North-East),\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.\n\n\n Rca No. 37/2011\n\nDate of institution of the case : 07.04.2011\nDate on which Judgment was reserved : 23.04.2014\nDate on which Judgment was pronounced : 01.05.2014\nUnique Id No. : 02402C0109382011\n\nIn The Matter Of :-\n\n\n Sh. Yogesh\n S/O Sh. Sannu Ram\n R/O 251, Main Road,\n Ganga Sahai Colony,\n Shahdara, Delhi-110095.\n .............Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n\n1. Sh. Shiv Kumar\n S/O Sh. Harshan Dass\n R/O Vill. & P.O. Karaura,\n Distt. Bulandshar, U.P.\n\n Second Address: H. No. 1053,\n Gali No. 10, Block-D,\n Ashok Nagar, Delhi-110094.\n\n2. The S.H.O.\n P.S. Nand Nagari,\n Delhi-110093.\n ...............Respondents\n\n\n\n\nRegular Civil Appeals No. 37/2011 & 132/2011 Page No. 1/14\n And\n\n Rca No.-132/2011\n\nDate of institution of the case : 13.04.2011\nDate on which Judgment was reserved : 23.04.2014\nDate on which Judgment was pronounced : 01.05.2014\nUnique Id No. : 02402C0113732011\n\nIn The Matter Of :-\n\n Sh. Shiv Kumar\n S/O Sh. Harsaran Dass\n R/O Village Karora,\n Distt. Bulandshehr, U.P.\n .............Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n\n1. Sh. Yogesh\n S/O Sh. Sannu Ram\n R/O Village-Mandoli,\n Near Ravidas Mandir,\n Shahdara, Delhi-110095.\n\n2. Sh. Ashok Kumar\n S/O Sh. Tejpal\n R/O H. No. 1075, Gali No. 6,\n Village-Arthala, Ghaziabad,\n U.P.\n ...............Respondents\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 136,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 543,
"end": 549,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 811,
"end": 821,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1026,
"end": 1077,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1748,
"end": 1758,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2007,
"end": 2013,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2138,
"end": 2149,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated:18.12.2008\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.Venugopal\n\nC.R.P.(PD).No.3868 of 2008\nand\nM.P.No.1 of 2008\n\nMrs.Saradammal @ Saradambal\t\t... Petitioner\nVs.\n\nG.S.Srinath\t\t\t... Respondent\n\nPrayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 23.4.2008 passed in I.A.No.1110 of 2007 in O.S.No.77 of 2007 on the file of Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur.\n\n\t\tFor Petitioner\t\t: Mr.Ravikumar Paul\n\t\t\n\t\tFor Respondent\t\t: Mr.V.Thirupathikumar\n\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 184,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 217,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 468,
"end": 482,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 526,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 2674 of 2007\n\nPetitioner:\nSmt. Yallwwa & Ors\n\nRespondent:\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 64,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 111,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Metropolitan Magistrate- 05,\n South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi\n Presided by: Ms. Manika\n\nState v. Sita Devi\n\nFir No. 263/12\nPolice Station : Dwarka North\nUnder Section: 33 Delhi Excise Act\n\nUnique Case Id Number: 02405R0093172013\n\nDate of institution : 20.03.2013\nDate of reserving : 20.05.2014\nDate of pronouncement: 21.05.2014\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 95,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 146,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 153,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 166,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBirad Mal Singhvi\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nAnand Purohit\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 62,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "W.P. No.3346/2015\n 1\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n\n Writ Petition No. 3346/2015\n\nShri Ram Naresh Yadav .....Petitioner\n Versus\nState of M.P. and others ....Respondents\n=============================================\nCoram:\n\nHon'ble Shri Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice\nHon'ble Shri Justice Rohit Arya, J.\n\n\nWhether approved for reporting? - Yes.\n================================================\n Shri Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate with Shri\nAdarsh Muni Trivedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ashok\nKumar Singh, Shri Surinder Datt Sharma and Shri Mahendra\nPateriya Advocates for the petitioner.\n\n Shri Ravish Chandra Agrawal, learned Advocate General\nwith Shri P.K.Kaurav, Additional Advocate General and Shri\nPrakash Gupta, Panel lawyer for the respondent/State.\n\n Shri Vikram Singh, Advocate for the Union of India.\n\n=============================================\n\nReserved on : 17.04.2015\nDate of Decision : 05.05.2015\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 94,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 163,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 254,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 393,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 430,
"end": 440,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 546,
"end": 560,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 596,
"end": 615,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 650,
"end": 667,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 674,
"end": 694,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 704,
"end": 721,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 763,
"end": 785,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 822,
"end": 832,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 871,
"end": 884,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 936,
"end": 948,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 M.A.No. 785/2014\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Bench At Gwalior\n\n\n Single Bench:\n Hon. Shri Justice Anand Pathak\n\n\n Miscellaneous Appeal No. 785 Of 2014\n National Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Versus\n Dhaniram Prajapati & Anr.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri S.Gajendragadkar, learned counsel for the\nappellant/Insurance Company.\nShri Chetan Kanoongo, learned counsel for respondent No.\n1/claimant.\nNone for respondent No. 2/owner though served and\nVakalatnama has been filed on his behalf by Shri V.K.Sharma,\nAdvocate.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 149,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 242,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 342,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 412,
"end": 430,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 534,
"end": 550,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 647,
"end": 662,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 810,
"end": 820,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 01/02/2006\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran\nAnd\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice P.P.S.Janarthana Raja\n\nT.C.No.112 of 2000\nand T.C.Nos., 174, 175, 194, 201 to 204 of 2000\n\n\nT.C.No.112 of 2000\n\nM.Sajjanraj Nahar .. Applicant\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax\nCoimbatore. .. Respondent\n and batch cases.\n\n Prayer: Tax case references against the order of the Income Tax\nAppellate Tribunal, Madras Bench 'B', Chennai dated 25.9.1997 in I.T.A.No.878,\n879, 880 and 909 to 913/Mds/1991 for the assessment years 1982-83, 1985-86,\n1986-87 and 1987-88.\n\n!For Applicants : Mr.J.Balachander\n\n^For Respondent : Mr.N.Muralikumaran\n Senior Standing Counsel\n for Income Tax\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 154,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 262,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 345,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 733,
"end": 746,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 775,
"end": 790,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 821 of 2001\n\nPetitioner:\nUnion Of India And Ors.\n\nRespondent:\nShivendra Bikaram Singh\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 64,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 110,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 35572 of 2007(I)\n\n\n1. P.K. Abdul Latheef,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Special Tahsildar (La), Kozhikode.\n\n3. The Chief Engineer (Roads And Bridges),\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.B.Renjith Marar\n\n For Respondent :Government Pleader\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pius C.Kuriakose\n\n Dated :04/08/2008\n\n O R D E R\n Pius C. Kuriakose, J.\n -----------------------------------------------\n W.P.(C)Nos. 35572 of 2007 & 7018 of 2008\n -----------------------------------------------\n Dated this the day of August, 2008\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 92,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 181,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 268,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 312,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 367,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 446,
"end": 462,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 519,
"end": 536,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "{1}\n fa205710.odt\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature Of Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Bench At Aurangabad\n First Appeal No.2057 Of 2010 \n\n\n\n\n \n Popat Kacharu Kedar,\n age: 40 years, Occ: Jeep Driver,\n R/o Mangrul, Tal.Shevgaon,\n District Ahmednagar. Appellant\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n\n 1 Smt.Jyoti w/o Santosh Kedar\n\n\n\n\n \n @ Jyoti w/o Annasaheb Garje,\n age: 20 years, Occ: Household work,\n \n R/o C/o Annasaheb Tabaji Garje,\n at Padali, Tal. Pathardi,\n District Ahmednagar;\n R/o Mangrul, at present Wadgaon,\n \n Tal.Shevgaon, Dist.Ahmednagar.\n\n 2 Bappasaheb alias Bandu Trimbak,\n age: major, Occ: Driver,\n \n\n\n R/o Mangrul, Tal. Shevgaon,\n District Ahmednagar.\n \n\n\n\n 3 National Insurance Co.Ltd.\n Cover Note No.785790 dt.10.3.03,\n Divisional Office, 101, Raj Chambers,\n\n\n\n\n\n Kotla, Ahmednagar.\n\n 4 Sukhadeo Namdeo Kedar,\n age: 52, Occ: Agril.,\n R/o Mangrul, Tal.Shevgaon,\n\n\n\n\n\n District Ahmednagar.\n\n 5 Sou.Kaushalayabai Sukhadeo Kedar,\n age: 47 years, Occ: Household work\n & Agri., R/o Mangrul,\n Tal.Shevgaon, Dist.Ahmednagar. Respondents\n\n\n\n\n \n {2}\n fa205710.odt\n\n Mr.B.N.Palve, advocate for the appellant.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.M.R.Sonwane, advocate for Respondent No.1.\n Mr.S.R.Bagal, advocate holding for Mr.H.D.Patil, advocate for Respondent \n No.2.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.S.V.Kulkarni, advocate for Respondent No.3.\n Mr.R.B.Dhakane, advocate for Respondents No.4 & 5.\n \n \n\n\n\n\n \n Coram : R.M.Borde, J.\n Date : 11th August, 2011\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 143,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 400,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 621,
"end": 626,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1008,
"end": 1038,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1161,
"end": 1187,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1315,
"end": 1336,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1449,
"end": 1477,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1835,
"end": 1844,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1975,
"end": 1986,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2027,
"end": 2036,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2062,
"end": 2071,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2185,
"end": 2197,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2237,
"end": 2248,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2413,
"end": 2422,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'Ble Sri Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao \n\nM.A.C.M.A.No.1548 of 2007 And Batch \n\n06-11-2014 \n\nThe New India Assurance Company Limited. Appellant \n\nVuyyuru Veera Venkateswaramma and two others. Respondents Counsel for Petitioner: Sri Naresh Byrapaneni Counsel for Respondents: Sri K.S.R. Hemanth Kumar Head Note: \n? Citations: \n1. 2005 (6) Scc 172 = 2005 Acj 1323 \n2. 2013 Acj -1 \n3. 2006 (2) Scc 641 \n4. See Apmv Rules \n5. 2001 (5) Scc 175 = 2001 Acj 827 (Sc) \n6. (2004) 5 Scc 385 : Air 2004 Sc 2107 \n7. 2010 (4) Ald 531 (Db) \n8. 2011 (8) Scale-240\n9. (2012) 2 Scc 356 \n10. 1977 Acj 118 (Sc) \n11. 1987 Acj 561 (Sc) \n12. 1996 Acj 555 (Sc) \n13. 2014 (1) Scc 680 \n14. 2014 (1) Scc 680 \n15. 2011 (10) Scc 509 \n16. 2002 (7) Scc 456. \n17. 2001 (2) Scc 9 = Air 2001 Sc 485 \n18. 2007 Acj 821 \n19. 2007 Acj 818 \n20. 2005 Acj 1 \n21. 2007 Acj 1284 \n22. 2006 Acj 1441 \n23. 2008 Acj 1441 \n24. 2009 Acj 998 \n25. 2007 Acj 721 \n26. 2008 Acj 733 \n27. 2008 Acj 776. \n28. 2009 Acj 2020 \n29. 2009 Acj 2003 \n30. 2013 Acj 199 \n31. 2007 (6) Scc 657. \nHonble Dr. Justice B. Siva Sankara Rao M.A.C.M.A.No.1548 of 2007 And Cross Objections (SR).No. 50000 of 2007 Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 114,
"end": 149,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 195,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 275,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 325,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1106,
"end": 1125,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nS.S. Rathore\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Madhya Pradesh\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 3056 of 1991\n\nPetitioner:\nManaging Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. Etc.\n\nRespondent:\nB. Karunakar Etc. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 120,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 01-04-2011\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian\n\nO.A.No.1201 of 2009 in C.S.No.1036 of 2009\nAnd\nO.A.No.1202 of 2009 in C.S.No.1037 of 2009\nAnd\nO.A.No.421 of 2009 and A.Nos.1930 and 1931 of 2009 in C.S.No.98 of 1957\n\n\nO.A.No.1201 of 2009\n-------------------\n1.Sanjay Gupta\n\n2.M/s.Picnic Park Hotels Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director, Sanjay Gupta 1132/2, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai-600 003. .. Applicants/Plaintiffs vs. \n\n1.The Corporation of Chennai, Represented by its Commissioner, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-600 003. \n\n2.M/s.Victoria Public Hall Trust, 1133, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai-600 003. .. Respondents/Defendants O.A.No.1202 of 2009\n\n1.Rajendra Gupta\n2.Ashoka Gupta\t\n3.M/s.Picnic Park Hotels Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director, Rajendra Gupta, No.1132/2, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai-600 003. .. Applicants/Plaintiffs vs. \n\n1.The Corporation of Chennai, Represented by its Commissioner, Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003. \n\n2.M/s.The Victoria Public Hall Trust, Represented by its Chairman, 1133, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai-600 003. .. Respondents/Defendants O.A.No.421 of 2009, A.Nos.1930 and 1931 of 2009\n\n1.Rajendra Gupta\n2.Ashoka Gupta .. Applicants/Plaintiffs vs. \n\n1.Victoria Public Hall Trust, Represented by its Trustees, Having its Registered Office at 1133, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai-600 003. \n\n2.The Sheriff of Chennai and Chairman, Victoria Public Hall Trust. \n\n3.The Mayor of Chennai, Trustee, Victoria Public Hall Trust. \n\n4.Southern India Chamber of Commerce, Trustee, Victoria Public Hall Trust. \n\n5.Andhra Chamber of Commerce, Trustee, Victoria Public Hall Trust. \n\n6.Rajah of Vizianagaram, Trustee, Victoria Public Hall Trust. \n\n7.The President, The Madras Advocates Association , Trustee, Victoria Public Hall Trust.\n8.The Corporation of Chennai,\n Represented by its Commissioner,\n Ripon Buildings, Madras.\t\t\t.. Respondents/Defendants\n\n\tFor plaintiffs in C.S.Nos.1036 \n\tand 1037 of 2009 \t\t : Mr. T.R.Rajagopalan, \n\t\t\t\t Senior Counsel \n\n\tFor the applicants in A.Nos.1930\n and 1931 of 2009 and\n\tO.A.No.421 of 2009\t : Mr.Satish Parasaran\n\n\tFor Corporation of Chennai : Mr.P.S.Raman, \n\t\t\t\t Advocate General\nC O M M O N O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 339,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 374,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 503,
"end": 525,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 602,
"end": 674,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 723,
"end": 739,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 740,
"end": 754,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 762,
"end": 789,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 924,
"end": 946,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1026,
"end": 1052,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1204,
"end": 1220,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1221,
"end": 1235,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1267,
"end": 1295,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1412,
"end": 1430,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1481,
"end": 1497,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1538,
"end": 1574,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1615,
"end": 1643,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1684,
"end": 1707,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1754,
"end": 1797,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1843,
"end": 1865,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2024,
"end": 2039,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2170,
"end": 2186,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2228,
"end": 2237,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Rajeev Bansal,\n Asj-03 (South District), Saket Courts,\n New Delhi.\n\n S.C. No. 45/10\n (Unique Id No. 02403R0968372008)\n\n Fir No.: 698/08\n Ps: Malviya Nagar\n Us: 328/379/411/34 Ipc\n\nEva Jennifer\nD/o Walter Antony\nR/o S-9, Gokul Apartments,\nMem Nagar, Ahmadabad, Gujarat.\n\n Versus\n\nState\n\nDate of Initial Institution :02.12.2008\nDate of Institution in this court :24.09.2010\nDate of Pronouncement Order :12.03.2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 468,
"end": 480,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 583,
"end": 588,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSharad Birdhi Chand Sarda\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Maharashtra\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 37,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Letters Patent Appeal No. 1861 of 2016\n Arising out of\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14165 of 2016\n===========================================================\nBaidyanath Singh, S/o- Late Gonour Singh, resident of Village- Gavsara, P.O.- Chadhua, P.S.- Kurhani, District- Muzaffarpur .... .... Appellant/s Versus\n1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n2. The Home Commissioner, Home (Jail) Department, Bihar, Patna. \n\n3. The Inspector General, Jail, Bihar, Patna. \n\n4. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Jail Purchase Committee, Muzaffarpur. \n\n5. The Jail Superintendent, Shahid Khudiram Bose Central Jail, Muzaffarpur. \n\n .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :\n For the Appellant : Mr. Rajendra Narayan Sinha, Sr. Advocate. \n\n Mr. Nityanand, Advocate. \n\n For the State : Mr. Dhurendra Kumar, A.C. to G.P.-5 =========================================================== Coram: Honourable The Acting Chief Justice and Honourable Mr. Justice Vikash Jain C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 290,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 434,
"end": 448,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 516,
"end": 571,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 582,
"end": 619,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 630,
"end": 709,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 720,
"end": 787,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 913,
"end": 935,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 958,
"end": 967,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1002,
"end": 1017,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1164,
"end": 1175,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad, Lucknow Bench\n \n \n\n \n \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t Reserved \n \nA.F.R.\n \nHigh Court of Judicature at Allahabad,\n \nLucknow Bench, Lucknow\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\n \n Writ Petition No.929 of 2008 (M/S)\n \n\n \n\n \nYogendra Nath Dubey, aged about 47 years, son of Jag Baran Dubey, resident of village Sajhiya, Post- Dahema, Police Station- Bheeti, District- Ambedkarnagar.\n \n\n \n \t\t\t\t ........................ Petitioner\n \n Vs.\n \n1. Additional District & Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. Ii, Sultanpur. \n \n2. Smt. Savitri Devi, daughter of Parmanand Pandey, resident of Village- Shri Rampur, Police Station- Motigarpur, Post Office-Lama, District- Sultanpur.\n \n\n \n ........................ /Opposite Parties\n \n \n \nPetitioner Counsel :-Sri S.P. Tiwari\n \nRespondent Counsel :- Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, \t\t\t\t\t\t Government Advocate.\n \n \n \nHon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta,J.\n \n \n \n\t\t\t\t\tJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 226,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 315,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 574,
"end": 632,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 645,
"end": 657,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 903,
"end": 914,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 943,
"end": 961,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1024,
"end": 1044,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 F.A.159/2013\n\n\n High Court Of Judicature At Jabalpur\n Bench Gwalior.\n (Db : Justice M.C. Garg &\n Justice Sheel Nagu,Jj.)\n\n Mamta Bhardwaj\n vs.\n Madhusudan Bhardwaj\nAppellant is present in person.\nShri Sarvesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 87,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 182,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 236,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 291,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 385,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 423,
"end": 437,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Judgment apeal275.00\n\n 1\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No. 275/2000.\n\n\n\n\n \n State of Maharashtra,\n through Police Station Officer,\n Police Station, Buldhana, \n District Buldhana. .... Appellant.\n \n Versus\n\n 1. Satish Purushottam Aushal, \n Aged about 34 years.\n \n\n\n 2. Vilas Purushottam Aushal,\n \n\n\n\n Aged about 37 years, \n\n 3. Sau. Sadhana Vilas Aushal, \n Aged about 32 years, \n\n\n\n\n\n All residents of Chaitanyawadi,\n Buldhana. .... Respondents . \n\n\n\n\n\n ----------------------------------- \n Mrs. K.S. Joshi, A.P.P. for appellant - State.\n Mr. S.I. Ali, Advocate h/f. Mr. R.J. Mirza, Advocate for Respondents. \n ------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n \n Judgment apeal275.00\n\n 2\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram : B. P. Dharmadhikari\n\n\n\n\n \n And C.V.Bhadang, Jj.\n Date of Reserving the Judgment : 13.08.2014.\n\n Date of Pronouncement : 24.09.2014.\n\n\n\n\n \n \n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 240,
"end": 274,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 554,
"end": 574,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 802,
"end": 827,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 881,
"end": 905,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 958,
"end": 983,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1231,
"end": 1241,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1284,
"end": 1292,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1313,
"end": 1323,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1769,
"end": 1788,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1916,
"end": 1927,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSupdt. & Remembrancer Of Legal Affairs West Bengal\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nAnil Kumar Bhunja & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 62,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 99,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6847 of 2007 dt.04-05-2012\n\n 1.\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Criminal Miscellaneous No.6847 of 2007\n\n\n 1.Rahul Wadhawan S/o Sh. D.D.Wadhawan C/o G.E.Capital Transportation\n\n Financial Services Ltd., Block-4A, Dlf Corporate Park Qutub Enclave,\n Phase-III, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon Police Station - Dlf,\n Gurgaon Haryana.\n\n 2.Satish Acharya, S/O Sh.Prakash Acharya, C/O G.E.Capital Transportation\n Financial Services Ltd., Block-4A, Dlf Corporate Park Qutub Enclave,\n Phase-III, Mehrauli Gurgaon Road, Gurgaon Police Station - Dlf,\n Gurgaon Haryana.\n\n 3.Umesh Arora, S/O Sh. R.L.Arora C/O Hdfc Bank Ltd. J-Block, Ansal\n Classic Towers, Rajouri Garden, Police Station-Rajouri Garden, New Delhi\n\n .... .... Petitioner/s\n Versus\n 1.Ramanuj Bharti S/O Bharat Bharti, R/O A.T.Gate Kaler, P.O.-Civil\n Aerodrome, P.S.-Magadh Medical College, District-Gaya\n\n 2.The State of Bihar\n .... .... Opposite Party/s\n\n\n ===========================================================\n Appearance :\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Navendu Kumar For the Opposite Party No.2 : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd.Sinha For the State : Mr. Matloob Rub, A.P.P. \n\n =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Ashwani Kumar Singh Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 130,
"end": 163,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 263,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 520,
"end": 536,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 796,
"end": 809,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1101,
"end": 1117,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1255,
"end": 1269,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1467,
"end": 1480,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1515,
"end": 1536,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1557,
"end": 1568,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1670,
"end": 1689,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRanjit Thakur\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 59,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice C.T.Ravikumar\n &\n The Honourable Mr. Justice K.P.Jyothindranath\n\n Wednesday, The 28Th Day Of September 2016/6Th Aswina, 1938\n\n MACA.No. 683 of 2016 ()\n ------------------------\n\nAgainst The Award In Opmv 2194/2013 of M.A.C.T.,Ernakulam Dated\n26-11-2015\n\nAppellant/3Rd Respondent:\n---------------------------\n United India Insurance Company Limited\n Ernakulam, Now Reprsented By Its Regional Manager,\n Regional Office, Sharanya, Hospital Road, Kochi-11.\n\n\n By Advs.Sri.Mathews Jacob (Sr.)\n Sri.P.Jacob Mathew\n\nRespondents/Petitioners:\n--------------------------\n\n 1. Beena Pathrose,\n W/O. Late Pathrose John, Punnackal House, Chellanam\n South P.O., Kochi - 682 008.\n\n 2. Binsha K.P\n D/O. Late Pathrose John, Punnackal House, Chellanam\n South P.O., Kochi - 682 008.\n\n 3. Mary Jasmine,\n D/O. Late Pathrose John, Punnackal House, Chellanam\n South P.O., Kochi - 682 008.\n\n 4. Edinsa K.P.\n S/O. Late Pathrose John, Punnackal House, Chellanam\n South P.O., Kochi - 682 008.\n\n\n R1-R4 By Adv. Sri.Rahul Sasi\n R1-R4 By Adv. Smt.Neethu Prem\n\n This Motor Accident Claims Appeal Having Come Up For\nAdmission On 28-09-2016 Along With Maca No.1722/2016, The Court\nOn The Same Day Delivered The Following:\n\f\n\n\n 'Cr'\n C.T.Ravikumar &\n K.P.Jyothindranath, Jj.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n M.A.C.A.Nos.683 & 1722 Of 2016\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 28th day of September, 2016\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 131,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 220,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 516,
"end": 576,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 706,
"end": 719,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 749,
"end": 763,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 831,
"end": 845,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 964,
"end": 974,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1092,
"end": 1104,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1223,
"end": 1234,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1369,
"end": 1379,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1409,
"end": 1420,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1695,
"end": 1708,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1731,
"end": 1749,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Scr.A/1925/2010\t 54/ 54\tJudgment \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIn\nThe High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSpecial\nCriminal Application No. 1925 of 2010\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCriminal\nMisc.Application No. 13714 of 2011\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nCriminal\nMisc.Application No. 16339 of 2011\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature: \n \nHonourable\nMr.Justice D.H.Waghela\n\t\t\tSd/-\n \n\n \nHonourable\nMr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya\n\t\tSd/- \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ? 1\n\t\t\t& 2: Yes; 3 to 5 No\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nBhikhalal\nKalyanji Jethava - Applicant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nState\nOf Gujarat & 5 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMr\nBb Naik Sr Advocate with Mr Aj Yagnik\n, Mr\nNayan D Parekh, Mr Parthiv A Bhatt for Applicant : 1, \nMr Prakash\nJani Public Prosecutor for Respondents : 1,3 - 6. \nDeleted for\nRespondent :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCoram\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHonourable\n\t\t\tMr.Justice D.H.Waghela\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHonourable\n\t\t\tMr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 25/09/2012 \n\n \n\nCav\nJudgment \n\n \n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 334,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 383,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1168,
"end": 1194,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1223,
"end": 1239,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1340,
"end": 1347,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1368,
"end": 1377,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1384,
"end": 1398,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1403,
"end": 1418,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1442,
"end": 1454,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1667,
"end": 1678,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1752,
"end": 1765,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Poonam Chaudhary, Adj\u00ad03, Saket Court \n Complex, New Delhi\n\n Civil Suit No. 308/12\n\n\n Unique I.D. No. 02406C0200462011\n \n\nIn The Matter Of : \u00ad\n\nShri Satnam Singh Chinna\nS/o Late Smt. Harbans Kaur and \nLate S. Tarlochan Singh, R/o B\u00ad8, 3rd Floor,\nDayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar\u00adIV,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110024\n\n\n ....Plaintiff. \n\n Versus\nShri Phool Chand Tanwar\nSon of shri V. K. Tanwar,\nB\u00ad6 (Ground Floor),\nDayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar\u00adIV,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110024\n\n .... Defendant.\n\nDate of Institution : 06.08.2011\nDate of Arguments : 15.01.2014\nDate of Judgment : 15.01.2014. \n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 42,
"end": 102,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 280,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 547,
"end": 565,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At \nJaipur Bench Jaipur\n\nD.B.Civil Writ (Parole) Petition No.12294/2011\nShambhu Dayal\tV/s\tThe State of Rajasthan & ors.\n\nDate when the order was reserved\t::-\t\t5.3.2012\n\nDate of pronouncement of order\t::-\t 22.3.2012\n \nPresent\nHon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Arun Mishra \nHon'ble Mr.Justice Narendra Kumar Jain-I\n\nMr.Amarjit Singh Narang for the petitioner.\n\nMr.Rajendra Yadav, Government Advocate \n& Mr.M.A.Khan for the respondents.\n\n\t\nOrder\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 69,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 132,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 159,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 315,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 336,
"end": 355,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 382,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 421,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 449,
"end": 457,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWp(C) No. 34540 of 2006(J)\n\n\n1. Sabu George, S/O.George, Aged 42 Years,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Home Secretary,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. P.K.Ravi, Puthenpurakkal House,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Sabu Thozhuppadan\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Boby John, Cgc\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\n\n Dated :14/02/2007\n\n O R D E R\n R. Basant, J.\n\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n W.P.C. No. 34540 of 2006,\n\n Crl.M.A.No. 8626 of 2006 in\n\n Crl.R.P.No. 7 of 2004 &\n\n Crl.M.C. No. 259 of 2007\n\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n\n Dated this the 14th day of February, 2007\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 85,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 190,
"end": 204,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 262,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 341,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 380,
"end": 389,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 428,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 505,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Manoj Jain: Asj/Special Judge (Pc Act) (Cbi)\n South District: Saket District Courts\n New Delhi\n\nCriminal Revision No. 12/2014\nUnique Id No. 02406R0056302014\n\nFir No. 936/2000\nPs Hauz Khas\n\nVinod Kumar Ahuja,\nSon of late Sh. T.R. Ahuja,\nResident of C-8/8206, Vasant Kunj,\nNew Delhi. ..........................Revisionist/Accused No. 1\n Versus\nState (Govt of Nct of Delhi) .............................................Respondent\n\n Date of institution of Revision : 04.03.2014\n Date on which case was received on\n Transfer by this Court : 29.04.2014\n Date of conclusion of arguments : 23.07.2014\n Date of Judgment : 06.08.2014\n\nMemo of Appearance\n\nSh. Riyaz Ahmad Bhat, learned counsel for revisionist.\nSh. Inder Kumar, learned Addl. P.P. for State/respondent.\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 26,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 149,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 261,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 479,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 988,
"end": 1004,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1043,
"end": 1054,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Harvinder Singh,\n Metropolitan Magistrate - 03 (West),\n Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi - 110 054.\n\n Fir No.476/2006\n Ps - Nangloi\n State Vs. Bhanu Partap & Ors.\nUnique Case Id No.02401R1275932006\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 146,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 391,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 396,
"end": 408,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Date of decision: 15th February, 2012\n\n+ Cm(M)48/2011\n\n% Santosh Vaid & Anr. ....Petitioners\n Through: Mr. Som Dutta Sharma, Adv.\n\n Versus\n\n Uttam Chand ..... Respondent\n Through: Mr. Himal Akhtar, Adv.\n\n And\n+ Rsa 116/2011\n\n% Amrit Lal Ghai ....Appellant\n Through: Mr. J.M. Bari, Ms. Shweta Bari,\n Advs. with Appellant.\n\n Versus\n\n Darshan Singh ..... Respondent\n Through: None.\nCoram :-\nHon'Ble The Acting Chief Justice\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 47,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 193,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 318,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 390,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 497,
"end": 509,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 611,
"end": 625,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 729,
"end": 738,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 744,
"end": 755,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 872,
"end": 885,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1019,
"end": 1037,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Naresh Kumar Laka\n Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Rent Controller,\n District Shahdara,\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\n Eviction Petition No. E-58/09\n Unique I.D. No. 02402C0056342009\n\nIn the matter of:\nMohd. Sayeed Khan\nS/o Late Sh. Mohd. Naseer Khan\nR/o 7/444, Anaj Mandi,\nBara Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi 32\n .......Petitioner\n\nVs.\nSh. Kamal Kumar\nS/o Late Sh. Kasturi Lal\nShop No. 445 & 440,\nAnaj Mandi, Bara Bazar,\nShahdara, Delhi\n ........Respondent\n\n\n Date of institution : 17.02.2009\n Date of final arguments : 05.05.2014\n Date of decision : 06.08.2014\n Final Order : Petition is allowed\n\n\n Application for eviction under Section 14(1) (e) of the\n Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958\n\n\n\n\nE. No. 58/09 Page No. 1 of 16\nMohd. Sayeed Khan Vs. Kamal Kumar\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 159,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 295,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 462,
"end": 473,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1030,
"end": 1047,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1052,
"end": 1063,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nKerala State Electricity Board, Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nS.N. Govinda Prabhu & Brothers And Others Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 42,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 98,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nNational Sewing Thread Co. Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nJames Chadwick & Bros.\tLtd.(J.& P. Coats Ltd., Assignee)REG\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 44,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 123,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 07 / 05 /2014\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice C.S.Karnan\n\nW.P.No.8708 of 2014\n\nRajammal\t\t\t\t \t\t \t...\tPetitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Government of Tamil Nadu,\n Rep. by its Secretary to Government,\n Housing and Urban Development Department,\n Fort St.George,\n Chennai - 9.\n\n2.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,\n Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director,\n Nandanam, Anna Salai,\n Chennai - 600 035.\n\n3.The Executive Engineer /\n Administrative Officer,\n Tnhb Unit, Coimbatore,\n Tatabad, Coimbatore District.\n\n4.The District Collector,\n Collectorate Complex,\n Coimbatore, \n Coimbatore District.\n\n5.The Special Tahsildar (L.A.),\n Housing Scheme Unit,\n Tatabad, Coimbatore - 12.\t\t\t\t... \t Respondents\t\nPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of declaration, to declare that the entire land acquisition proceedings initiated, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of the lands of an extent of 2.31 acres in S.F.No.507/1, an extent of 1.83 acres in S.F.No.512/2A and an extent of 0.20 acres in S.F.No.512/2B situated at Vellakinaru Village, Coimbatore, belonging to the petitioner, as lapsed in view of the \"Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013\"(Act 30 / 2013).\n\n\t\tFor Petitioner\t: Mr.R.Thyagarajan, Senior Counsel\n\t\t\t\t\t For M/s.R.N.Amarnath & C.Thirumaran\n\n\t\tFor Respondents\t: Mr.T.N.Rajagopalan\n\t\t\t\t\t Special Government Pleader for R1, R4, R5\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t Mr.R.V.Babu (Tnhb) for R2 and R3\n- - -\n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 110,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 141,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 209,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 362,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 463,
"end": 568,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 660,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 669,
"end": 746,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1401,
"end": 1414,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1446,
"end": 1458,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1461,
"end": 1473,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1498,
"end": 1513,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1579,
"end": 1587,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 254 Of 2008\n\n\nState Of U.P. & Ors. .Appellant(S)\n\n Versus\n\nSaroj Kumar Sinha ....Respondent(S)\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 55,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 160,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 244,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nAlagappa Textile (Cochin) Ltd.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 96,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal Nos. 147-148 Of 2001\n\n\n\nMan Kaur (Dead) By Lrs. ....Appellants\n\nVs.\n\nHartar Singh Sangha .....Respondent\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 174,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 267,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe State Of Bombay\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nKathi Kalu Oghad And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Punjab\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nBalbir Singh\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 59,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao \n\nWrit Petiton Nos.22820 of 2014 \n\n13-10-2014 \n\nB. Venkata Ramana S/o Basaiah Residing at Guttalapai, Nuthan Kalva Village \nK.V. Palli Mandal, Chittoor District Petitioner\n\nThe Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Chief Secretary General \nAdministration (Law & Order) Dept.Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 2 others\n.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : M/s T.Nagarjuna Reddy Counsel for the respondents : 1. Learned Government Pleader for Home (Ap) Head Note: \n? Cases referred\n\n1. Air 1966 Sc 740 \n2. (1970) 1 Scc 98 \n3. (1970) 3 Scc 746 \n4. (1972) 3 Scc 831 \n5. Air (1963) Sc 946 \n6. Air 1945 Pc 48 \n7. Air 1972 Sc 1487 \n8. (1972) 1 Supreme Court Cases 199 \n9. (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 177 \n10. Air 2014 Sc (Criminal) 1309 \n11. Air 1953 Supreme Court 318 \n12. Air 1984 Supreme Court 211 \n13. Air 1973 Supreme Court 2469 \n14. 2005 Cri.L.J.689 \n15. Air 1974 Supreme Court 2154 \n16. (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 72 \n17. (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases 321 \n18. (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 244 \n19. (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 386 \n20. Air 1966 Sc 740 \n21. (1970) 1 Scc 98 \n22. (1970) 3 Scc 746 \n23. (1982 ) 2 Scc 403 The Honble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Writ Petiton Nos.22820, 23564 and 23236 of 2014 Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 125,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 273,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 443,
"end": 460,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1275,
"end": 1295,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 887 of 1975\n\nPetitioner:\nIndira Nehru Gandhi \n\nRespondent:\nShri Raj Narain & Anr. \n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 70,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 100,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-:: 1 ::-\n\n\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Nivedita Anil Sharma,\n Additional Sessions Judge\n (Special Fast Track Court)-01,\n West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi\n\nSessions Case Number : 81 of 2014.\nUnique Case Id Number : 02401R0351732014.\n\nState\n Versus\nMr. Kunal Kumar\nSon of Mr. Manoj Kumar,\nR/o H. No. R-946, Raghubir Nagar,\nDelhi.\n\nFirst Information Report Number : 462/2014.\nPolice Station : Khayala\nUnder sections : 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code.\n\nDate of filing of the charge sheet before : 07.07.2014\nthe Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate\nDate of receipt of this file after committal\nin this Court Asj (Sftc)-01, West, Delhi. : 28.07.2014\nArguments concluded on : 21.02.2015.\nDate of judgment : 21.02.2015.\n\nAppearances: Ms.Neelam Narang, Additional Public Prosecutor for the\n State.\n Accused Mr.Kunal Kumar has been produced from judicial\n custody.\n Mr.Rajiv Sachar and Mr.Tanwar Singh, counsel for the\n accused.\n Prosecutrix is present with her counsel, Mr.Anil Kumar\n Kamboj.\n Ms.Shubra Mehndiratta, counsel for the Delhi Commission\n for Women.\n***********************************************************\nSessions Case Number : 81 of 2014.\nUnique Case Id Number : 02401R0351732014.\nFir No. 462/2014, Police Station Khayala\nUnder sections 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code.\nState versus Kunal Kumar -:: Page 1 of 67 ::-\n -:: 2 ::-\n\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 63,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 202,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 372,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 446,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1083,
"end": 1096,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1177,
"end": 1188,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1257,
"end": 1269,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1277,
"end": 1289,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1384,
"end": 1413,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1430,
"end": 1448,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Cri.Confirmation Case no.3.2013\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay,\n\n\n\n\n \n Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Confirmation Case No. 3 Of 2013. \n\n The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n \n through Police Station Officer,\n Police Station, Kalmeshwar,\n District: Nagpur.\n ...Petitioner. \n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n \n 1. Rakesh Manohar Kamble @ Niraj\n Ramesh Wakekar, aged about 25 years,\n \n Occ. Nil, R/o: Gaurakshan Zopadpatti,\n Hind Nagar Road, Wardha.\n\n 2. Amarsing S/o Kisansing Thakur,\n \n\n\n aged about 25 years, Occ: Nil,\n \n\n\n\n R/o: Bajrang, Nagar, Galli No.9,\n Babulkheda, Nagpur.\n .....Respondents. \n\n\n\n\n\n Mrs. B.H.Dangre, learned Public Prosecutor with Mr. S.S.Doifode, \n learned A.P.P. for the petitioner/State. \n Mr. R.P.Thote, Advocate (appointed) for respondents/ accused.\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n Criminal Appeal No. 501 Of 2013\n\n 1. Rakesh Manohar Kamble @ Niraj\n Ramesh Wakekar, aged about 25 years,\n Occ. Nil, R/o Gaurakshan Zopadpatti,\n Hind Nagar Road, Wardha.\n\n\n\n\n \n 2 Cri.Confirmation Case no.3.2013\n\n\n\n\n \n 2. Amarsing S/o Kisansing Thakur,\n aged about 25 years, Occ: Nil\n\n\n\n\n \n R/o: Bajrang, Nagar, Galli No. 9,\n Babulkheda, Nagpur.\n ....Appellants.\n\n\n\n\n \n .Versus.\n\n The State of Maharashtra,\n through Police Station Officer,\n\n\n\n\n \n Police Station, Kalmeshwar,\n District: Nagpur.\n ig ....Respondent.\n Mr. R.P.Thote, Advocate (appointed) for the appellants.\n \n Mrs. B.H.Dangre, Public Prosecutor with Mr. S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for the \n respondent/ State. \n \n\n\n Coram: B.R.Gavai & C.V.Bhadang,Jj\n Date Of Reserving Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 74,
"end": 108,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 417,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 806,
"end": 864,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1022,
"end": 1030,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1304,
"end": 1314,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1363,
"end": 1374,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1433,
"end": 1442,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1589,
"end": 1647,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2022,
"end": 2030,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2419,
"end": 2439,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2680,
"end": 2689,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2767,
"end": 2777,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2806,
"end": 2817,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2915,
"end": 2924,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2927,
"end": 2938,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Cs(Os) 84/2009\n\n Reserved on : September 2, 2009\n Decision on: September 16, 2009\n\n Sparsh Builders Pvt. Ltd. ..... Plaintiff\n Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate\n with Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, Mr. Sarfaraz Ahmad\n and Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocates.\n\n versus\n\n Maharishi Ayurveda Products\n Pvt. Ltd. ..... Defendant\n Through: Mr. M.L. Bhargava with\n Mr. Manoj Swarup, Ms.Lalita Kohli,\n Mr.K.M. Sharma and\n Mr. Abhishek Swarup, Advocates.\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar\n\n 1. Whether reporters of the local newspapers\n be allowed to see the judgment? No\n 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 267,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 345,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 392,
"end": 406,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 412,
"end": 426,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 465,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 514,
"end": 541,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 640,
"end": 653,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 683,
"end": 695,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 700,
"end": 712,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 737,
"end": 748,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 777,
"end": 792,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 847,
"end": 860,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "918-12-wp-Judgment=.doc\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n Writ Petition No. 918 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n Allauddin @ Nigro @ Babu Chand Sayyed\n Indian Citizen, Aged 27 years, Occu. Nil,\n\n\n\n\n \n R/at Sathe Nagar, Near Sulabh Souchalaya,\n Sitaram Ghanshyam Chawl,\n Mankhurd, Mumbai - 400 043 at present\n at Nashik Road Central Jail, \n\n\n\n\n \n Nashik Road 422 101 .. Petitioner\n \n v/s.\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the \n Government Pleader, having his office at \n \n Pwd Building, High Court, Fort,\n Bombay - 400 032.\n \n 2. Commissioner of Police, Brihan Mumbai\n Deonar Police Station ..Respondents\n\n Mrs A.M.Z. Ansari, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner \n Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, App for respondents\n \n\n\n Mr. K.M. Gaikwad, Psi, Devnar Police Station Mumbai present\n \n\n\n\n Coram : A.M. Khanwilkar &\n R.Y.Ganoo, Jj.\n Date On Which Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 355,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 985,
"end": 1005,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1273,
"end": 1355,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1419,
"end": 1432,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1494,
"end": 1508,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1565,
"end": 1577,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1697,
"end": 1712,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1776,
"end": 1785,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ep-8-2014\n (Vijay Raghvendra Singh Vs Moti Kashyap)\n\n\n05-08-2015\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : At\n Jabalpur\n\n Election Petition No : 08/2014\n\n Vijay Raghvendra Singh\n V/s\n Moti Kashyap\n\nPresent:\n------ ---------------------------------------------------------------\n----\nHon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri Arvind Kumar Shrivastava, counsel for the\npetitioner.\nShri G.S. Baghel, counsel for the respondent.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 62,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 146,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 238,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 312,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 434,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 515,
"end": 539,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 574,
"end": 585,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Fir No. 45/2001; Ps Bara Hindu Rao; U/s 279/304\u00adA Ipc, 3/181 and 5/181 Mv Act Dod:12.11.2014\n\n\nIn The Court Of Pooran Chand: Chief Metropolitan Magistrate\n Central District: Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi\n\n\n\nFir No.:45/2001\nPs: Bara Hindu Rao\nU/s 279/304-A Ipc, 3/181 and 5/181 Mv Act\nState Vs. Durga Prasad etc.\nUnique Id No.: 02401R\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 138,
"end": 150,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 234,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 320,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 337,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 2887 of 2001\n\nPetitioner:\nUnion of India and Anr.\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRespondent:\nS.B. Vohra and Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 66,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 104,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n Cr. A. Nos.686/04, 691/04 & 715 of 2005\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Bench At Gwalior\nDivision Bench:\n\n (Hon. Shri Justice S.K.Gangele &\n Hon. Shri Justice S.K. Palo)\n\n Criminal Appeal No.686 Of 2004\n\n....Appellants : Bhawar Singh & Ano.\n\n Versus\n\n....Respondent : State of M.P.\n\n And\n\n Criminal Appeal No.691 Of 2004\n\n...Appellants : Ram Singh & Ors.\n Versus\n....Respondent : State of M.P.\n\n And\n\n Criminal Appeal No.712 Of 2005\n\n...Appellant : Sube Singh\n Versus\n....Respondent : State of M.P.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri A.K. Jain, Advocate for the appellant No.1 in Cr. Appeal\nNo.691/04.\n\nShri Bhagwan Raj Pandey, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/\nState.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 100,
"end": 169,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 241,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 295,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 388,
"end": 400,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 495,
"end": 508,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 645,
"end": 654,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 745,
"end": 758,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 895,
"end": 905,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 989,
"end": 1002,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1097,
"end": 1106,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1171,
"end": 1189,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBhagwant Singh\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Police, Delhi\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 75,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 297 of 2005()\n\n\n1. Ouseph @ Kuttan, Panackkalpurayidathil,\n ... Petitioner\n2. Zeetus, Mavelithayyil Veedu,\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Represented By\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.M.Sunilkumar\n\n For Respondent : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :15/10/2008\n\n O R D E R\n K.Balakrishnan Nair &\n\n M.C.Hari Rani, Jj.\n\n -----------------------------------------\n\n Crl.Appeal Nos. 297 & 298/2005\n\n -----------------------------------------\n\n Dated 15th October, 2008.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 86,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 158,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 230,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 341,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 435,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 461,
"end": 474,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 526,
"end": 545,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 573,
"end": 586,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice K.Surendra Mohan\n\n Monday, The 25Th Day Of June 2012/4Th Ashadha 1934\n\n WP(C).No. 13092 of 2012 (J)\n ---------------------------\n\nPetitioner:\n-----------\n\n Peethambaran T.R.,\n S/O.Raveendran, Thalikoodathil House,\n Kottuvallikkad, Moothakunnam P.O,\n N.Paravoor, Ernakulam District.\n\n By Adv. Sri.M.S.Breez\n\nRespondents:\n------------\n\n1. The Additional Licensing Authority,\n North Paravoor,\n Sub Regional Transport Office,\n North Paravoor, Ernakulam District - 683513.\n\n2. State Of Kerala,\n Rep.By The Secretary To Government,\n Department Of Motor Vehicles,\n Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram - 695001.\n\n By Government Pleader Sri G.Gopakumar\n\n\n This Writ Petition (Civil) Having Come Up For Admission\n On 25-06-2012, The Court On The Same Day Delivered The\n Following:\n\f\nWP(C).No. 13092 of 2012 (J)\n\n\n A P P E N D I X\n\n\n\n\nPetitioner'S Exhibits\n\n\nExt.P1 : True Copy Of The Order Bearing No L2/748/2012 Dated 16-03-2012\n Issued By 1St Respondent.\n\n\n\n1St Respondent'S Exhibits\n\n\nEXT.R1(a): True Copy Of The Report Of Motor Vehicle Inspector.\n\nEXT.R1(b): True Typed Copy Of The Report Of Motor Vehicle Inspector.\n\nEXT.R1(c): True Copy Of The Statement Taken From The Petitioner.\n\nEXT.R1(d): True Photocopy Of The Original Of The Order.\n\n\n\n\n /True Copy/\n\n\n P.A To Judge\n\f\n\n\n \"C.R\"\n K.Surendra Mohan, J.\n -----------------------------------------------------\n W.P(c) No.13092 of 2012-J\n ----------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 25th day of June, 2012\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 128,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 323,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 458,
"end": 467,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 504,
"end": 638,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 645,
"end": 660,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 813,
"end": 824,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1660,
"end": 1676,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19114 of 2012\n===========================================================\n1. Sushil Kumar Singh Son Of Parameshwar Dayal Resident Of Village - Neouri Koeri Bigha, P.S. - Kako, District - Jehanabad, At Present Technical Secretary To Chief Engineer, Birpur(Supaul)\n2. Girish Nandan Singh Son Of Sri Bageshwar Singh Resident Of House No. 307, Lalita Residency, Rupaspur P.S. Rupaspur, District - Patna Presently Technical Secretary To Engineer In Chief, Building Construction Department, Patna\n3. Kripalu Pandey Son Of Late Mahavir Pandey Resident Of Shiv Shambhu Nagar, Ashiana Road, P.S. Rajiv Nagar, District - Patna, Presently Under Secretary, Department Of Health, Bihar, Patna\n4. Vijay Kant Sharma Son Of Ram Bilash Singh Resident Of Village - Chhotki Akauna, P.S. - Ghoshi, District - Jehanabad, Retired From The Post Of Under Secretary, Department Of Law, Bihar, Patna\n5. Afzal Ahmad Son Of Late Dr. Md. Siddique Resident Of 3j/403, Ambar Apartment, New Patliputra Colony, P.S. - Patliputra, District - Patna, Posted As Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Bihar, Patna And Convenor Of Ati Pichhara - Pichhara - Alp Shankhyak Sanvarg Karamchari Padadhikari Mahasangh .... .... Petitioners. \n\n Versus\n1. The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna\n2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Bihar, Patna\n3. The Joint Secretary, Department Of General Administration, Bihar, Patna\n4. The Principal Secretary, Sc/St Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna\n5. The Secretary, Sc/St Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna\n6. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Road Construction Null Null\n7. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Energy, Bihar, Patna\n8. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Health, Bihar, Patna\n9. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Bihar, Patna\n10. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Animal Husbandary And Fisheries, Bihar, Patna\n11. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Industries, Bihar, Patna\n12. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering, Bihar, Patna Patna High Court Cwjc No.19114 of 2012 dt.04-05-2015\n\n 13. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Water Resources, Bihar, Patna\n 14. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna ...............Respondents. \n\n 15. Narendra Kumar, State General Secretary, all India Confederation of Sc/St Organization, Bihar State Unit, a age-46, son of Narayan Choudhary, resident of village-Sikandrapur, Post-Shahpur, Danapur cant, District-Patna. \n\n 16. Rajendra Prasad Choudhary, age-58, son of late Devi Choudhary, resident of Mohall-Raushan Vihar Colony, Bailey Road, P.S. Danapur, District-Patna at present posted as Engineer-in-Chief, Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar. \n\n 17. All India Federation of Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe, Backward and Minorities and Employees Welfare Association, New Delhi (In Short Scewa Stamb) through its President Bihar State Unit namely Harikeshwar Ram, son of Sri Harinandan Ram, At+P.O Gidha P.S. Koilwar, District-Bhojpur. \n\n 18. Harikeshwar Ram son of Sri Harinandan Ram, at +P.O. Gidha, P.S. Koilwar, District-Bhojpur. \n\n 19. Devendra Rajak son of late Chhotan Rajak, resident of village-Ratanpura, P.O. Dariyapur, District-Nalanda. \n\n 20. Birendra Kumar, son of Sri Baleshwar Das, Village-Singhaul, P.O. Ulaw, District-Begusarai. .... Intervenor- Respondents. =========================================================== Appearance :\n For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Kanth, Sr. Adv. \n\n Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Adv. \n\n Mr. Parijat Saurav, Adv. \n\n Mr. Smriti Singh, Adv. \n\n For the State of Bihar: Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. \n\n Mr. Rudreshwar Singh, Adv. \n\n Mr. Piyush Lall, Adv. \n\n Mr. Shankar Kumar Choudhary, Adv. \n\n Mr. Rajat Singh, Adv. \n\n Mr. Amish Kumar, Adv. \n\n Mr. Lalit Kishore, P.A.A.G. \n\n Mr. Piyush Lall, Adv. \n\n Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, A.A.G.-14. \n\n Patna High Court Cwjc No.19114 of 2012 dt.04-05-2015 Mr. Shankar Kumar Choudhary, Adv. \n\n For the Intervenors : Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. \n\n Mr. Shanti Pratap, Adv. \n\n Mr. Dinu Kumar, Adv. \n\n Mr. Shiv Kumar Prabhakar, Adv. \n\n Mr. Arbind Kumar Sharma, Adv. \n\n Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv. \n\n =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice V. Nath Cav Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 184,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 374,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 583,
"end": 597,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 772,
"end": 789,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 966,
"end": 977,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1312,
"end": 1326,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1372,
"end": 1443,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1451,
"end": 1518,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1526,
"end": 1585,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1593,
"end": 1642,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1650,
"end": 1712,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1720,
"end": 1775,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1783,
"end": 1838,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1846,
"end": 1896,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1905,
"end": 1985,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1994,
"end": 2053,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2062,
"end": 2129,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2200,
"end": 2264,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2274,
"end": 2339,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2375,
"end": 2389,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2601,
"end": 2626,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2849,
"end": 2973,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3139,
"end": 3154,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3237,
"end": 3251,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3351,
"end": 3365,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3572,
"end": 3583,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3601,
"end": 3618,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3632,
"end": 3646,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3660,
"end": 3672,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3710,
"end": 3733,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3751,
"end": 3767,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3781,
"end": 3792,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3806,
"end": 3829,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3843,
"end": 3854,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3868,
"end": 3879,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3893,
"end": 3906,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3924,
"end": 3935,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3949,
"end": 3966,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4039,
"end": 4062,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4098,
"end": 4121,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4139,
"end": 4152,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4166,
"end": 4176,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4190,
"end": 4210,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4224,
"end": 4243,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4257,
"end": 4275,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4375,
"end": 4382,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 7419\t2001\n of 518 \n\nPetitioner:\nOil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.\n\nRespondent:\nSaw Pipes Ltd.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 92,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 120,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSarju Pershad\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nRaja Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain\tSingh And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before I Addl. Judge, Court Of Small Causes,\n Bangalore. (Scch-11)\n\n Dated This 1st Day Of September, 2015\n\n Present: Sri. Ganapati Gurusidda Badami, B.Com.,LL.B (Spl).\n I Addl.Small Causes Judge & Xxvii Acmm\n\n Sc.384/2013\n\nPlaintiff: 1. Smt.G.V.Sujatha,\n W/o.Late G.Venkataraju Gupta,\n Aged about 56 years.\n\n 2. Smt.G.V.Krishna Veni,\n D/o.Late G.Venkataraju Gupta,\n and W/o. Sri.K.S.Amar,\n Aged about 33 years,\n Rep. by her Gpa Holder,\n Sri.G.V.Srikanth (Plf.no.3)\n\n 3. Sri.G.V.Srikanth,\n S/o.Late G.Venkataraju Gupta,\n Aged about 27 years.\n\n All r/a Sri.Bhairaveshwara Nilaya,\n No.10/29, 2nd Floor, 7th Main,\n J.P.Nagar, Ist phase, Sarakki,\n Bangalore - 560 078.\n\n (By pleader Sri.K.R.Ashok Kumar......Adv.(for pl.1 to 3)\n\n - V/S -\n\nDefendant: 1. Sri.A.Ramanath, Major,\n S/o. Late A.Aswathnarayana Setty,\n Flat No.C-2, Krishna Residency,\n Scch - 11 2 Sc No.384/2013\n\n\n\n\n IInd Floor, Patalamma Temple Street,\n Opp: Pai Vista Convention Hall,\n Basavanagudi, Bangalore - 560 004.\n\n 2. Sri.A.Prakash, Major,\n S/o.Sri.A.Ranganath,\n\n Both carrying on business at\n M/s. Subhas Stores,\n Krishna Building, Avenue Road,\n Bangalore - 560 002.\n\n (By pleader Sri.V.S.Narayana...........Adv. for Def.1 & 2)\n\n *********\n -:J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 185,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 338,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 450,
"end": 466,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 704,
"end": 716,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1024,
"end": 1039,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1123,
"end": 1133,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1471,
"end": 1480,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1701,
"end": 1713,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature For Raj.At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. \n\n\n S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1928/2011\n\nM/S Vikas Book Ltd. ---Petitioner\n\tVs.\n(1) Bank Of Baroda, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Authorized Officer Cum Manager\n(2) Shri Umraomal Chordia \n--- Respondents\n\nWith\n\n S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2234/2011\n\n(1) M/S. Arham Jewellers \n(2) Arpit Samcheti \n\t\t\t\t---Petitioners\n Vs.\n(1)Addl.Civil Judge(J.D.)Jaipur City,Jaipur.\n(2) A.D.J.No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur \n(3) Bank Of Baroda , Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Manager\n(4)Sh.Umraomal Chordia \n---Respspondents.\n\nWith\n\nS.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 2225/2011\n\nM/S.Chordia Safe Deposit & Vaults Pvt.Ltd.\n---Petitioner\nVs.\n(1)Addl.Civil Judge(J.D.)Jaipur City,Jaipur.\n\n(2) Addl.District Judge No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur. \n\n(3) Bank Of Baroda, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Manager,\n\n(4)Shri Shanti Kumar Vipul Kumar Chordia\n---Respondents\n\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 128,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 224,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 293,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 386,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 392,
"end": 406,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 475,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 481,
"end": 513,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 521,
"end": 568,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 679,
"end": 719,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 746,
"end": 781,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 788,
"end": 834,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 842,
"end": 888,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 919,
"end": 951,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 3453 of 2008()\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Represented By The\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. M.Vijayakumar, Cpm Jilla Secretary &\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Kadakampally Surendran, Ex.Mla\n\n3. Antony Raju, Ex.Mla.\n\n4. Sivankutty, Ex.Thiruvananthapuram\n\n5. Binu, Aged 26, S/O.Parameswaran,\n\n6. S.S.Rajulal, District President Of Dyfi.\n\n7. M.M.Basheer, District Secretary Of Dyfi.\n\n8. Binukumar, City Secretary Of Aiyf.\n\n9. Raju, Aged 30, S/O.Kunhunni Nadar,\n\n10. Aneesh, Aged 18, S/O.Lawrance,\n\n11. Shibu, Aged 21, S/O.Sheelas, Jaya Bhavan\n\n12. Philip, Aged 35, S/O.Joseph,\n\n13. Sunil, Aged 24, S/O.Bhaskal,\n\n14. Rajesh, Aged 25, S/O.Surendran,\n\n15. Sureshkumar, Aged 30, S/O.Thankappan\n\n For Petitioner :Public Prosecutor\n\n For Respondent : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K.Mohanan\n\n Dated :07/04/2011\n\n O R D E R\n V.K.Mohanan, J.\n -----------------------------------------------------\n Crl.R.P. No. 3453/2008, 54/2009,\n 3611/2009, 1564/2010 & 1565 of 2010\n -----------------------------------------------------\n Dated the 7th day of April, 2011\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 93,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 199,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 293,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 317,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 341,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 373,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 417,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 462,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 505,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 535,
"end": 539,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 575,
"end": 581,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 611,
"end": 616,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 657,
"end": 663,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 691,
"end": 696,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 725,
"end": 731,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 762,
"end": 773,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 925,
"end": 936,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 998,
"end": 1009,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 11Th Day Of June, 2014\n\n :Present:\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice N.K. Patil\n\n And\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B. Sreenivase Gowda\n\n Mfa No.6162/2012 (Mv)\n C/w. Mfa Crob.159/2013\nIn Mfa No. 6162/2012 (Mv)\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Smt. Nirmala Upadhya\n Aged 48 Years\n W/O Late Narayana Upadhya\n Residing At \"Ganesh Nivasa,\"\n Achada, Yenagudde Village\n Katapady Post,\n Udupi Taluk-576 101\n\n2. Miss Shruthi\n Aged 22 Years\n D/O Late Narayana Upadhya\n Residing At Ganesh Nivasa,\n Achada, Yenagudde Village,\n Katapady Post,\n Udupi Taluk-576 101\n\n3. Kum Neethi\n Aged 18 Years\n D/O Late Narayana Upadhya\n Residing At Ganesh Nivasa,\n Achada, Yenagudde Village,\n Katapady Post,\n Udupi Taluk-576 101\n 2\n\n\n\n\n4. Sri Narasimha Upadhya\n Aged 78 Years\n S/O Late Seetharam Upadhya\n Residing At Ganesh Nivasa,\n Achada, Yenagudde Village,\n Katapady Post,\n Udupi Taluk-576 101\n ... Appellants\n(By Sri Maheshkiran Shetty, Advocate)\n\nAnd\n\n1. Sri Narayana Poojary\n S/O Kogga Poojary\n Aged About 43 Years\n R/O H.No.1/5313,\n Kunjagudde Post,\n Ambalpady\n Udupi District-576 101\n\n2. The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.,\n Rep By Its Divisional Manager\n Divisional Office, V.P Building,\n 3Rd Floor, Court Road\n Udupi-576 101\n ... Respondents\n(By Smt. Harini Shivananda, Advocate For R2;\nR1-Served And Unrepresented)\n\n This Mfa Is Filed U/S 173(1) Of Mv Act Against The\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 171,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 254,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 392,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 578,
"end": 585,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 765,
"end": 775,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 991,
"end": 1008,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1239,
"end": 1257,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1285,
"end": 1301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1454,
"end": 1480,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1666,
"end": 1683,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Criminal Application No.258.13 (Apl)\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay,\n\n\n\n\n \n Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Application No. 258 Of 2013 (Apl).\n\n State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n \n Through Deputy Commissioner of \n Police, Economic Offences Wing,\n Crime Branch, Nagpur.\n ...Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n \n \n Versus\n \n Shashikant s/o Eknath Shinde,\n \n Aged 56 years, Occupation: Service,\n Deputy Inspector General of Police and\n Deputy Inspector General Prisons,\n Eastern Region, Nagpur, R/o: Nagpur.\n \n \n\n\n\n .. Respondent.\n\n\n Mr. D.J. Khambata, Advocate General with Mr. N.W.Sambre, Public \n\n\n\n\n\n Prosecutor, Shri M.K.Pathan and Shri Ambarish Joshi, Additional Public \n Prosecutors for petitioner State.\n Mr. R.R.Vyas, Advocate for respondent.\n ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Coram: B.R.Gavai & P.N.Deshmukh,Jj Date : 2.7.2013 Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 251,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 392,
"end": 412,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 812,
"end": 822,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1195,
"end": 1210,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1248,
"end": 1258,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1298,
"end": 1308,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1318,
"end": 1332,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1401,
"end": 1409,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1546,
"end": 1555,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1558,
"end": 1570,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar And The Honble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther \n\nCriminal Appeal No.246 Of 2011 \n\n22-09-2017 \n\nKonakala Ramakrishna @ Ramu and others .. Appellants \n\nState of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor .. Respondent\n\nCounsel for the Appellants: Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy\n\nCounsel for the Respondent:Public Prosecutor \n\nHead Note: \n\n\n? Cases Referred: \n\n1. 2016(3) Alt 505 (Db) (Ap)\n2. Air 1976 Sc 2263 \n3. Air 1968 Sc 1281 \n4. (2013) 2 Scc 541 \n5. 2017 Scc OnLine Sc 152 \n\nThe Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar \nAnd \nThe Honble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther \n\nCriminal Appeal No.246 Of 2011 \n\nJ U D G M E N T \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 77,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 178,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 221,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 317,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 563,
"end": 575,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 614,
"end": 628,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n Civil Appeal No. 7631 Of 2002\n\n\nDev Dutt .. Appellant\n\n -vs-\n\nUnion of India & Ors. ..\nRespondents\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 56,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 162,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 240,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Metropolitan Magistrate,\n Traffic Court-Ii, Bengaluru.\n Present: Sri. Rajendra Kumar. K.M.\n Llm. M. Phil,\n Metropolitan Magistrate,\n Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru.\n Dated This 30Th Day Of July 2015.\n Crl. Misc. No. 139/2015\nAggrieved Smt. Neelam Manmohan W/o Manmohan\nPersons/petitioners: Attavar, aged; 58 yrs, R/at. Park, opp. to\n residence No. 38/1, 30th Cross, 3rd Main,\n 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-82.\n (Party in person)\n V/s\nRespondents: Manmohan Attavar S/o Mutthappa\n Attavar, aged; 80 yrs, R/at. No. 38/1, 30th\n Cross, 3rd Main, 7th Block, Jayanagar,\n Bengaluru-82.\n Represented by: Sri. Ss & Aks, Adv\n\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 78,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 120,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 423,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 754,
"end": 777,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1021,
"end": 1023,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1026,
"end": 1029,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nK. Ramadas Shenoy\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, Udipi And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 98,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMaru Ram Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of lNDIA & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 20,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 64,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Apoorv Sarvaria, Civil Judge\u00adI, New \n Delhi District, New Delhi\n\nC.C. No: 16/11\nUnique Case Id No.02403R0098352011\n\nMeenu\nW/o Late Mr. Shamim Raza\nR/o D\u00ad170, IInd Floor, Dda Flats, \nKalkaji, New Delhi\u00ad110019. \n .....Complainant\n\n Versus\nShaheen Akhtar\nS/o Mr. Mehfooz Akhtar\nR/o R\u00ad9, IIIrd Floor, \nNafis Road, Near Hari Masjid,\nJamia Nagar, Okhla, \nNew Delhi\u00ad110025. \nAlso at: Madeena Jewellers,\n161/1 Joga Bai, Batla House, \nNew Delhi\u00ad110025.\n .....Accused\n\n Complaint Under Section 138 Of The \n Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 \n\n Date of Institution: 09.05.2008\n Date of Reserving Order: 19.08.2013 \n Date of Judgment:10.02.2014\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 106,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 159,
"end": 164,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 411,
"end": 425,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nOP.No. 3036 of 2001(J)\n\n\n\n1. Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n1. Chairman,M.D.,Orienital Insurance Co.Ltd\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.R.Venketesh\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Mgk.Menon\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Siri Jagan\n\n Dated :07/12/2009\n\n O R D E R\n S.Siri Jagan, J.\n\n ==================\n\n O.P.No. 3036 of 2001\n\n ==================\n\n Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 94,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 205,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 301,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 349,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 387,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 448,
"end": 460,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice C.K.Abdul Rehim\n\n Friday, The 19Th Day Of October 2012/27Th Aswina 1934\n\n WP(C).No. 18011 of 2012 (B)\n ---------------------------\n\nPetitioner(S):\n-------------------------\n\n 1. Biju K.S,\n S/O. Sekharan, Aged 38 Years, Kottakunnel Veedu\n Muttilayam.P.O, Wayanad - 670 731.\n\n 2. Biju Jacob\n S/O. Jacob, Aged 34 Years, Olickamalil\n Kuppady.P.O., Bathery, Wayanad - 673 592.\n\n By Advs.Sri.R.Parthasarathy\n Smt.Seema\n\nRespondent(S):\n--------------------------\n\n 1. The Kerala Public Service Commission\n Represented By Its Chairman\n Thiruvananthapuram, Pin - 695 001.\n\n 2. The District Officer,\n Kerala Public Service Commission, Wayanad\n Wayanad District.\n\n 3. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation\n Represented By Its Managing Director\n Transort Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin- 695 023.\n\n R1 & R2 By Adv. Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, Sc, Kpsc\n R3 By Adv. Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, Sc, Ksrtc\n\n\n This Writ Petition (Civil) Having Come Up For Admission On 19-10-2012,\n Along With Wpc. 6094/2012 & Connected Cases, The Court On\n The Same Day Delivered The Following:\n\n\nMn\n\n ...2/-\n\f\nWP(C).No. 18011 of 2012 (B)\n\n Appendix\n\nPetitioners' Exhibits :\n\nExhibit-P1- True Copy Of The Relevant Portion Of The Gazette\n Notification Dated 15/07/2010\n\nExhibit-P2- True Copy Of The Driving Licence Particulars Of The Ist\n Petitioner.\n\nExhibit-P3- True Copy Of The Previous And Presnt Licence Of Ist\n Petitioner.\n\nExhibit-P4- True Copy Of The Driving Licence Particulars Of 2Nd\n Petitioner.\n\nExhibit-P5- True Copy Of The Intimation Received By The Ist Petitioner\n Dated Nil.\n\nExhibit-P6- True Copy Of The Intimation Received For Practical Test\n (H Test And Road Test) By The Ist Petitioner.\n\nExhibit-P7- True Copy Of The Intimation Received For Practical Test Road\n Test By The Ist Petitioner.\n\nExhibit-P8- True Copy Of The Intimation Received By The 2Nd Petitioner\n For Practical Test (H Test + Road Test).\n\nExhibit-P9- True Copy Of The Intimation Received By Thd 2Nd Petitioner\n For Practical Test (Road Test).\n\nExhibit-P10- True Copy Of The Admission Ticket Issued To The Ist Petitioner.\n\nExhibit-P11- True Copy Of The Admission Ticket Issued To 2Nd Petitioner.\n\nExhibit-P12- True Copy Of The Notice Received By The Ist Petitioner From\n The 2Nd Respondent Dated 14/06/2012.\n\nEXHIBIT-P12(a)-TRUE Copy Of The English Tranlsation Of Exhibit-P12\n\nExhibit-P13- True Copy Of The Notice Received By The 2Nd Petitioner Dated\n 14/06/2012.\n\nEXHIBIT-P13(a)- True Copy Of The English Translation Of Exhibit-P13\n\nExhibit-P14- True Copy Of The Rectification Notification Dated 15/11/2010\n\nEXHIBIT-P14(a)- True Copy Of The English Tranlsation Of Exit-P14.\n\nRespondents' Exhibits : Nil\n\n //True Copy//\n\n\n P.S. To Judge\nMn\n\f\n\n\n \"Cr\"\n\n C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.\n\n -------------------------------------------------\n W.P.(c) Nos. 18011, 6094, 10777,\n 10217, 14336, 19893, 20084\n & 15811 Of 2012\n -------------------------------------------------\n Dated This The 19th Day Of October, 2012\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 164,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 427,
"end": 435,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 562,
"end": 572,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 709,
"end": 724,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 755,
"end": 760,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 822,
"end": 854,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 964,
"end": 1068,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1084,
"end": 1123,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1275,
"end": 1289,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1329,
"end": 1353,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3678,
"end": 3694,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Court Of Shri Ravinder Singh\u00adIi\n Metropolitan Magistrate\n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi\n\nCase No. : 2836/12\nUnique Case Id No. : 02405R0164672011\n\n\nSh. Vimal\nProprietor of Shivam Building Material Suppliers,\nVilalge Bamnoli, P.O. Dhoolsiras,\nSector\u00ad28, Plot No. 143,\nNear Dwarka, New Delhi\u00ad110077 ..................................Complainant\n\n\n Versus\n\nSh. Pawan Soni\nProprietor of Balaji Water Supply,\nRz\u00ad7A/29, Gali No. 3, Puran Nagar,\nPalam Colony, New Delhi\u00ad110045 ...................................Accused\n\n\n\nDate of Institution: 29.04.2011\nPlea of the accused: Pleaded Not Guilty\nDate of Reserving Judgment: 09/10/2014\nSentence or final Order: Acquitted/convicted\nDate of Judgment: 13/10/2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 197,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 440,
"end": 450,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBachhittar Singh\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Punjab\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 68,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Shri Sanjeev Aggarwal:\n Rent Controller : Delhi\n\nPetition No. E-1206/03\n\n1. Capt. R.K. Pasricha\n S/o late Sh. K.K. Pasricha\n E-39, Saket, New Delhi.\n\n2. Mr. Shiv Kumar\n S/o late Sh. D.C. Aggarwal\n 101, Uday Park, New Delhi-49. ... Petitioners\n\nVersus\n\nSh. Raj Kumar Grover\nS/o late Sh. B.R. Grover\n265-B, Hauz Rani, New Delhi. ... Respondent\n\nDate of institution: 5.9.03\nDate of Decision: 1.5.07\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 53,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 149,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 231,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 349,
"end": 365,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 24Th Day Of August 2012\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice N. Ananda\n\n M.F.A.No.6958/2012 (Kmc)\n\nBetween:\nSri S.Shivashankar Prasad\nS/o Sri S.P.Govindappa\nAged about 51 Years\nNo.5, Nisarga, Giddamma\nLayout, A.Narayanapura\nDooravaninagar Post\nBangalore - 560 016. ... Appellant\n\n(By Sri Ashok Haranahalli, Senior Advocate for Sriyuths\nC.Shashikantha & Nishanth A.V., Advocates)\n\nAnd:\n1. Sri D.A.Gopala\n S/o late Annayappa\n Aged about 56 Years\n R/at No.43, Gangothri\n Devasandra, K.R.Puram Post\n Bangalore - 560 036.\n\n2. Sri H.S.Amanulla\n S/o Sri Syed Hussaian Shah\n Aged about 51 Years\n R/at No.319, 1st Main Road\n Darga Mahal, Vijinapura\n Dooravaninagar Post, Bangalore - 560 016.\n\n3. Sri C.Kunjappan\n S/o Sri Kunjan Pillai\n Aged about 62 Years\n R/at No.120/60 (Old No.164)\n Nethravathi Road, 2nd cross\n Udaya Nagar, Dooravaninagar Post\n Bangalore - 560 016.\n 2\n\n\n4. Smt.B.N.Rohini, Major\n W/o Sri P.Munivenkatappa\n No.466, 1st Main, Vidyanagar\n Pai Layout, Dooravaninagar\n Bangalore - 560 016. ... Respondents\n(By Sri Ravivarma Kumar, Senior Advocate for Sri B.M.Irishad\nAhmed, Advocate for R1; Notice to R2 to R4 dispensed with\nv.c.o.dt.02.08.2012)\n\n This appeal is filed under section 38 of the Karnataka\nMunicipal Corporations Act, 1976 against the judgment dated\n30.06.2012, passed in Election Petition No.19/2010 on the file of\nVi Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore, allowing\nthe petition filed under section 33 and etc.\n\n This appeal having been heard and reserved for judgment\non 10.08.2012, coming on for pronouncement this day, the court\ndelivered the following:-\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 183,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 264,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 444,
"end": 461,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 492,
"end": 506,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 522,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 548,
"end": 558,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 691,
"end": 703,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 867,
"end": 878,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1093,
"end": 1103,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1270,
"end": 1285,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1311,
"end": 1322,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 17Th Day Of October, 2012\n\n Present\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr Justice D V Shylendra Kumar\n And\n The Hon'Ble Mr Justice H S Kempanna\n\n Criminal Appeal No 1924 of 2007 (Db-C)\n\nBetween:\n\nNayaz Pasha\nS/O Late Abdul Sathar\nAged About 30 Years,\nR/At No.25,\nRajivgandhi Layout,\nSidlaghatta Town,\nNow Chikkaballapur District ... Appellant\n\n [By Sri. Hashmath Pasha, Adv.]\nAnd:\n\nState Of Karnataka\nBy Sidlaghatta Police Station\nChikkaballapura District\n(Rep. By Learned State\nPublic Prosecutor) ... Respondent\n\n [By Sri P M Nawaz, Addl. Spp]\n\n This Criminal Appeal Is Filed Under Section 372(2)\nCr.P.C By The Advocate For The Appellant Against The\nJudgment Dated 29.09.2007 Passed By The Addl. Sessions\nJudge And P.O., Fast Track Court-Ii, Kolar In S.C.No.24/2006\nAnd 263/2006 Convicting The Appellant/Accused For The\nOffence Punishable Under Section 302 R/W Section 34 Of\nIpc And Sentencing Him To Undergo Imprisonment For Life\nAnd He Is Further Sentenced To Pay A Fine Of Rs.1,000/-\nAnd I.D. To Pay The Fine, To Undergo R.I. For One Year For\n 2\n\nThe Offence Punishable Under Section 302 R/W Sec. 34 Of\nIpc And Etc.,\n\n This Crl. Appeal Coming On For Hearing, This Day, H S\nKempanna, J., Delivered The Following:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 175,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 251,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 326,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 505,
"end": 519,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 533,
"end": 551,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 714,
"end": 723,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1402,
"end": 1414,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 22/12/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.Dhinakar\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice A.Kulasekaran\n\nO.S.A.No.83 of 2003 And O.S.A.No.129 Of 2003\nAnd\nC.M.P.NOs.5953 To 5955 Of 2003\n\n1.L.M.Menezes\n2.Joseph C.Kuriacose\n3.Harold D'Silva ... Appellants in both appeals\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.Rt.Rev.Dr.Lawrence Pius\n2.Most Rev.Arul Das James\n3.Rt.Rev.Tony Devotta\n4.Rev.Fr.P.J.Lawrence Raj\n5.Rev.Fr.Thomas Simon\n6.Rev.Fr.K.S.Lawrence\n7.Mr.Jeppiaar\n\n8.Catholic Bishops Conference of India (Cbci),\n rep.by its Secretary General\n Most Rev.Oswald Gracias,\n Cbci Centre, H1, Ashok Place,\n (Near Gole Dakkhana),\n New Delhi-110 021.\n\n9.Most Rev.Archbishop of Goa,\n Archbishop's House, \"Altinha\"\n Panjim, Goa-403 001.\n (nominated as Supervisor of\n the Trust by the Testator)...Respondents in O.S.A.83/2003\n\n\n\n1.Most Rev.Arul Das James\n2.Rt.Rev.Dr.Lawrence Pius\n3.Rt.Rev.Tony Devotta\n4.Rev.Fr.P.J.Lawrence Raj\n5.Rev.Fr.Thomas Simon\n6.Rev.Fr.K.S.Lawrence\n7.Mr.Jeppiaar\n\n\n8.Catholic Bishops Conference of India (Cbci),\n rep.by its Secretary General\n Most Rev.Oswald Gracias,\n Cbci Centre, H1, Ashok Place,\n (Near Gole Dakkhana),\n New Delhi-110 021.\n\n9.Most Rev.Archbishop of Goa,\n Archbishop's House, \"Altinha\"\n Panjim, Goa-403 001.\n (nominated as Supervisor of\n the Trust by the Testator)\n\n\n10.The John De Monte Trust\n (created in and by the Will of\n Sir John De Monte dated\n 18th July, 1820), rep.by its Trustee,\n Archbishop's House,\n 21, Santhome High Road,\n Chennai-4. ...Respondents in O.S.A.129/2003\n\n\nFor appellants : Mr.Sriram Panchu, Senior Counsel\n for M/s.T.Mohan and S.Devika\n\nFor respondents : Mr.M.K.Kabir for Rr1, 4, 5 & 6\n Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, Senior Counsel\n for Mr.T.V.Krishnamachari\n for Rr2, 3, & 8\n : Mr.T.R.Rajagopal,Senior Counsel\n for R7\n\n : Mr.R.Karthikeyan for R9\n\n\n Appeals against the order dated 06.01.2003 made in Application Nos.3\n081 and 3668 of 2002 in C.S.No.156 of 2002 on the file of this Court.\n\n:J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 149,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 245,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 266,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 283,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 353,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 384,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 394,
"end": 406,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 432,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 442,
"end": 454,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 464,
"end": 476,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 482,
"end": 490,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 492,
"end": 537,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 686,
"end": 703,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 865,
"end": 879,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 892,
"end": 905,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 915,
"end": 927,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 937,
"end": 953,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 963,
"end": 975,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 985,
"end": 997,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1003,
"end": 1011,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1014,
"end": 1058,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1208,
"end": 1225,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1351,
"end": 1370,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1625,
"end": 1638,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1688,
"end": 1695,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1700,
"end": 1708,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1736,
"end": 1745,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1791,
"end": 1804,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1852,
"end": 1870,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1939,
"end": 1952,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2028,
"end": 2041,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Bench At Gwalior\n\n Db:- Hon'ble Shri Justice S. K. Gangele &\n Hon'ble Shri Justice Rohti Arya\n\n Criminal Appeal No.34/2006\n\n Ashok S/o. Shri Ramnarayan Sharma\n Vs.\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n Criminal Appeal No.384/2005\n\n Gopal S/o. Babulal and Naval Singh\n Vs.\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n And\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 409/2005\n\n Pradip Kumar S/o. Nannulal\n Vs.\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n ======================================\nShri Vikrant Sharma, Advocate for appellant- Ashok Kumar in\nCriminal Appeal No. 34/2006.\nShri Ashok Kumar Jain, Advocate for rest of appellants in Criminal\nAppeal Nos.384/2005 & 409/2005.\nShri Prabal Solanki, Publilc Prosecutor for respondent- State in\nthree Criminal Appeals.\n=======================================\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 135,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 184,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 250,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 355,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 417,
"end": 422,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 505,
"end": 528,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 629,
"end": 641,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 711,
"end": 734,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 781,
"end": 795,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 821,
"end": 832,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 870,
"end": 886,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 969,
"end": 983,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice C.T.Ravikumar\n &\n The Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph\n\n Wednesday, The 8Th Day Of November 2017/17Th Karthika, 1939\n\n MACA.No. 1984 of 2013 ()\n -------------------------\n Against The Award In O.P(M.V)No.1460/2007 of M.A.C.T., Ottappalam\n Dated 22-03-2013\n\nAppellant/Respondent No.2:\n-----------------------------------\n\n Jayathilakan, Aged 44 Years, S/O.Padmanabhan,\n Thekkekara House, Poothanur, Mundur,\n Palakkad - 678 007.\n\n By Advs.Sri.K.V.Gopinathan Nair\n Sri.Anumod B.Nair\n\nRespondents/Claimant/Respondents 2 To 5:\n-------------------------------------------------------\n\n 1. Balakrishnan, Aged 50 Years,\n S/O.Arumughan, Poovakkattil House,\n Perumbadari P.O., Mannarkkad Taluk, Palakkad 678 001.\n\n 2. Syed, Aged 53 Years, S/O.Muthali Ravuther,\n Nellipuzha, School Kunnu, Mannarkkad P.O.,\n Palakkad 678 001.\n\n 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Second Floor,\n 169, Annasalai, Chennai - 600 002, Represented By\n Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n Collanoor Devassy Smaraka Building Round North\n Palakkad - 678 001.\n\n 4. Renjith, Aged 25 Years, S/O.Rajan, 4/26, Pallethodi House,\n Karimba P.O., Mannarkkad Taluk, Palakkad - 678 001.\n\n 5. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Division Office,\n Shobha Tsm Complex, Rs Road, Palakkad - 678 001.\n\n R2 By Adv. Sri.Vinod Kumar.C\n R5 By Adv. Sri.P.Jacob Mathew\n R3 By Adv. Smt.Sarah Salvy\n R By Sri.M.A.George\n R By Sri.George Cherian (Thiruvalla)\n\n This Motor Accident Claims Appeal Having Been Finally Heard\n On 30-08-2017, The Court On 8.11.2017 Delivered The Following:\n\f\n\n\n \"C.R\"\n\n\n C.T.Ravikumar &\n Mary Joseph, Jj.\n -------------------------------\n M.A.C.A.No.1984 of 2013\n --------------------------------\n Dated 8th November, 2017\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 149,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 253,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 636,
"end": 648,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 794,
"end": 808,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 843,
"end": 856,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 966,
"end": 978,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1127,
"end": 1131,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1274,
"end": 1366,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1557,
"end": 1564,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1694,
"end": 1802,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1836,
"end": 1847,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1881,
"end": 1895,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1927,
"end": 1938,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1964,
"end": 1974,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2000,
"end": 2014,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2267,
"end": 2280,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2310,
"end": 2321,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "wp4505.14.odt 1/15\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Nagpur Bench : Nagpur.\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No.4505 Of 2014\n\n Petitioner: Wamanrao S/o Vyankatrao Shinde\n (since Deceased) Through Legal\n Representatives,\n\n\n\n\n \n a. Shreedhar S/o Wamanrao Shinde,\n Aged about 42 years,\n Occupation:Business,\n b. Girdhar S/o Wamanrao Shinde, Aged\n\n\n\n\n \n about 48 years, Occupation: Business,\n ig c. Piyush S/o Wamanrao Shinde, Aged\n about 39 years, Occupation: Business,\n d. Girish S/o Wamanrao Shinde, Aged\n about 45 years, Occupation: Business,\n \n All residents of Gudganj, Itwari,\n Nagpur.\n \n -Versus-\n \n\n\n Respondents: Mrs. Munnibai wd/o Parmanand Jain\n (Since Deceased), Through Legal\n \n\n\n\n Representatives.\n i. Gyanchand S/o Parmanand Jain,\n Aged about 65 years, Occupation :\n Business,\n\n\n\n\n\n ii. Virendrakumar S/o Rajkumar Jain,\n Aged about 45 years,\n Occupation:Business,\n Iii. Smt. Kasturibai wd/o Rajkumar Jain,\n Aged about 67 years, Occupation :\n\n\n\n\n\n Household,\n All residents of House no.54, Gudganj\n Oli, Itwari, Nagpur.\n \n\n Shri S. P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for the petitioners.\n Shri R. L. Khapre, Advocate for the respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n wp4505.14.odt 2/15\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram: A.S. Chandurkar, J.\n Date On Which Submissions Were Heard: 09-03-2015 Date On Which Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 239,
"end": 273,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 531,
"end": 539,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2073,
"end": 2081,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3349,
"end": 3359,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3403,
"end": 3415,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3736,
"end": 3751,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice V.Ramasubramanian \n\nCivil Revision Petition No.6610 of 2017\n\n22-12-2017 \n\nThota Gurunath Reddy, S/o T. Gurudatta Reddy, Hyderabad. Petitioner \n\n#Continental Hospitals Private Limited, a company Having its registered office at Plot No.3, Road No.2, and 8 others.. Respon\n\n!Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. S. Ravi, senior counsel\n appearing on behalf of\n Smt. K. Mamatha\n\n^Counsel for Respondents: 1) Mr. K. Vivek Reddy, R-1\n 2) Mr. V.P. Singh for R-2\n 3) Mr. L. Preetham Reddy, R-8\n 4) Mr. Challa Gunaranjan, R-9\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred\n1. 2012 (128) Drj 478 \n2. 2009 (113) Drj 504 \n3. (1999) 5 Scc 651 \n4. 2017 (5) Ald 289\n5. (2010) 15 Scc 733 \n6. (2016) 10 Scc 813 \n7. 2017 (7) Scc 678 \n8. 2014 (5) Scc 1\n9. 2016 (10) Scc 386 \n10. 2015 Scc Online Calcutta 6583 \n11. 1986 (1) Scc 264 \n12. 1981 (3) Scc 333 \n13. 1994 (4) Scc 225 \n14. 2008 (3) Scc 363 \n15. (1997) 88 Comp Cas 759 \n16. (1998) 91 Comp Case 105 \n17. 2009 Scc Online Cal 90 \n\n\nHonble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian \n Civil Revision Petition No.6610 of 2017\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 128,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 217,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 347,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 452,
"end": 462,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 499,
"end": 513,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 554,
"end": 564,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 608,
"end": 625,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 666,
"end": 683,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1155,
"end": 1173,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh : Additional Sessions Judge\n Spl. Judge : Ndps (Nw) : Rohini Courts : Delhi\n\n In the matter of:\n Sc No. : 63/12\n Fir No. : 212/12\n Ps : Crime Branch\n U/s. : 21(b) Ndps Act, 1985\n & 14 Foreigner's Act, 1946\n State\n\n Versus\n\n1) John Onwudiwe\n S/o Amaechi\n R/o No.1, Abayomi Street,\n Ikotu, Lagos, Nigeria.\n\n2) Felex Chinedu\n S/o Sunday\n R/o Onicha, Lagos, Nigeria.\n\n Date of receipt : 16.10.2012\n Date of arguments : 04.07.2014\n Date of announcement : 21.07.2014\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 38,
"end": 53,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 151,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 579,
"end": 584,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 622,
"end": 635,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 754,
"end": 767,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Sandeep Garg: Administrative \n Civil Judge\u00ad Cum\u00ad Additional Rent Controller \n (Central) : Delhi\n\n\n\nE\u00ad392/2013\nUnique Id No : 02401C0470562013\n\nIn the matter of:\u00ad\n\nSh. Rajinder Prasad,\nS/o Late Sh. Nanak Chand,\nR/o 33/3154, Beadonpura, \nKarol Bagh, New Delhi.\n ....Petitioner \n\n Versus\n\nSh. Gian Dhar Singh,\nS/o Sh. Ram Raj Singh,\nShop at 33/3154 (Ground Floor),\nBeadonpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.\n\nAlso at:\u00ad\nSh. Gian Dhar Singh, \nS/o Sh. Ram Raj Singh,\nL\u00ad52, Nag Mandir Road,\nShastri Nagar, Delhi.\n .....Respondent\nO R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 101,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 227,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 479,
"end": 494,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 601,
"end": 616,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 02/09/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. B. Subhashan Reddy, Chief Justice\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice D. Murugesan\n\nW.A.No.1752 of 2002 and W.A.No. 1883 of 2002\nand W.A. No. 1884 of 2002,\n\nW.P.Nos.11143 to 11150, 11173 to 11176 of 2002,\n 10263, 24529, 31280 of 2002\n And\nW.A.M.P.Nos.3475, 3477, 3034, 3222, 3223 of 2002,\nW.P.M.P.Nos.15095 to 15098, 33740, 33741,\n13885, 15059 to 15066, 45667 of 2002\n\nW.A.No.1752 of 2002\n\nN. Muthukrishnan,\nS/o. Nagappan,\n27, Sankarapandiapuram Street,\nRajapalayam. ..... Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. D. Pushpam,\nW/o. G. Dhanaraj,\n12, Bharathi Nagar,\nRajapalayam.\n\n2. The Regional Transport Officer-\nCum- Secretary to the Regional\nTransport Authority,\nVirudhunagar. ..... Respondents\n\n Writ Appeals under Section 15 of the Letters Patent and Writ\nPetitions under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance\nof Writ of Mandamus and Certiorarified Mandamus, as stated therein.\n\nFor Appellants :Mr. AR.L.Sundaresan in\n W.A.Nos.1752, 1883, 1884 of 2002 and for\n Petitioners in W.P.Nos.24529 and 31280 of 2002\n\nFor Respondent 1 :Mrs. Radha Gopalan\n W.A.Nos.1752, 1883 and 1884 of 2002\n and for petitioners in W.P.Nos.10 263,\n 11143 to 11146, 11173 to 11176 of 2002\n\nMr. N. Gopalakrishnan: For Respondents 9, 12\nand 17 in W.P.No.24259, 31280 of 2002\n\nMr. R. Natesan : For Respondents 10,\n13,14, 15 and 16 in W.P.No.24259, 31280 of 2002.\n\nMr. V. Raghupathy\nGovernment Pleader\nAssisted by :For Government in all W.As\nMr.Sanjay Ramaswamy and W.Ps\nGovernment Advocate\nAnd Mr.P.Chandrasekaran\nGovernment Advocate\n\n:J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 165,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 473,
"end": 489,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 609,
"end": 619,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 685,
"end": 778,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1082,
"end": 1097,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1270,
"end": 1283,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1483,
"end": 1501,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1570,
"end": 1581,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1667,
"end": 1681,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1748,
"end": 1764,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1813,
"end": 1829,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Ravinder Bedi : Presiding \nOfficer Mact : East, Karkardooma Courts : Delhi\n\nM.A.C. Petition No: 186/12\nUnique Case Id No. : 02402C0 232252012\n\n1. Smt. Premta Mishra W/o Late Sh. Ratish Chand Mishra\n2. Miss Rachna D/o Late Sh. Ratish Chand Mishra\n3. Miss Nisha Mishra D/o Late Sh. Ratish Chand Mishra\n4. Sh. Rajnish S/o Late Sh. Ratish Chand Mishra\n5. Miss Jyoti Mishra D/o Late Sh. Ratish Chand Mishra\n6. Baby Tanu Mishra D/o Late Sh. Ratish Chand Mishra\n7. Smt. Nirmala Devi W/o Late Sh. Ram Chander Mishra\n (Mother of deceased)\n\n All R/o H. No. 72/28, Navin Kunj, Shanti Vihar,\n Near Loni, Railway Station Loni, \n District Ghaziabad - 201102, U.P. ... Petitioners\n\n Versus\n\n1. Smt. Priyanka Solanki @ Priya \n W/o Late Sh. Jatinder Singh,\n R/o H. No. P\u00ad339, East Jawahar Nagar,\n Loni, Ghaziabad, U.P. Also at : H.No.1/5405, \n Gali No. 14\u00adA, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. ... Owner\n\n2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.\n A\u00ad25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. ... Insurer\n ...Respondents\n\n\n\nM.A.C. Petition No : 186/12 Premta Mishra V/s. Priyanka Solanki Page No. 1/14\n Presented by : Ms. Pooja Goel, Counsel for petitioners. \n Ms. Saraswati, Counsel for R1. \n Ms. Sarika Goel, Counsel for R2. \n\nPresented on : 21.08.2012\nReserved for judgment on : 28.07.2014\nJudgment delivered on : 06.08.2014\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 184,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 232,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 286,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 334,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 376,
"end": 388,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 425,
"end": 441,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 483,
"end": 495,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 790,
"end": 814,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1028,
"end": 1055,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1265,
"end": 1278,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1284,
"end": 1300,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1345,
"end": 1355,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1406,
"end": 1415,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1457,
"end": 1468,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 456 of 2008()\n\n\n1. Aloshia Joseph\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Rev.Dr.Joseph Kollamparambil\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State Of Kerala, Represented By\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.C.V.Manuvilsan\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Sasidharan Nambiar\n\n Dated :21/11/2008\n\n O R D E R\n M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J.\n\n Crl.R.P.No.456 Of 2008\n\n Dated, this the 21st day of November,2008\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 91,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 192,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 256,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 325,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 403,
"end": 423,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 490,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 10/03/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice D.Murugesan \n\nW.P. No.17630 of 2005 \nand \nW.P.M.P.Nos.19894 & 19151/2005 \nand \nW.V.M.P.Nos.1189 and 2080/2005 \n\n\nDr.S. Arulmani .. Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Government of Tamil Nadu rep.,\nby its Secretary and Commissioner \nDepartment of Higher Education \n Fort St. George, Chennai.\n\n 2. The Director of Collegiate Education\n College Road, Chennai.\n\n 3. The Registrar\nManonmaniam Sundaranar University \n Tirunelveli.\n\n 4. Regional Director of Collegiate\nEducation, Tirunelveli Region\n Tirunelveli.\n\n 5. The Secretary\n Kamaraj College, Toothukudi.\n\n 6. Dr. J. Mohan Raj ... Respondents\n\n Writ Petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the\nrecords of the 5th respondent pertaining to Ref:31/2005 dated 21.4.2005 and\nquash the same and direct the 5th respondent to promote the petitioner as\nPrincipal.\n\n!For petitioner :: Mr.B.Ravi\n for Mrs. Hema Sampath\n\n^For Respondents \n1,2, & 4 :: Mrs.G. Kavitha\n Government Advocate\n\nFor 3rd respondent:: Mr.C.K.Chandrasekaran \n\nFor 5th respondent:: Mr.Vijay Narayan\n Senior counsel for Mr. Rathina Ashokan\n\nFor 6th respondent :: Mr.K.Venkaeswaran \n\n:Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 108,
"end": 119,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 251,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 475,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 487,
"end": 530,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 558,
"end": 636,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 648,
"end": 689,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 701,
"end": 713,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1105,
"end": 1111,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1146,
"end": 1158,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1198,
"end": 1236,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1272,
"end": 1290,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1318,
"end": 1331,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1372,
"end": 1387,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1415,
"end": 1429,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Ashok Kumar, Metropolitan \nMagistrate (South East)\u00ad 07, Saket Courts, Delhi\n\n State Vs. Ram Bhawan\n Fir No: 272/2011\n U/s: 377/506 Ipc\n Ps: K.M. Pur\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 30,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 104,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 167,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 184,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nDated: 18.07.2007\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.K.Misra\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mrs.Justice R.Banumathi\n\n\nO.S.A. Nos.109 and 247 of 2005\n\n\n\n\nO.S.A.No.109/2005:\nM/s.Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions\nrep. By its Partner cum \nPower of Attorney Holder,\nMr.K.Venkatapathy,\nNo.26, T.N.Nagar,\nPalanipet, Arakkonam 631 002\t\t\t\t: Appellant\n\n\n\t\t\t\tVs.\n\n\n1.The Divisional Railway Manager/Works,\nPalghat Division, Southern Railway,\nPalghat, Kerala.\n\n2.Mr.Pancham [Presiding Arbitrator],\nChief Engineer, Construction Iii,\nSouthern Railway, Egmore, Chennai 8.\nNow Presently the Chief Engineer,\nIntegral Coach Factory, Icf, Chennai 38.\n\n3.Mr.T.P.R.Narayana Rao [Arbitrator],\nFinancial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer,\nMetropolitan Transport Project,\nSouthern Railway, Egmore, Madras 8.\n\n4.Mr.M.Jayachandran [Arbitrator],\nFinancial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer,\nMetropolitan Transport Project,\nSouthern Railway, Egmore, Madras 8.\nNow presently the Financial Advisor &\nChief Accounts Officer,\nStores and Traffic [Wst], New Joint Office,\nSouthern Railway, Ayyanavaram, Chennai-23.\t\t: Respondents\n\n\n\n\tAppeal filed against the Fair and Decretal Order of this Court dated 30.06.2004 made in O.P.No.78/2003.\n\n\t\t\tFor appellant \t\t: Mr.Amalaraj S.Penikilapatti\n\t\t\tFor respondents\t\t: Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar for R-1\n\n\n\nO.S.A.No.109/2005:\nThe Divisional Railway Manager/Works,\nPalghat Division, Southern Railway,\nPalghat, Kerala.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t: Appellant\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\tVs.\n\n\n1.Sree Kamatchi Amman Constructions\nNo.26, T.N.Nagar,\nPalanipet, Arakkonam 631 002\t\t\t\n\n2.Sri.Pancham [Presiding Arbitrator],\nChief Engineer, Construction Iii,\nSouthern Railway, Egmore, Chennai 8.\n\n3.Mr.M.Jayachandran [Arbitrator],\nFinancial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer,\nMetropolitan Transport Project,\nSouthern Railway, Egmore, Madras 8.\n\n4.Mr.T.P.R.Narayana Rao [Arbitrator],\nFinancial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer,\nMetropolitan Transport Project,\nSouthern Railway, Egmore, Madras 8.\t\t\t\t\t: Respondents\n\n\n\tAppeal filed against the Fair and Decretal Order of this Court dated 30.06.2004 made in O.P.No.446/2002.\n\n\t\tFor appellant \t : Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar\n\t\tFor respondents\t : Mr.Amalaraj S.Penikilapatti for R-1\n\n\n\n\nCommon Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 114,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 157,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 251,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 402,
"end": 487,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 495,
"end": 502,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 679,
"end": 697,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 830,
"end": 844,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1268,
"end": 1292,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1318,
"end": 1334,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1369,
"end": 1455,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1494,
"end": 1508,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1580,
"end": 1587,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1689,
"end": 1703,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1836,
"end": 1854,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2131,
"end": 2147,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2172,
"end": 2196,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Arun Bhardwaj\n Presiding Officer: Motor Accident Claims\n Tribunal-Ii, Dwarka Courts: New Delhi\n\n Mact No. 356/12\n\n\nIn The Matter Of : -\n\n 1. Smt. Deepika Sharma, (Widow)\n W/o late Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sharma\n\n 2. Ms. Priyanshi (Daughter)\n D/o late Sh. Ravinder Kumar Sharma\n\n 3. Smt. Dhanno Devi (Mother)\n W/o late Sh. Tara Chand\n\n All R/o 512, Post Office Wali Gali,\n Samalkha Village, Delhi-37.\n\n ... Claimants\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n 1. Sh. Parveen Kumar (Driver)\n S/o Sh. Joginder Pal Singh,\n R/o Gali No. 2, Jakla Nagar,\n Shahdra, New Delhi-32.\n\n 2. Sh. Mukesh Chainani (Owner)\n S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Chainani\n R/o H.No. 1497, Gali Arya Samaj Bazar,\n Sita Ram, New Delhi-6.\n\n\n\n\nMact No. 356/12 Smt. Deepika Sharma & Ors. v. Sh. Parveen Kumar & Ors. Page 1 of 17\n 3. National Ins. Co. Ltd. (Insurer)\n Division No. 7,\n 50, Janpath, New Delhi.\n\n ... Respondents Filed On : 14.08.2012\n Heard On : 18.02.2014\n Decided On : 26.02.2014\n\n\n\n -: J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 126,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 221,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 292,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 368,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 621,
"end": 634,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 753,
"end": 768,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 985,
"end": 1007,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nBail Appl No. 7311 of 2007()\n\n\n1. Berin P.Varghese, Aged 22, Student,\n ... Petitioner\n2. Arun Raj.M.R., Aged 23 Years,\n3. Abin Baby Mathew, Aged 20, Student,\n4. Asim.R., Aged 19, Student,\n5. Ajas Muhammed.T.M., Aged 22, Student,\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala (Crime No.528/2007\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Millu Dandapani\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\n\n Dated :18/12/2007\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 92,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 166,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 202,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 232,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 273,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 342,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 444,
"end": 459,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 537,
"end": 545,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sca/14600/2011\t 45/ 45\tJudgment \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIn\nThe High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSpecial\nCivil Application No. 14600 of 2011\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature: \n \n\n\n \n\nHonourable\nThe Chief Justice Mr.Bhaskar Bhattacharya \n \n\n\n \n\nHonourable\nMr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nHarkaish\nP.Bhadoria - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nUnion\nOf India Thro Ministry Of Finance, & 3 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMr\nVishwas K.Shah for Mr Riddhesh Trivedi\nfor\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMr Ps Champaneri for Respondent(s) : 1, \nMr\nVirendra M Gohil for Respondent(s) : 2, \nMr Kamal B.Trivedi,\nAdvocate General with Mr Tarak Damani for Respondent(s) : 2, \nNotice\nServed By Ds for Respondent(s) : 3 -\n4. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCoram\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHonourable\n\t\t\tThe Chief Justice Mr.Bhaskar Bhattacharya\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHonourable\n\t\t\tMr.Justice J.B.Pardiwala\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 11/10/2012 \n\n \n\nCav\nJudgment \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 85,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 236,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 281,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1030,
"end": 1049,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1079,
"end": 1093,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1220,
"end": 1234,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1242,
"end": 1258,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1286,
"end": 1299,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1327,
"end": 1343,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1371,
"end": 1386,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1413,
"end": 1425,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1645,
"end": 1665,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1739,
"end": 1752,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Arvind Kumar: Presiding Officer Motor\n Accident Claim Tribunal: Karkardooma Courts:\n (Shahdara) : Delhi\n\nM.A.C. Petition No: 163/13\nUnique Case I.D No: 02402C0274222013\n\n1. Sunita W/o Late Sh. Subodh Kumar\n2. Gaurav S/o Late Sh. Subodh Kumar - aged 12 years\n3. Bhavya D/o Late Sh. Subodh Kumar - aged 10 years\n4. B.S. Mittal S/o Sri Ram\n(Petitioner no. 2 and 3 are minor through their mother and natural guardian\nSunita Gupta of petitioner no. 1)\nAll are residence of B.D.-54, Vishaka Enclave,\nPitampura, Delhi-110088 ...Petitioners\n\n Versus\n\n1. Bana S/o Khayali\n R/o H. No. 325, Badarpur,\n New Delhi-110044\n\n2. Gul Mohd. S/o Lal Mohd.\n R/o 116, Block, A-5, Sultan Puri,\n Delhi-110086\n 2nd Add : J-330, Old Seema Puri, Delhi\n\n3. Reliance General Insurance Co. ltd.\n 60, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-III,\n New Delhi-110020\n\n ...Respondents\n\nPresented on : 30.08.2013\nReserved for judgment on : 08.09.2014\nJudgment delivered on : 16.09.2014\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 150,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 228,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 268,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 324,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 385,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 671,
"end": 675,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 741,
"end": 749,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 864,
"end": 898,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Jammu And Kashmir At Jammu \n Cia No. 22 of 1999\n\n Collector Land Acquisition, Thein Dam Project, Basoli\n Petitioner\n\n Sunit Sharma & ors \nRespondents \n! Sh. A. H. Qazi, Additional Advocate General for the Appellants.\n^ Sh. D. R. Khajuria, Advocate for the Respondents.\n\nCoram \nHon'Ble Mr. Justice J. P. Singh \n Dated : 26/04/2006\n\n: Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 128,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 157,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 195,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 265,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 336,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "State Vs. Rohit Saini\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain\n Additional Sessions Judge-01 ( Central): Delhi\n\nSc No. 183/13\nId No. : 02401R0556822013\n\n\n Fir No. : 375/13\n Police Station : Sarai Rohilla\n Under Section : 376/511/506 Ipc & Section\n 10/6/18 Pocso Act\n\n State\n\n\n Versus\n\n Rohit Saini\n S/o Jai Singh\n R/o 180/2,\n Gali No. 2, Padam Nagar, Delhi\n\n\n .........Accused\n\n\n Date of Institution : 29.10.2013\n Date of judgment reserved : 16.07.2014\n Date of judgment : 24.07.2014\n\n\nPresent: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the\n State.\n Sh. Basant Gupta, Advocate, counsel for the accused\n\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 10,
"end": 21,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 68,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 434,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 486,
"end": 497,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 881,
"end": 892,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 974,
"end": 986,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Sh. Balwinder Singh, Metropolitan Magistrate\u00ad03 \n (Traffic), South District, Saket Court, New Delhi.\n\nIn the matter of :\n\nVehicle No. : Dl\u00ad1Rl\u00ad8936\nChallan No. : 677202\nCircle : Hkc\nU/S. : 66/192A, 11.3/177 & 11.8/177 of M.V. Act, 1988. \n\nState\n\nVersus\n\nRajesh Kumar Mishra\nS/o Sh. Ram Prahlad Mishra\nR/o L\u00ad37A, Saurav Vihar, \nJaitpur, Badarpur.\n\nDate of Filing the Challan :07.02.2011\nArguments Heard on :06.12.2013\nDate of Judgment :21.12.2013\nPlea of the accused :Not Guilty \nFinal Order :Acquitted\n\nPresent: Ld. App for the State\n Accused in person alongwith Ld. Counsel Sh. Amrendra \n Kumar Jha.\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 37,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 293,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 322,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 789,
"end": 797,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 817,
"end": 826,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n Writ Petition No.1603/2015\n (Rinku @ Kuldeep Shukla vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others)\n\n\n\n15/04/2015\n\n Per Rohit Arya, J :\n This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of\n India has been filed to challenge the detention order\n No.04/NSA/2013, Sidhi, dated 26/12/2014 at pre-execution\n stage, whereby the District Magistrate Sidhi in exercise of\n powers under clause 2 of Section 3 of the National Security\n Act, 1980 [No.65 of 1980] (hereinafter referred to the as 'the\n Act of 1980') has ordered detention of petitioner- Rinku alias\n Kuldeep Shukla, S/o- Raghvendra Shukla, R/o Bhitari, Police\n Station Rampur Naikin, District Sidhi and to keep him in\n central Jail, Rewa, preventing him from acting in any manner\n prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.\n 2. The detention order No.04/NSA/2013, Sidhi, dated\n 26/12/2014, on record as Annexure P/2, is quoted below:-\n \"Detention Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 110,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 115,
"end": 138,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 193,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Cri. Appeal No. 167/13\n 1\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court At Bombay\n Appellate Side, Bench At Aurangabad\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No. 167 Of 2013\n\n\n Balaji s/o. Maruti Kamble,\n Age 24 years, Occu. Driver,\n\n\n\n\n \n R/o. Anjali Nagar, Latur,\n Tal. & District Latur. ....Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n\n \n The State of Maharashtra\n Through Police Station Officer,\n Police Station, Gandhi Chowk,\n \n Latur, Tal. & District Latur. ....Respondent.\n\n\n Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for appellant.\n \n\n Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar, App for State.\n Mr. S.N. Patil, Advocate for assisting App.\n \n\n\n\n Coram : T.V. Nalawade, J.\n Dated : 11th December, 2014.\n\n\n\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 169,
"end": 239,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 361,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 653,
"end": 673,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 838,
"end": 850,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 893,
"end": 908,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 934,
"end": 944,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1025,
"end": 1038,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 279 of 2001(A)\n\n\n\n1. Sahadevan\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n1. State Of Kerala\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.M.R.Rajendran Nair (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K.Mohanan\n\n Dated :02/12/2008\n\n O R D E R\n V.K.Mohanan, J.\n ---------------------------------------------\n Crl.A.No. 279 of 2001 &\n Crl.R.P.No.825 of 2001\n ---------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 82,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 168,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 269,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 364,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 421,
"end": 432,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Sh. P.K. Matto, Additional District Judge\u00ad01 \n (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.\n\n\nRca: 43/2013 \nUnique Case Id No.: 02402C0350422013\n\n\nDate of Institution : 25.10.2013\nDate of Reserving Judgment : 10.11.2014 \nDate on which judgment was pronounced : 20.11.2014 \n\nIn Re:\n\nShri Rambir Singh Nagar\ns/o late Shri Mangte Singh\nF\u00ad204, Karkardooma Court Complex,\nDelhi. .... Appellant/Plaintiff\n\n Versus\n 1. Mlo Zone East Ii\n Transport Department \n Govt. of Nct of Delhi\n Surajmal Vihar,Delhi\u00ad92.\n 2. The State(NCT of Delhi)\n (Through its Tpt Secretary)\n 5/9, Under Hill Road,\n Rajpur Road,Delhi\u00ad54.\n 3. The Manager Sales/Registration\n Hyundai Motors,Plaza Delhi,\n A\u00ad30, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,\n Mathura Road,\n New Delhi\u00ad44. ........Respondents/Defendants\u00ad: Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 149,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 346,
"end": 364,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 575,
"end": 591,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 710,
"end": 729,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 851,
"end": 1023,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDate: 31/1/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Honourable Mr.Markandey Katju, The Chief Justice \nAnd \nThe Honourable Mr. Justice D.Murugesan \n\nW.A. No. 73 of 2005 \n\nSalahudeen Babu Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. P.T.Prabhakar\n\n2. Mrs.Nalini Prabhakar\n\n3. Member Secretary, \n Cmda, Chennai-8. \n\n4. Commissioner, \n Corporation of Chennai. Respondents\n\n Prayer: Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the\norder of this Court in Wvmp No.2555 of 2004 in Wpmp No.42837 of 2004 in W.P. \nNo.35562 of 2004 dated 3.1.2005. \n\n!For appellant :: Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, senior\n counsel for Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan\n\n^For respondents :: Mr.R.Krishnamurthy, senior\n 1 and 2 counsel for Mr.B.T.Seshadri\n\nFor Respondent :: Mr.V.Perumal \n No.3\n\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 116,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 196,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 248,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 317,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 342,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 385,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 432,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 685,
"end": 700,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 740,
"end": 756,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 782,
"end": 797,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 845,
"end": 857,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 881,
"end": 890,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 cam.448.14.doc\n\n jdk\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n Civil Application No. 448 Of 2014\n\n\n\n\n \n In\n Family Court Appeal No. 142 Of 2014\n\n\n\n\n \n Mrs. Sonia Kunwar Singh Bedi ]\n Age 37 years, residing at ]\n 244, The Embassy Ali ]\n Aksar Road, Bangalore 560052 ].. Applicant\n [Ori. Respondent]\n\n\n\n\n \n Vs. \n Mr. Kunwar Singh Bedi ]\n Age 45 years, ]\n \n Residing at 41-A, ]\n Meherina Napean Sea Road, ]\n Mumbai ].. Respondent\n [Ori. Appellant]\n \n\n\n ....\n Mr. Robin Jaisinghani along with Nirman Sharma Advocate i/b\n \n\n\n\n Ms. Edith Dey Advocate for the Applicant\n Mr. R.T. Lalwani along with Mr. Prakash Mahadik Advocate for\n the Respondent\n ....\n\n\n\n\n\n Coram : Smt.V.K.Tahilramani And\n Shri. A.K.Menon, Jj.\n Reserved On : Dec. 10, 2014 Pronounced On : Dec. 17, 2014 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 225,
"end": 259,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 707,
"end": 730,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1316,
"end": 1333,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1993,
"end": 2010,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2022,
"end": 2035,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2076,
"end": 2085,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2125,
"end": 2137,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2153,
"end": 2168,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2312,
"end": 2327,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2394,
"end": 2403,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl Mc No. 1161 of 2007()\n\n\n1. Abdul Samad, Aged 30 Years,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. District Collector,\n\n For Petitioner :Smt.Rinci Antony.T\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B.Koshy\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.Hema\n\n Dated :17/09/2007\n\n O R D E R\n J.B.Koshy & K.Hema, Jj.\n ---------------------------------------------------\n W.P.(C) Nos.9141 & 9958 of 2007\n &\n CRL.M.C.No.1161 Of 2007\n ---------------------------------------------------\n Dated 17th September, 2007\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 188,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 256,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 308,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 388,
"end": 397,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 423,
"end": 429,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 486,
"end": 495,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 498,
"end": 504,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Wp 41352/2001\n 1\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 14Th Day Of December, 2012\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice B.S.Patil\n\n W.P.No.41352/2001 (Bda)\n\nBetween:\n\nOffshore Holdings Pvt. Ltd.,\nA company incorporated under\nthe Companies Act, 1956,\nhaving its registered office at\nNo.32, Seshadri Road,\nBangalore - 560 009,\nAnd its Administrative Office\nat Unit 307, 3rd Floor, \"Mbc\",\nNo.134, Infantry Road,\nBangalore - 560 001,\nRepresented by its Director,\nMr. Mukesh Gupta. ... Petitioner\n\n(By Sri A.K.Ganguly, Sr. Counsel &\n Sri Ananth Mandagi, Sr. Counsel for\n Sri T.V.Ratnam and Sri Pramod N.Kathavi, Advs.)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Bangalore Development Authority,\n A Statutory Body constituted\n Under the Bangalore Development'\n Authority Act, 1976,\n Having its office at T.Chowdaiah Road,\n Kumara Park West,\n Bangalore - 560 020,\n Represented by its Commissioner.\n\n2. The Deputy Commissioner\n (Land Acquisition)\n Bangalore Development Authority,\n Wp 41352/2001\n 2\n\n\n\n Having its office at\n T.Chowdaiah Road,\n Kumara Park West,\n Bangalore - 560 020.\n\n3. The Assistant Executive Engineer,\n Bangalore Development Authority,\n No.3, North Sub-Division, Bda,\n Having its office at Bda Nursery Farm,\n Devasandra, New Bel Road,\n Bangalore - 560 094.\n\n4. Government of Karnataka,\n Housing and Urban Development\n Secretariat, Vidhana Soudha,\n Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Veedhi,\n Bangalore - 560 001,\n Represented by its\n Principal Secretary. ... Respondents\n\n(By Sri D.N.Nanjunda Reddy, Sr. Counsel for\n Sri K.Krishna, Adv. for R-1 to 3;\n Sri Vijay Kumar Patil, Hcgp for R-4)\n\n This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the\nConstitution of India, praying to quash the resolution dated\n31.12.1997 passed by R1 vide Annexure-A, the notification\ndated 03.01.1977 issued by R1 vide Annexure-B and the final\nnotification dated 02.08.1978 issued by R4 vide Annexure-C.\n\n This petition having been heard and reserved for orders\non 18.09.2012, coming on 'pronouncement', group this day, the\nCourt made the following:\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 101,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 232,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 314,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 645,
"end": 656,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 680,
"end": 694,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 720,
"end": 730,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 739,
"end": 755,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 776,
"end": 807,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1048,
"end": 1232,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1345,
"end": 1411,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1556,
"end": 1579,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1801,
"end": 1819,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1845,
"end": 1854,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1883,
"end": 1900,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20144 of 2013\n===========================================================\n1. Namita Singh Wife of Prof. Laxmi Narain Singh Resident of Kharhari Kothi, North Bisar Tank, District- Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. The Union of India through Secretary, Petroleum, New Delhi\n2. The Chairman, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai- 400020\n3. The General Manager, North Central Zone Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 1- Nehru Enclave, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow- 226010\n4. The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation through Chief Area Manager(Retail), Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, 6th Floor, Dakbanglow Chowk, Patna\n5. The Senior Regional Manager, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Lok Nayak Bhawan, Dakbunglow Chowk, Patna\n6. Anuj Kumar Mehta S/o Late Sukhdeo Lal Mehta Village- Baradih Baragandhar, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Gaya, Bihar- 823003 .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prakash Sahay, Adv. \n\nFor the Respondent/s : Mr. N. A. Shamsi, A.S.G. \n\n=========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 179,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 325,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 450,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 458,
"end": 571,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 586,
"end": 617,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 726,
"end": 830,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 834,
"end": 850,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1077,
"end": 1090,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1126,
"end": 1138,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1239,
"end": 1250,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Reserved on: 4th January, 2012\n Pronounced on: 30th January, 2012\n+ Mac.App. 590/2011\n\n Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co Ltd.\n .... Appellant\n Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv.\n\n versus\n\n Master Manmeet Singh & Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans, Adv.\n for R-1 to 4.\n\n+ Mac.App. 563/2010\n Reserved on: 16th January, 2012\n\n Oriental Insurance Company Ltd..... Appellant\n Through: Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa, Adv.\n\n versus\n\n Keshav Parshad & Ors ..... Respondent\n Through: Ms.Manjeet Chawla, Adv.\n\n+ Mac.App. 753/2011\n Reserved on: 16th January, 2012\n\n Duli Chand & Ors. ..... Appellants\n Through: Mr. Sanjeev Srivastava, Adv.\n\n versus\n\n Inder Pal & Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate\n for R-3.\n\n\n\n\nMac App 590/2011 Etc. Page 1 of 32\n + Mac.App. 772/2011\n Reserved on: 16th January, 2012\n\n Arun Sharma & Ors ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Navneet Goyal, Adv. with\n Ms. Suman N. Rawat, Advocate\n versus\n\n Ram Kumar Tyagi & Ors ..... Respondent\n Through: Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv. for\n R-3/Uiicl.\n\n+ Mac.App. 857/2011\n Reserved on: 25th January, 2012\n\n Shiv Kumar & Ors. ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n\n Randhir Singh & Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through: Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate\n for R-3.\n\n+ Mac.App. 289/2010\n Reserved on: 23rd January, 2012\n\n New India Assurance Co Ltd. ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv.\n\n versus\n\n\n Tara Chand & Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. S.N. Parashar, Adv.\n\n\n\n\nMac App 590/2011 Etc. Page 2 of 32\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice G.P.Mittal\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 264,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 372,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 421,
"end": 441,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 507,
"end": 524,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 681,
"end": 711,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 762,
"end": 777,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 826,
"end": 840,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 911,
"end": 925,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1038,
"end": 1048,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1134,
"end": 1152,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1201,
"end": 1210,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1296,
"end": 1307,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1534,
"end": 1545,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1624,
"end": 1637,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1688,
"end": 1702,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1754,
"end": 1769,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1839,
"end": 1852,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2010,
"end": 2020,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2099,
"end": 2110,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2165,
"end": 2178,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2257,
"end": 2268,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2428,
"end": 2455,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2515,
"end": 2531,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2581,
"end": 2591,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2672,
"end": 2685,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2803,
"end": 2813,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated:\t29.01.2007\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.Manikumar\n\n\nC.M.A.No.3047 Of 2005\n\n\nR.M.Bedi\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\n\t\t\t\tvs.\n\n\n1.\tM/s.Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd.,\n\twith its registered Corporate Office at\n\tNo.1088, Avanashi Road, Coimbatore - 18.\n\n2.\tFederated Mercandising Group, India\n\tOffice No.26, Basanth Lok,\n\tVasantha Vihar, New Delhi - 110 057.\t\t... Respondents\n\n\n\n\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(c) Cpc, against the order and decree dated 04.08.2004 made in O.S.No.105 of 2003 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore.\n\n\tFor Appellant\t\t:\tMrs.Pushpa Sathyanarayanan\n\t\t\t\t\tfor M/s.T.R.Rajaraman (Sc)\n\n\tFor Respondents\t\t:\tMr.M.S.Krishnan\n\t\t\t\t\tfor M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 141,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 204,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 321,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 668,
"end": 690,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 747,
"end": 759,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Manoj Kumar: Additional \n Sessions Judge\u00ad4 (South District), New Delhi\n \nSessions Case No. 25/14 (Original no. 08/12)\nUnique Id No.: 02406R0328332011\n\nFir No. 82/11\nPolice Station : Mehrauli\n\nIn the matter of:\n\n\nState\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n1. Ravinder Naulakha\n S/o Sh. Rajender Singh Naulakha\n 2. Mohit Naulakha \n S/o Sh. Ravinder Naulakha \n both residents of \n House No. 129, \n Rajpur Khurd Extension, \n New Delhi. ............. Accused\n\n\nDate of Institution : 09.1.2012. \nDate of Reserving judgment: 02.9.2014. \n\n\nSessions Case No. 25/14 Page no. 1 of 54\n Date of pronouncement : 12.9.2014.\n\n\nFor State : Mr. Ahmad Khan, Sr. Additional Public \n Prosecutor.\nFor Defence : Mr. S.P. Ahluwalia and Mr. Puneet \n Ahluwalia, Advocates. \n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 32,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 95,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 277,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 354,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 409,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 902,
"end": 912,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1027,
"end": 1041,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1050,
"end": 1104,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Prabh Deep Kaur\n Civil Judge \u00ad05: (West District)\n Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi\n Suit No. 958/10\n Unique Id No.\n\n\n 1. Sh. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, \n 2. Sh. Ajay Aggarwal, \n Both sons of Sh. Deen Dayal Aggarwal, \n R/o C\u00ad90, Antariksh Tower, Rohini, \n Delhi. \n .............Plaintiff s\n Versus\n\n Smt. Asha Rani W/o Late Sh. V.M. Bhandari, \n R/o 3000/2 Chuna Mandi, \n Gali No. 2, Pahar Ganj, \n New Delhi. \n .............Defendant\n\n Date of filing : 08.01.2003\n Date on which order has been reserved : 13.05.2014\n Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.05.2014\n\n\n\n Judgment \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 171,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 242,
"end": 263,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 302,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 619,
"end": 628,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Snigdha Sarvaria, Civil Judge, \n Central\u00ad05 Tis Hazari Courts , Delhi\n Suit No.133/2014\nIn The Matter Of:\u00ad\n\nShri Raju, son of Shri Nand Kishor, \nresident of 2870\u00ad71, Kucha Chelan,\nDaryaganj, New Delhi. ....plaintiff\n\n Versus\n\nShri Khalil Ahmed,\nSon of Late Shri Hafiz Abdul Mughni,\nresident of 5196, Ballimaran, Delhi. ... Defendant\n\nDate of Institution: 02.03.1998\nDate of Reserving for Judgment: 03.06.2014\nDate of Judgment : 04.08.2014\n\n Suit For Permanent Injunction\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 36,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 102,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 179,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 346,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 23.04.2013\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice K.N.Basha\nand\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice P.Devadass\n\nCrl.A.No.158 of 2013\n\n\nR.Palanisamy\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant\n\n\n\t\t\tVs.\n\n\nState by Inspector of Police, \nB-7, Ramanathapuram Police Station,\nCoimbatore. \t.. Respondent \n\nThis Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment passed in S.C.No.199 of 2010 on 28.1.2013 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Coimbatore.\n\n \t\tFor Appellant\t\t: Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\tFor Respondent \t\t : Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran\n\t\t Addl. Public Prosecutor\n\n- - - - - \n\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 102,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 130,
"end": 140,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 177,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 213,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 569,
"end": 585,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 619,
"end": 634,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Veena Rani, Chief Metropolitan \nMagistrate , South\u00adEast District, Saket Court Complex, \n New Delhi\nCase No. 66/3N\nUnique Case I.D. No.02406R0335952010 \n State Versus Kesar Ali & Anrs.\n\n\n Fir No.93/2010\n U/s 25/54/59 Arms Act\n P. S. Crime Branch\n\nDate of filing of the charge sheet : 20\u00ad08\u00ad2010\nDate of reserving order : 29\u00ad01\u00ad2014\nDate of pronouncement : 31\u00ad01\u00ad2014\n\n1. Serial Number of the case : 66/2N\n2. The date of the commission of the : 24\u00ad06\u00ad2010\n offence\n3. The name of the complainant : Si, Rajender Singh\n4. The name of the accused person, : (1) Sh.Kesar Ali S/o Sh. Gulam \n his parentage and residential Qumar Ahmad, R/o R\u00ad47, Gali \n address No:19, Brahma Puri , Seelam \n Pur, Delhi\u00ad110053\n (2) Kishan @ Lalua S/o Hira \n Singh, R/o A\u00ad146, Usman Pur, \n Delhi.\n5. The offence complained of : Section 25 Arms Act\n6. The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty\n7. The final order : Acquittal\nT\n8heThe date of the order : 31\u00ad01\u00ad2014\n\n\n State Vs. Kesar Ali & Anrs., Fir No:93/2010\n 2\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 155,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 218,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 266,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1587,
"end": 1592,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1597,
"end": 1606,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": ":1:\n\n vss\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n First Appeal No.8 Of 1995\n\n\n\n\n \n Managing Director,\n Mazgaon Docks Ltd., Dockyard Road\n Bombay-400010 ... Appellant\n\n\n\n\n \n V/s.\n\n Vinodbhai Mohanlal Patel ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.S.R. Singh for Appellant\n \n Mr.R.S. Darandale i/b R.S. Datar for Respondent\n \n Coram: Smt.Nishita Mhatre, J.\n Dated: September 22, 2009 Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 74,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 424,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 576,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 676,
"end": 686,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 747,
"end": 756,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 878,
"end": 892,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.604 of 2017\n===========================================================\n1. Ishika Raj Daughter of Rajendra Mandal Resident of Village - Barihat Sabour, Police Station - Sabour, District - Bhagalpur. \n\n .... .... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n2. The Chairman, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna. \n\n3. The Secretary, Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna. \n\n .... .... Respondent/s with =========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1167 of 2017 ===========================================================\n1. Naaj Prawin W/o Brajesh Kumar Raman, Resident of Village- Amarpur Jayrampur @ Lattipur, P.S.- Bihpur, District- Bhagalpur - 853201. \n\n .... .... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. The State of Bihar. \n\n2. The Department of Prison through its Principal Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna (Home Deptt.). \n\n3. The Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna. \n\n4. O.S.D. (Officer on Special Duty), The Central Selection Board (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna. \n\n .... .... Respondent/s with =========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2267 of 2017 ===========================================================\n1. Gyatri Kumari, Daughter of Mahendra Paswan, Wife of Om Narayan Kumar, resident of Village- Malhad, Post office + Police Station and District- Supaul. \n\n .... .... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n2. The Chairman, Central Selection Board, Constable Appointment, Bihar, Patna. \n\n3. The Secretary, Central Selection Board, (Constable Appointment), Bihar, Patna. \n\n .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :\n (In Cwjc No.604 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv. \n\n Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Adv. \n\n Mr. Prem Sheela Pandey, Adv. \n\n For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Nadeem Seraj- Gp5 Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv. \n\n (In Cwjc No.1167 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ujjawal Kumar Sinha, A.C. to Aag3 Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv. \n\n (In Cwjc No.2267 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv. \n\n Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Adv. Mr. Prem Sheela Pandey, Adv\n\n For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nadeem Siraj -Gp5\n\n=========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 178,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 346,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 430,
"end": 501,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 512,
"end": 584,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 786,
"end": 797,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 958,
"end": 972,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 983,
"end": 1003,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1083,
"end": 1144,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1151,
"end": 1250,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1452,
"end": 1465,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1642,
"end": 1656,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1743,
"end": 1813,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1824,
"end": 1897,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2051,
"end": 2071,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2089,
"end": 2107,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2121,
"end": 2139,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2176,
"end": 2193,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2202,
"end": 2215,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2278,
"end": 2290,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2318,
"end": 2337,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2356,
"end": 2369,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2432,
"end": 2452,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2470,
"end": 2488,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2529,
"end": 2547,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2599,
"end": 2611,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2708,
"end": 2719,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 24th Day Of February, 2014\n\n Present\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Mohan.M.Shantanagoudar\n\n And\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice B. Sreenivase Gowda\n\n Mfa No.8494 Of 2009 (Mv)\nBetween:\n\nS. V. Devaraj,\nS/o. Eeraiah,\nAged about 37 years,\nResiding at Somanathapura,\nAkkur Post, Virupakshipura (H),\nChannapatna Taluk,\n\nAnd also at\nC/o. S. L. Madhusudan, No.11,\n5th Main, 3rd Cross, Byatarayanapura,\nNew Extension,\nRamanagara District. ... Appellant\n\n ( By Sri. K. M. Murari Mouni, Advocate)\nAnd:\n\n1. Sri. M. S. Srinivasa,\n S/o. Shankarappa,\n Residing at No.796,\n Nagarabhavi, 9th Block,\n 2nd Stage, Bangalore - 560 026.\n 2\n\n\n\n\n2. The General Manager,\n United India Insurance Company Limited,\n No.40, Lakshmi Complex,\n K. R. Road,\n Bangalore - 560 002. ... Respondents\n\n (By Sri. S. G. Nataraju, Advocate for R.1,\n Sri. B. C. Seetharama Rao, Advocate for R.2)\n\n\n This Mfa filed under section 173(1) of Mv Act\nagainst the Judgment and award dated 05.06.2009\npassed in Mvc No.2510/2007 on the file of the IXth\nAdditional Judge, Member, Mact-7, Court of Small\nCauses-7, Bangalore, partly allowing the claim\npetition for compensation and seeking enhancement\nof compensation.\n\n This appeal having been heard and reserved\nfor judgment, coming on for pronouncement of\nJudgment this day, B. Sreenivase Gowda J.,\ndelivered the following:\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 50,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 179,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 255,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 319,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 595,
"end": 613,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 642,
"end": 657,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 820,
"end": 953,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 990,
"end": 1004,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1035,
"end": 1055,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1503,
"end": 1522,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Wp771/14\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n Writ Petition No.771 Of 2014\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr Rashmikant Kundalia and another ... Petitioners\n v/s\n Union of India and others ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n \n \n Mr B.L. Gandhi i/b Mr K.C. Pandey for Petitioners.\n Mr Anil Singh, Additional Solicitor General with Mr A.R. Malhotra and\n N.A. Kazi for Respondent - Uoi.\n \n Coram : Mohit S. Shah, C.J. &\n B.P. Colabawalla, J.\n Reserved On : 29th January, 2015. \n\n Pronounced On : 09th February, 2015. \n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 106,
"end": 140,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 379,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 452,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 580,
"end": 591,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 599,
"end": 610,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 635,
"end": 645,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 684,
"end": 697,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 706,
"end": 715,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 806,
"end": 819,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 871,
"end": 887,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Srinivasan RAMAN....Applicant(s)V/SSTATE Of Gujarat\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n \n \n\n\n\t \n\n\n\tR/Cr.Ma/15656/2012\n\t \n\t Cav Judgemnt\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\t \n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nIn\n\t\t\tThe High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n \n\n\nCriminal Misc.Application (For\nQuashing & Set Aside Fir/Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 16,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 51,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 299,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 15194 of 2008(H)\n\n\n1. P.K.Vijayan, Puthenkandathil House,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Government Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Kerala State Road Transport\n\n3. The Regional Transport Authority,\n\n4. The Secretary,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.Deepak\n\n For Respondent :Sri.K.Prabhakaran, Sc, K.S.R.T.C.\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Antony Dominic\n\n Dated :24/07/2008\n\n O R D E R\n Antony Dominic, J.\n\n\n = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n W.P.(C) Nos.15194, 17813, 18104, 17868,\n 17987, 17815, 19006, 19824, 19774,\n 21725, 17876, 16167, 15826, 16430,\n 21793 and 21093 Of 2008\n = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = =\n\n\n Dated this the 24th July 2008\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 85,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 206,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 288,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 325,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 344,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 384,
"end": 392,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 431,
"end": 444,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 486,
"end": 500,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 557,
"end": 571,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar \n\nWrit Petition Nos.32710 of \n\n02-03-2015 \n\nSaroj Mehandi and others.PETITIONERS \n\nThe Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat\nBuildings, Hyderabad and two others....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. D. Prakash Reddy For Mr. D. Purnachandra Reddy Mr. T. Niranjan Reddy For Mr. T.Nagarjuna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Advocate General (Ap) Head Note: \n? Cases referred:\n1. 2009 (4) Kert 725 \n2. Air 2000 Sc 679 \n3. Ari 1962 Sc 911 \n4. Air 1981 Sc 728 \n5. Air 1953 Sc 318 \n6. Air 1971 Sc 263 \n7. 1985 (Supp) Scc 144 \n8. 2012 (2) Scc 72 \n9. Air 1975 Sc 2154 \n10. Ari 1975 Sc 623 \n11. (2006) 3 Scc 321 The Hon'Ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar Writ Petition Nos.32710, 33777, 33338 and 32150 of 2014 The Court made the following:\nCommon Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 112,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 174,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 320,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 350,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 372,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 398,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 754,
"end": 774,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nRP.No. 670 of 2010(S)\n\n\n1. The Chief Secretary To Government,\n ... Petitioner\n2. The Executive Engineer,\n3. The Superintendent Of Police (Rural)\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Khalid Mundappilly, Mundappilly House,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Government Pleader\n\n For Respondent :Sri.T.R.Rajan\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.N.Ramachandran Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S.Gopinathan\n\n Dated :13/08/2010\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 102,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 167,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 207,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 261,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 417,
"end": 426,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 452,
"end": 473,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 498,
"end": 512,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-( 1 )- S.A.No. 449/1997\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh: Jabalpur\n Second Appeal No. 449 / 1997\n\n\n Ram Kripal\n\n Versus\n\n Veerbhadra & others\n______________________________________________\nShri Shiv Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the\nappellant/defendant.\n\nShri Satyendra Prasad, learned counsel for the\nrespondents No. 1 to 3.\n______________________________________________\n\nPresent : Hon'ble Shri R.S. Jha, J.:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 160,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 226,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 304,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 373,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 503,
"end": 511,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court Of Meghalaya\n\n Wp(C) No.155/2015\nShri. Pawan Bawri,\nS/o (L) J.N. Bawri,\nR/o Oxford Hills, Rilbong,\nShillong, East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya :::: Petitioner\n\n -Vs-\n\n1. State of Meghalaya represented by the Principal Secretary to the\nGovt. of Meghalaya, Revenue Department, Shillong.\n\n2. The Collector and Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills\nDistrict, Shillong.\n\n3. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), East Khasi\nHills District, Shillong.\n\n4. The Under Secretary, Revenue Department, Govt. of Meghalaya,\nShillong. :::: Respondents Before Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Uma Nath Singh, Chief Justice Hon'Ble Mr. Justice T. Nandakumar Singh For the petitioner : Mr. Aman Sinha, Sr Adv Mr. N Mozika, Adv Mr. Sanjay K Pathak, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Nd Chullai, Sr.GA Mr. S Sen Gupta, Addl.Sr.GA Date of hearing : 14.12.2015 Date of Judgment & Order : 16.12.2015 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 27,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 86,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 247,
"end": 265,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 440,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 450,
"end": 528,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 537,
"end": 603,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 689,
"end": 703,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 739,
"end": 758,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 784,
"end": 794,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 807,
"end": 815,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 825,
"end": 840,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 872,
"end": 882,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 894,
"end": 905,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\t\t\t\t\t\nDated : 06.02.2012\n\nCoram :\n\nThe Honourable Mrs.JUSTICE R.Banumathi\nand\nThe Honourable Mrs.JUSTICE S.Vimala\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1905 Of 2010\n\n\nM/s.ICICI Lombard General\nInsurance Company Limited,\n\"Chottabhai Centre\"\nIi Floor, Nungambakkam High Road,\nChennai-600 034.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant.\n\nVs.\n\n1.U.Rengarajulu\n2.R.Saroja\n3.Renuka\n4.R.Rajamohan\n5.R.Sujatha\n6.V.Lawrence\n7.Jessi Constructions\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents.\n\n\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order dated 12.01.2010 made in M.C.O.P.No.101 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Chief Judicial Magistrate], Cudallore.\n\n\t\t\tFor Appellant \t\t: Mr.K.S.Narasimhan\n\n\t\t\tFor Respondents\t\t: Mr.Sridhar for R1 to R5\n\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 155,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 253,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 367,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 378,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 387,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 388,
"end": 401,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 402,
"end": 413,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 414,
"end": 426,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 427,
"end": 434,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 729,
"end": 743,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 770,
"end": 777,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honourable Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy And The Honourable Sri Justice M.S.K.Jaiswal\n\nCriminal Appeal No.781 of 2010\n\nDated:06-04-2016 \n\nLanke Mohana Rao ... Appellant \n\nVs.\n\nState of Andhra Pradesh ... Respondent Counsel for the appellant: Smt. A. Gayatri Reddy Counsel for Respondent : Public Prosecutor (Ap) Head Note: \n?Citations \n1. Air 1979 Sc 1382 \n2. (2002) 8 Scc 45 \n3. (2006) 10 Scc 681 \n4. (2016) 1 Scc 550 \n5. 1999 Scc (1) Supp. 80 \n6. (2007) 13 Scc 90 \n7. 1989 Supp (1) Scc 91 \n8. (1992) 3 Scc 300 \n9. (1993) 3 Scc 573 \n10. (1992) 3 Scc 106 \n11. (1993) 2 Scc 684 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 47,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 92,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 161,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 206,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 270,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Virender Kumar Goyal\n Addl Sessions Judge: Fast Track Court \n Rohini:Delhi\nSc No. 01/01/11\nUnique Identification No. 02404R1000732003\nState \nVersus\n1) Aman Bhardwaj @ Bobby\n Son of Jagdish Bhardwaj\n R/o Village Lamkheda, Po Charat Garh\n District Una (H.P.)\n\n2. Kapil Sharma @ Monu\n Son of Mohinder Kumar Sharma\n R/o Flat no. 712/15, Gtb Nagar,\n Sion Kali Bada (Bombay)\n\n3. Mohd. Tayyab\n Son of Tahir\n R/o C\u00ad256, Sector\u00ad11,\n Vijay Nagar, \n Ghaziabad (U.P.)\n\n4. Amit @ Mandeep\n Son of Sohan Singh\n R/o A\u00ad7, Mohan Garden,\n Uttam Nagar, Delhi. ............ (Since expired)\n\n\n\n Fir No. 383/03\n Ps -Paschim Vihar \n U/s. 364/302/201/34 of Ipc\n\n\n\nSc No. 01/01/11 1/42\n Date of institution of the case: 21/10/2003\n Arguments heard on: 05/01/2012\n Date of reservation of order: 05/01/2012\n Date of Decision: 13/01/2012\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 192,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 233,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 382,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 525,
"end": 537,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 675,
"end": 689,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : At Jabalpur\n\n\n Writ Petition No : 1281 of 2016\n\n Ankita Chandrawat and another\n - V/s -\n Mp High Court and another.\n\n\n\n Writ Petition No : 1224 of 2016\n\n Deepak Kumar Shukla and others\n - V/s -\n Mp High Court and another.\n\nPresent : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon,\n Acting Chief justice; and,\n Hon'ble Shri Justice Anurag Shrivastava.\n\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n In both the cases.\n Shri Amitabh Gupta and Shri Prashant Chourasiya,\n Counsel for the petitioners.\n\n Shri K.N. Fakhruddin, counsel for the respondents.\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Whether approved for reporting: Yes / No.\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 124,
"end": 141,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 234,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 348,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 425,
"end": 438,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 510,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 604,
"end": 622,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 751,
"end": 764,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 774,
"end": 793,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 844,
"end": 859,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl A No. 1405 of 2003()\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Represented By The\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Sebastian @ Chevathiyan,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Public Prosecutor\n\n For Respondent :Sri.V.B.Premachandran.State Brief.\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Radhakrishnan\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Padmanabhan Nair\n\n Dated :26/09/2006\n\n O R D E R\n K.S.Radhakrishnan & K. Padmanabhan Nair ,Jj\n -------------------------------------------------\n Crl. Appeal.NO.1405 of 2003\n -------------------------------------------------\n Dated, this the 26th day of September, 2006\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 87,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 203,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 356,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 412,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 455,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 498,
"end": 515,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 516,
"end": 537,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "cria349.09\n 1\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n \n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay \n\n\n\n\n \n Bench At Aurangabad\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No.349 Of 2009\n\n\n Sitaram Tukaram Masulkar,\n\n\n\n\n \n Age-41 years, Occu: Agriculture,\n R/o-Pokhari (N), \n Dist-Parbhaniig\n ...Appellant. \n (Original Accused No.1) \n \n Versus \n \n\n\n The State of Maharashtra,\n \n\n\n\n \n ...Respondent.\n\n\n\n\n\n ...\n Shri. Satyajit S. Bora Advocate for the \n Appellant.\n Smt. R.K. Ladda, A.P.P. for the \n Respondent - State. \n\n\n\n\n\n ...\n\n\n\n With\n\n\n\n\n \n cria349.09\n 2\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No.602 Of 2009\n\n The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n \n Through: Police Station, Daithana,\n Dist-Parbhani.\n ...Appellant. \n \n\n\n\n\n \n Versus \n\n 1) Rama s/o Tukaram Masulkar,\n Age-40 years, Occu:Agril.,\n\n\n\n\n \n R/o-Pokharni (N), Dist-Parbhani,\n \n 2) Laxman s/o Tukaram Masulkar,\n Age-27 years, Occu: Agri.,\n R/o- As above,\n \n 3) Shivaji s/o Mariba Bele,\n Age-37 years, Occu:Agri.,\n R/o- As above.\n \n\n\n 4) Saheb s/o Laxman Bele,\n \n\n\n\n Age-43 years, Occu:Agri.,\n R/o-As above,\n\n 5) Mariba s/o Lingu Bele,\n\n\n\n\n\n Age-65 years, Occu:Agri.,\n R/o- As above,\n\n 6) Balasaheb s/o Mariba Bele,\n Age-45 years, Occu: Agri.,\n R/o-As above. \n\n\n\n\n\n ...Respondents.\n\n ...\n Smt.R.K. Ladda, A.P.P. for Appellant - State.\n Shri. Satyajit S. Bora Advocate for \n Respondents \n ...\n\n\n\n\n \n cria349.09\n 3\n\n\n With\n\n\n\n\n \n \n Criminal Revision Application No.209 Of 2009\n\n\n\n\n \n Bhausaheb s/o Uttamrao Bele,\n Age-22 years, Occu: Education,\n R/o-Pokhari (N), Tq-Parbhani,\n Dist-Parbhani.\n\n\n\n\n \n ...Applicant. \n (Original Complainant) \n Versus \n\n 1) The State of Maharashtra,\n\n\n\n\n \n Through Police Station,\n Daithana, Dist-Parbhani,\n \n 2) Sitaram Tukaram Masulkar,\n Age-42 years, Occu:Agri.,\n \n 3) Rama Tukaram Masulkar,\n Age-Major,\n \n\n 4) Laxman Tukaram Masulkar,\n Age-27 years, Occu: Agri., \n \n\n\n\n 5) Shivaji Mariba Bele,\n Age-37 years, Occu:Agri., \n\n\n\n\n\n 6) Saheb s/o Laxman Bele,\n Age-43 years, Occu:Agri., \n\n 7) Mariba Lingu Bele,\n Age-65 years, Occu:Agri., \n\n\n\n\n\n 8) Balasaheb Mariba Bele,\n Age-45 years, Occu: Agri.,\n\n All R/o-Pokharni (N),\n Dist-Parbhani. \n ...Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n cria349.09\n 4\n\n\n ...\n\n\n\n\n \n Shri. S.G. Joshi Advocate for Applicant.\n Smt. R.K. Ladda, A.P.P.for Respondent\n No.1 - State.\n\n\n\n\n \n Shri. Satyajit S. Bora Advocate for \n Respondent Nos.2 to 8. \n ...\n\n\n\n\n \n \n Coram: Naresh H. Patil And \n T.V. Nalawade, Jj.\n Date : 24Th March, 2011. \n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 183,
"end": 304,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 425,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 719,
"end": 739,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 858,
"end": 874,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 926,
"end": 936,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1312,
"end": 1332,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1609,
"end": 1613,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1770,
"end": 1776,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1882,
"end": 1889,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1981,
"end": 1986,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2076,
"end": 2082,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2170,
"end": 2179,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2358,
"end": 2368,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2415,
"end": 2431,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2868,
"end": 2877,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3184,
"end": 3204,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3329,
"end": 3353,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3414,
"end": 3436,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3473,
"end": 3497,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3552,
"end": 3571,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3623,
"end": 3628,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3692,
"end": 3709,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3761,
"end": 3782,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 4204,
"end": 4214,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4252,
"end": 4262,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4370,
"end": 4386,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4567,
"end": 4582,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 4618,
"end": 4631,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Patna High Court Cr. App (Db) No.146 of 2014 (8) 1\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Criminal Appeal (Db) No.146 of 2014\n ======================================================\n Jainath Prasad son of Late Ram Briksh Prasad, resident of Village- Baishakhwa, P.S. Keshwaria, District East Champaran .... Appellant Versus\n 1. The State of Bihar\n 2. Brahma Prasad son of Late Mukhlal Prasad, resident of Village Baishkhwa, P.S. Kesharia, District East Champaran, Motihari .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : M/s Rakesh Kumar, Rikesh Sinha\n For the State : Mr. A.K. Sinha, Addl.P.P.\n For Amicus Curiae : Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate\n Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Sr. Advocate\n ====================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice I. A. Ansari and Honourable Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh Cav Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 126,
"end": 159,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 320,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 469,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 487,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 732,
"end": 744,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 746,
"end": 758,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 810,
"end": 820,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 883,
"end": 907,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 974,
"end": 991,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1092,
"end": 1104,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1132,
"end": 1155,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Chandra Bose, Civil Judge -Senior Division\n Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.\n\n Suit No. 196/12\n Id No. 02401C0401452006\n\nBank of India\nhaving its Head Office at\nStar House, G-Block,\nPlot No. C-5, Bandara Kurla Complex,\nBandara (East) Mumbai - 400 051\nand inter alia branch office at\nYwa Hostel Building, Avenue 21,\nSaket, New Delhi.\nThrough. Its constituted attorney\nSmt. C. K. Bharti. ............. plaintiff\n\n\n vs\n\n\n1. Sh. Amit Jain\n R/o 214-A, Gautam Nagar,\n New Delhi - 110 049.\n\n Also at :\n Sh. Amit Jain\n Shop No. B-Ii/16,\n Madangir, New Delhi - 62.\n\n2. Sh. Dinesh Dhamija\n Proprietor of\n M/s Dhami Cycle Works\n B-202, Dda Flats, Kalkaji,\n New Delhi - 19. ............. defendants\n\n\nDate of Institution of Suit : 10-05-2006\nDate of reserve for judgment : 08-04-2015\nDate of announcement of Judgment : 19-05-2015\n\nSuit No. 196/12 1/20\nBank of India vs Amit Jain & rs.\n Suit For Recovery Of Rs.33,561/-\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 114,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 278,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 516,
"end": 528,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 625,
"end": 634,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 728,
"end": 737,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 811,
"end": 825,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1213,
"end": 1226,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1278,
"end": 1287,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Crl Rev P No. 296/2009\n\n Hdfc Bank Limited ..... Petitioner\n Through Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n Amit Kumar Singh ..... Respondent\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar\n\n 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n allowed to see the judgment? No\n\n 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n\n 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 107,
"end": 124,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 208,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 277,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 381,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Request Case No.14 of 2016\n===========================================================\nSdb- Sps (Jv), a Joint Venture between Som Datt Builders Private Limited & Superintendent of Police Singla Constructions Pvt Ltd., having its office at 56-58, Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi 110 065 through its Authorised Signatory Shri A.K.Mirchandani, S/o Late Shri K.L.Mirchandani, resident of House No.109, Sector-7, Panchkula, P.S. Panchkula, Haryana. \n\n .... .... Petitioner Versus\n1. Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd. through its Managing Director, having its Registered Office at 7, Sardar Patel Marg, Patna 15, Bihar. \n\n2. The Managing Director, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd., having its Registered Office at 7, Sardar Patel Marg, Patna 15, Bihar. \n\n3. The Senior Project Engineer, Works Division No.2, Bihar Rajya Pul Nirman Nigam Ltd., having its Registered Office at 7, Sardar Patel Marg, Patna 15, Bihar. \n\n .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Petitioner : Mr. Anirudh Wadhwa, Advocate Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate Ms. Aparna Arun, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Priyadarshi, Advocate =========================================================== Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 168,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 421,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 560,
"end": 593,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 705,
"end": 757,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 839,
"end": 918,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1114,
"end": 1128,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1143,
"end": 1158,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1173,
"end": 1184,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1221,
"end": 1247,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 86 of 2006(C)\n\n\n1. R.Shaji, S/O.Raghavan,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Represented By\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.M.K.Damodaran (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Bhavadasan\n\n Dated :10/12/2009\n\n O R D E R\n K. Balakrishnan Nair & P. Bhavadasan, Jj.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Crl. Appeal Nos. 86, 193 of 2006 &\n 1796 of 2007\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 78,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 181,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 293,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 396,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 421,
"end": 433,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 498,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 501,
"end": 514,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDate : 11.02.2011\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. M.Y.Eqbal, Chief Justice\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice P.Jyothimani\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice T.S.Sivagnanam\n\nW.A. Nos. 592 & 938 Of 2009\n\nW.A. No. 592 Of 2009\n\nM/s.Latif Estate Line India Ltd.\nrep. by its Managing Director\nMr. Habib Abdul Latif\nNo.14, Temple Road\nSecretariat Colony\nKilpauk, Chennai \u0016 10.\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellants\n\n- Vs -\n\n1. Mrs. Hadeeja Ammal\n\n2. The Inspector General of Registration\n Santhome, Chennai \u0016 4.\n\n3. The Sub Registrar\n Ambattur, Chennai.\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\nW.A. No.938 Of 2009\n\n1. Habib Abdul Latif\n2. Mohideen Abdul Latif\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellants\n\n- Vs -\n\n1. Syeda Aamina Raheem\n rep. by her Power of Attorney\n Agent, V.Veeramani, Chennai.\n\n2. The Sub Registrar\n Registration Department.\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\nW.A. No.592 of 2009 filed against the order made by learned single Judge in W.P. No.27291 of 2008 dated 10th Feb., 2009.\n\tW.A. No.938 of 2009 filed against the order made by learned single Judge in W.P. No.17555 of 2008 dated 10th Feb., 2009.\nFor Appellants \t: Mr. V.Raghavachari\n\n\t\tFor Respondents \t: Mr. J.Raja Kalifulla, Govt. Pleader\n\t\t\t\t\t Ms. Chitra Sampath \u0016 Amicus Curiae\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 99,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 154,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 200,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 285,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 434,
"end": 447,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 456,
"end": 513,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 525,
"end": 561,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 606,
"end": 623,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 627,
"end": 647,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 678,
"end": 697,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 773,
"end": 821,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1102,
"end": 1116,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1143,
"end": 1159,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1186,
"end": 1200,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12858 of 2015\n===========================================================\nArvind Kumar Thakur Son of Devendra Nath Thakur resident of Village- Vishwanathpur, Main Road Nh-77, P.S Dumra, District Sitamarhi. \n\n .... .... Petitioner Versus\n1. The Union of India through secretary Ministry of Road Transport & Highways Government of India\n2. The Chairman ,National Highways Authority of India , New Delhi. \n\n3. The Project Director , Piu, National Highways Authority of India, 3rd Floor, Sharma Sadan, Opposite Dav School Khabra, Nh-28, Muzaffarpur\n4. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. \n\n .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Adv. For the Respondent State : Mr. P.K. Verma, Aag5 Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, Ac to Aag5 For the Respondent (Uoi): Mr. S.D.Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General of India Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, Adv.. \n\n=========================================================== Coram: Honourable The Acting Chief Justice and Honourable Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh Cav Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 184,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 349,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 491,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 502,
"end": 556,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 643,
"end": 673,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 800,
"end": 814,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 852,
"end": 862,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 873,
"end": 891,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 934,
"end": 944,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 983,
"end": 1004,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1144,
"end": 1168,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWA.No. 1399 of 2006()\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Petitioner\n2. The Secretary To Govt.,\n3. The Director Of Sainik Welfare,\n4. The Accountant General (A&E),\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Capt. Samuel Mathew Parakkat,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Government Pleader\n\n For Respondent :Sri.P.C.Sasidharan\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T.Ravikumar\n\n Dated :12/01/2010\n\n O R D E R\n K. Balakrishnan Nair & C.T.Ravikumar, Jj.\n\n ------------------------------\n W.A.No.1399/2006\n ------------------------------\n\n Dated this, the 12th day of January, 2010\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 148,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 184,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 211,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 281,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 432,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 458,
"end": 477,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 502,
"end": 515,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 553,
"end": 573,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 576,
"end": 589,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 4423 of 2014\n In\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11263 of 2007\n===========================================================\nParmanand Rai, aged about 67 years, Son of Late Deyali Rai, resident of Biscomaun Colony, Police Station-Alamganj (Patnacity), District-Patna. \n\n .... .... Petitioner Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bihar, Patna namely Sri Hukum Singh Meena. \n\n2. The Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd, West Lawn, Patna through its Managing Director namely Sri Satrughan Kumar Choudhary. \n\n3. The Managing Director, Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Union Ltd West lawn, Patna namely Sri Satrughan Kumar Choudhary. \n\n .... .... Opposite Parties with =========================================================== Civil Review No. 391 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11263 of 2007 ===========================================================\n1. The Bihar State Co- Operative Marketing Union Ltd., West Gandhi Maidan, Patna through its Managing Director\n2. The Managing Director, Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna\n3. The In-charge, Finance Controller, Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd., Patna\n4. The Special Officer (Administration) Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna .... .... Petitioners Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna\n2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Pension), R Block, Road No.- 6 Patna\n3. Parmanand Rai S/o Late Depali Rai R/O Biscomaun Colony, P.S. Alamganj, Patna City, Town & District- Patna .... .... Opposite Parties =========================================================== Appearance :\n (In Mjc No.4423 of 2014) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Singh, Adv. \n\n For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Adv.\n (In C. Rev. No.391 of 2016)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.\n Mr. Ishwari Singh, Adv.\n Patna High Court Mjc No.4423 of 2014\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. Ashish Giri, Adv.\n For the Writ Petitioner : Mr. Anil Singh, Adv.\n =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Hemant Kumar Srivastava C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 279,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 461,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 555,
"end": 598,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 694,
"end": 810,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1053,
"end": 1126,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1164,
"end": 1254,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1262,
"end": 1345,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1353,
"end": 1451,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1494,
"end": 1508,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1572,
"end": 1685,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1689,
"end": 1702,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1948,
"end": 1958,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2003,
"end": 2015,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2091,
"end": 2100,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2148,
"end": 2161,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2251,
"end": 2262,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2308,
"end": 2318,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2416,
"end": 2439,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n \u00ae\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 03Rd Day Of April 2013\n\n Present\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice N.Kumar\n\n And\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice B.Manohar\n\n WA.NOs.5769-5785/2012 (T-Res)\n\nBetween:\n\nM/s. Southern Motors,\nNo.63, St.Mark's Road,\nBangalore - 560 001,\nRepresented by its Managing Partner,\nSri.V.V.Vijayendra. ....Petitioner\n\n(By Sri.G.K.V.Murthy, Adv for Sri.P.E.Umesh, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. State of Karnataka,\nRepresented by its Secretary,\nDepartment of Finance,\nVidhana Soudha,\nBangalore - 560 001.\n\n2. The Commissioner of Commercial\nTaxes in Karnataka,\nVanijya Terige Bhavana,\nGandhingar,\nBangalore - 560 009.\n 2\n\n\n\n3. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes,\n(Audit-1.6), Vat Division - 1,\n7th Floor, Vtk Building,\nGandhingar,\nBangalore - 560 009. ....Respondents\n\n(By Smt.S.Sujatha, Aga)\n\n These Writ Appeals are filed under Section 4 of the\nKarnataka High Court Act, praying to set aside the\norder passed in the Writ Petition 21777-793/2012 dated\n20/7/2012.\n\n These Writ Appeals Are Coming On For\nPreliminary Hearing This Day, N.Kumar, J,\nDelivered The Following:-\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 100,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 213,
"end": 220,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 293,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 368,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 512,
"end": 524,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 538,
"end": 547,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 569,
"end": 587,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 687,
"end": 789,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 834,
"end": 965,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1004,
"end": 1013,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "- 1 -\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n \n O.O.C.J.\n\n\n\n Writ Petition No.1449 Of 2006\n\n\n\n\n \n ...\n\n\n\n\n \n Indian National Shipowners Association ...Petitioner\n\n v/s.\n \n 1. Union of India\n\n 2. Central Board of Excise and Customs\n \n 3. Superintendent (Preventive)\n\n 4. Addl.Director\n\n Directorate General of Central\n \n\n\n Excise ...Respondents\n \n\n\n\n ...\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr.J.J.Bhat, Sr.Counsel with Mr.Rohan Shah and\n\n Mr.Sushant Murthy i/b M.R.Baya for the Petitioners.\n\n Mr.R.B.Raghuvanshi, Asg with Mr.A.S.Rao for the\n\n\n\n\n\n Respondents.\n\n ...\n\n\n\n\n \n - 2 -\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram: D.K.Deshmukh &\n\n\n\n\n \n J.P.Devadhar, Jj.\n Dated: 11Th December, 2008 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 61,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 372,
"end": 410,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 473,
"end": 487,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 531,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 558,
"end": 572,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 594,
"end": 669,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 766,
"end": 774,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 795,
"end": 805,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 818,
"end": 832,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 837,
"end": 845,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 875,
"end": 890,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 904,
"end": 911,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1190,
"end": 1202,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1308,
"end": 1320,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "117.2012 Cri.Appeal.odt\n 1\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Bench At Aurangabad\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No.117 Of 2012\n\n Prakash @ Jaywant Wasudeo Wankhede,\n Age: 63 Years, Occu: Goldsmith\n\n\n\n\n \n R/o. Laxmi Alankar Gruh, Saraf Bazar\n Main Road, Sakri, Tq.Sakri, Dist.Dhule Appellant\n [Orig. Accused]\n Versus\n\n\n\n\n \n The State of Maharshtra\n [Copy to be served on App in the\n \n Hon'ble Hgh Court of Judicature\n of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad] Respondent\n ...\n \n Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Pravin G.\n Patil,Advocate i/b Mr. V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for Appellant.\n Mr. S.G.Karlekar, App for Respondent - State\n ...\n \n\n With\n Criminal Appeal No. 142 Of 2012\n \n\n\n\n Pooja d/o. Manoj Deore,\n Age: 8 years, Occu. Nil [Student],\n under natural guardianship of her\n\n\n\n\n\n real father - Manoj s/o. Suresh Deore,\n Age: 37 Years, Occu. Service as\n Clerk in the Court of 21st Metropolitan\n Magistrate, Bandra [East], Mumbai-51,\n R/o. B-90/6, Bandra [East],\n\n\n\n\n\n Mumbai - 400 051 Appellant\n [Victim / Prosecutrix]\n Versus\n\n 1] Prakash alias Jaywant s/o.\n Vasudeo Wankhede, Age: 55 years,\n Occu. Business as Goldsmith,\n R/o. Laxmi Alankar Gruh,\n Saraf Bazar, Main Road, Sakri,\n Taluka Sakri, District Dhule.\n\n\n\n\n \n 117.2012 Cri.Appeal.odt\n 2\n\n\n\n\n \n 2] The State of Maharashtra Respondents\n [No.1 Orig.Accused]\n\n\n\n\n \n ...\n Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellant\n Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Pravin G.\n Patil, Advocate i/b Mr. V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for\n\n\n\n\n \n Respondent No.1.\n Mr. S.G.Karlekar, App for Respondent - State\n ...\n With\n Criminal Appeal No.540 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n \n The State of Maharashtra\n Through Pso Sakri Police Station,\n Dist. Dhule Applicant\n \n [Orig. Complainant]\n Versus\n Prakash @ Jayawant Wasudeo Wankhede,\n Age 60 years, Occu. Goldsmith,\n \n\n R/o. Laxmi Alankar Gruh, Saraf Bajar,\n Main Road, Sakri, Tq. Sakri,\n \n\n\n\n Dist. Dhule Respondent\n [ Orig. Accused]\n ...\n Mr. S.G.Karlekar, App for Appellant - State\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. R.N.Dhorde, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Pravin G.\n Patil, Advocate i/b Mr. V.R.Dhorde, Advocate for\n Appellant.\n ...\n Coram : S.S. Shinde &\n\n\n\n\n\n A.M.Badar, Jj.\n Reserved On : 16.02.2015 Pronounced On: 08.05.2015 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 142,
"end": 176,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 344,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 646,
"end": 665,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 737,
"end": 792,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 876,
"end": 886,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 920,
"end": 940,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 958,
"end": 968,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1003,
"end": 1015,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1179,
"end": 1184,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1651,
"end": 1672,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2118,
"end": 2138,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2321,
"end": 2334,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2368,
"end": 2378,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2412,
"end": 2421,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2451,
"end": 2461,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2552,
"end": 2564,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2762,
"end": 2782,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2981,
"end": 3016,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3320,
"end": 3332,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3374,
"end": 3384,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3418,
"end": 3433,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3457,
"end": 3467,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3570,
"end": 3581,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3623,
"end": 3632,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 27/10/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Krishnan \n\nWp. No. 32335 of 2002 \nand W.P.No.29566 of 2004 \n\nand W.P.M.P.No. 47047 of 2002 \n\n\nW.P.No. 32335 of 2002 \n\nA. Obaidhullah .. Petitioner.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu,\n represented by the\n Secretary to Government,\n Home Department, \n Secretariat, Chennai-9.\n\n2. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal,\n represented by its Registrar,\n City Civil Court Complex,\n Chennai-104. .. Respondents.W.P.No. 29566 of 2004 N. Manoharan. \n .. Petitioner. \n\n Vs. \n\n1. The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. \n\n2. The Additional Director General of Prisons, Egmore, Chennai-8. \n\n .. Respondents. \n\n Writ Petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (i) for issuance a writ of certiorari to call for records pertaining to order dated 17-01-2002 made in Original Application No. 5664/92, conveyed in the common order dated 17-1-2002 in O.A.Nos. 5664/92 and 6921/1993 on the file of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and to quash the same; and\n(ii) for issuance of a writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to drop disciplinary proceedings initiated agaisnt the petitioner pursuant to the Charge Memo dated 23-5-1990 issued by the first respondent in his Letter No. 45053/Service D/82-53 as done to the co-delinquents namely M.A. Khyum, P. Senthur Pandian and S. Mahalingam and consequently to treat the period of suspension from 5-6-1978 to 5-6-1981 as duty for all purposes and award all benefits as done to the co-delinquents namely M.A. Khyum, P. Senthur Pandian and S. Mahalingam. \n!Mr. K.V.Srinivasa Raghavan:- For petitioner in W.P.No. 32335/2002. \nMr.P.I.Thirumoorthy:- For petitioner in W.P.No.29566 of 2004. \n\n^Mr. E. Sampathkumar, Govt., Advocate:- For First Respondent in both W.Ps. \n:Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 119,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 165,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 294,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 343,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 485,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 602,
"end": 614,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 649,
"end": 718,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 728,
"end": 786,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1479,
"end": 1489,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1491,
"end": 1509,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1514,
"end": 1527,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1690,
"end": 1700,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1702,
"end": 1720,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1725,
"end": 1738,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1746,
"end": 1770,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1814,
"end": 1832,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1880,
"end": 1895,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 3-11-2010\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar\n\nW.P.Nos.31059 and 31062 of 2007\n& M.P.No.1 of 2007 in W.P.No.31059 of 2007\n\n\nTata Coffee Limited,\nrep.by M.K.C.Pai,\nits Company Secretary,\n57, Railway Parallel Road,\nKumara Park West,\nBangalore \u0016 560 020.\t\t\t ..Petitioner in both writ petitions\n\nVs.\n\n1.\tThe State of Tamil Nadu,\n\trep.by the Secretary to Government,\n\tCommercial Taxes & Registration,\n\tGovernment of Tamil Nadu,\n\tFort St.George,\n\tChennai \u0016 600 009.\n\n2.\tThe Sub-Registrar,\n\tAnamalai, Police Station Road,\n\tAnamalai \u0016 642 104,\n\tCoimbatore District.\n\n3.\tThe District Revenue Officer (Stamps),\n\tOffice of the District Collector,\n\tCollectorate,\n\tCoimbatore \u0016 641 018.\n\n4.\tTata Tea Limited,\n\t1, Bishop Lefroy Road,\n\tCalcutta \u0016 700 001.\t\t ..Respondents in both writ petitionsPrayer in W.P.No.31059/2007: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the impugned notice in Form-1 dated 27.7.2007 issued by the third respondent, the District Revenue Officer (Stamps) and to quash the same. \n\nPrayer in W.P.No.31062/2007: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the impugned reference dated 21.5.2007 of the second respondent Sub-Registrar and to quash the same. \n\nFor Petitioner : Mr.AL.Somayaji, Sr.Counsel for Mr.C.Saravanan For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.P.S.Raman, Advocate General assisted by Ms.Pushpa Menon Mr.S.Sivashanmugam, Government Advocate For 4th Respondent : Mr.Joy Joseph Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 117,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 215,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 400,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 545,
"end": 634,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 643,
"end": 749,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 755,
"end": 771,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1458,
"end": 1469,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1489,
"end": 1500,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1529,
"end": 1538,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1572,
"end": 1584,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1588,
"end": 1603,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1649,
"end": 1666,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur.\n\n First Appeal No.485/2004\n\n Girdhar Jetha and others.\n\n Vs.\n\n Municipal Corporation, Through the Commissioner\n Nagar Nigam, Jabalpur.\n\n\n\n\nCoram :\n\nHon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon, J.\nHon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi, J.\n\n\n\nWhether approved for reporting ? - Yes/No.\n\n\n Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior counsel and\n Shri Naman Nagrath, learned Senior counsel with Shri\n Kapil Jain and Shri Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel\n for the appellants.\n Shri Anshuman Singh, learned counsel for the\n respondent.\n\n\n\n\nJudgment Reserved on : 18.11.2015.\n\nDate of Decision : 27.11.2015\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 114,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 191,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 307,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 345,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 439,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 491,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 531,
"end": 541,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 551,
"end": 566,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 619,
"end": 633,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\n Dated: 02.01.2007\n\n Coram\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran\n And\n The Honourable Mrs.Justice Chitra Venkataraman\n\n\n Tax Case Reference Nos.87 to 94 of 2001\n\n\n\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax\nCoimbatore. ..Applicant in\n all T.Cs.\n\n Vs.\n\n \nM/s. Sakthi Finance Ltd.\nCoimbatore. ..Respondent in\n all T.Cs.\n\n\n For Applicant :: Mr.T.Ravikumar\n\n For Respondent :: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench,\nChennai in R.A. Nos.253 to 260/Mds/97 in I.T.A.\nNos.3260/Mds/90, 1996/Mds/91, 2175/Mds/95, 2174/Mds/93,\n1573/Mds/96, 1574/Mds/96, 1338/Mds/96 and 2586/Mds/92 for\nthe assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1990-91, 1991-92,\n1992-93, 1993-94 and 1989-90.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 169,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 256,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 353,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 529,
"end": 548,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 695,
"end": 706,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 736,
"end": 752,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1694 Of 2006\n\n\nThe State of West Bengal and others ...\nAppellants\n\n Versus\n\nKamal Sengupta and another ... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 40,
"end": 62,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 195,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 294,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(i) For direct recruitment 25% SCs.\n from the Bar & 5% BCs.\n(ii) For promotion from the 14% SCs.\n Bar. 2% BCs.\n\n \n\nAs regards the Haryana Superior Judicial Service, there is no provision for reservation for members of the Scheduled Castes / Tribes and Backward Classes. But the matter was under consideration. There is provision for reservation for Scheduled Castes / Backward Classes in the Punjab / Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, which reads as under :\n \n\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 6110 of 2003\n\nPetitioner:\nSurya Dev Rai\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\nRespondent:\nRam Chander Rai & Ors.\t\t\t\t\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 65,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 105,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(i), low oil recovery in respect of Rs.\nrapeseeds purchased from outside \nGujarat State 1,89,982\n(ii), low oil recovery in respect of \nrapeseeds purchased from within\nthe State of Gujarat 37,35,089\n ------------\n 39,25,071\n ------------\n \n\n\n\nOrder",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Criminal Appeal (Db) No.418 of 2008\n\n(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.02.2008\npassed by Additional Sessions Judge Xi, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 976 of\n1999)\n===========================================================\nRajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, son of Sri Chandra Narayan Prasad, resident of Court Station Road, P.S. K. Hat Purnea, district Purnea, Bihar, presently lodged at Jail No.3, Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar through the C.B.I. \n\n .... .... Respondent/s With Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 240 of 2008 =========================================================== Anil Kumar Yadav, son of Hari Yadav, resident of mohalla Moranga, police station Moranga (K. Hat), district Purnea .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar through the C.B.I .... .... Respondent/s With Criminal Appeal (Db) No. 361 of 2008 =========================================================== Rajan Tiwary, son of Vishwa Jeevan Tripathy, resident of village Sahgaura, P.S. Gagaha in the town and district of Gorakhpur (Uttar Pradesh) .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar through the C.B.I .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :\n(In Cr. App (Db) No. 418 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : M/s. Shrikant V. Bhat, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Ravi Sharma, Rajesh Ranjan, J. John, Ajit Kumar Ojha, Nutan Mishra, Pandey Sanjay Sahay, Advocates. \n\n(In Cr. App (Db) No. 240 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : M/s. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate, Ajeet Ojha, Nutan Mishra, Advocate. \n\n(In Cr. App (Db) No. 361 of 2008) For the Appellant/s : M/s. Surendra Singh, Sr. Advocate, Dr. Abhishek Priyadarshi, Advocate (For C.B.I. in all appeals) : M/s. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Advocate (Additional Solicitor General of India for C.B.I), Harsh Prabhakar, Anando Mukherjee, Bipin Kumar Sinha (Standing Counsel for C.B.I.), Prabhu Narayan Sharma, Sunil Patna High Court Cr. App (Db) No.418 of 2008 dt.17-05-2013 2 Kumar Ravi, Shashi Shekhar Kumar Prasad, Advocates. (For P.W. 9 in all appeals) : M/s. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate, Soni Shrivastava, Amit Prakash, Ravi Bhardwaj, Amit Pawan, Advocates. \n\n =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice V.N. Sinha And Honourable Mr. Justice Amaresh Kumar Lal C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 344,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 566,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 714,
"end": 730,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 862,
"end": 876,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1020,
"end": 1032,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1194,
"end": 1208,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1384,
"end": 1400,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1402,
"end": 1420,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1422,
"end": 1433,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1435,
"end": 1448,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1450,
"end": 1457,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1459,
"end": 1474,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1476,
"end": 1488,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1490,
"end": 1509,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1585,
"end": 1600,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1616,
"end": 1626,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1628,
"end": 1640,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1715,
"end": 1729,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1749,
"end": 1769,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1815,
"end": 1834,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1900,
"end": 1915,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1917,
"end": 1933,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1935,
"end": 1952,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1984,
"end": 2005,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2007,
"end": 2029,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 2072,
"end": 2084,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2086,
"end": 2113,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2161,
"end": 2175,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2191,
"end": 2207,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2209,
"end": 2221,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2223,
"end": 2236,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2238,
"end": 2248,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2354,
"end": 2364,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2392,
"end": 2409,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nKiran Singh And Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nChaman Paswan And Others.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 23,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nS.P. Sampath Kumar Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Fir No. 176/2000\n P.S.: Chandni Mahal\n U/S: 379/411/34 Ipc\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Sidharth Mathur: Metropolitan\n Magistrate : Central - 02, Delhi\n\nState Vs. Mohd. Imran & Ors. \nFir No: 176/2000\nP.S. : Chandni Mahal \n\nDate of institution of case : 08.11.2000\n\nDate on which case reserved : 05.05.2009\nfor judgment\n\nDate of judgment : 05.05.2009\n\n \nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 209,
"end": 224,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 290,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 295,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 311,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 04.03.2011\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma\n\nW.P.Nos.15699, 15818, 15819 of 2008, 22912, 22913,\n28122 to 28133, 28314 to 28321, 28917 to 28922 of 2010\n\n1.\tT.Chakrapani\n2.\tT.Govindarajalu Naidu,\n3.\tElumalai Achari\n4.\tV.Chidambaram\n5.\tK.Velayudam\n6.\tK.Saravanan\n7.\tRanganayagi\t\t\t.. Petitioners in W.P.No.15699 of 2008.\n\t\n\t\t\t\tVs.\n\n1. \tUnion of India,\n\tRep. by Secretary\n \tNational Highways Department,\n\tNew Delhi.\n\n2. \tThe Secretary to Government,\n \tGovernment of India,\n\tMinistry of Shipping (Road Transport and Highways),\n\tNew Delhi\n\n3.\tNational Highways Authority of India,\n\tRep. by its Project Director,\n\tIn Charge of Nh4\n\tTrivallur District,\n\tTamil Nadu\n\n\n4.\tThe District Collector,\n\t(Arbitrator Tiruvallur District) \n\tTamil Nadu.\n\n5.\tThe Competent Authority (L.A),\n\tNh-4, Viding for Nerkundram Village,\n\tPoonamallee,\n\tTiruvallur District,\n\tChennai \u0016 600 056.\n\n6.\tSpecial Tahsildar (L.A),\n\tNh4, Poonamallee,\n\tTiruvallur District,\n\tTamil Nadu\t\t.. Respondents in W.P.No.15699 of 2008.\n\n\tWrit petition in W.P.No.15699 of 2008 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of a Wit of Declaration, declaring the provisions of The National Highways Act, 1956 amended Act No.16 of 1997 herein referred to as the Highways Act are as illegal, null and void, unconstitutional and opposed to the public policy of our country and to invoke the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.\n\n\t\tFor Petitioners \t: \tMr.David Tyagaraj, \n\t\t\t\t\t\t(in W.P.Nos.15699, 15818 & 15819/2008)\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\tMr.T.V.Ramanujam, Sc\n\t\t\t\t\t\tFor Mr.T.V.Krishnamurthy\n\t\t\t\t\t\t(in W.P.Nos.22912 & 22913/10)\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\tMr.K.Venkatasubba Raju\n\t\t\t\t\t\t(in W.P.Nos.28122 to 28133/2010, 28314 \t\t\t\t\t\tto 28321/2010 and 28917 to 28922/2010)\n\t\t\n\n\t\tFor Respondents\t:\tMr.P.Wilson\n\t\t\t\t\t\tAddl. Advocate General\n\t\t\t\t\t\tFor M/s. P.Wilson Associates,\n\t\t\t\t\t\tFor The Project Director, Nhai, Salem\n\t\t\t\t\t\tMr.M.Ravindran, \n\t\t\t\t\t\tAssisted by M/s.P.Bhuvaneshwari, Scgc\n\t\t\t\t\t\tMr.M.Dhandapani,\n\t\t\t\t\t\tSpl.Govt.Pleader for Iii respondent\n\t\t\t\t\t\tAssisted by Mr.B.Vijay, Govt. Advocate\n\t\t\t\t\t\t*****\nC O M M O N O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 110,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 234,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 238,
"end": 259,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 279,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 296,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 311,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 326,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 341,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 413,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 490,
"end": 604,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 609,
"end": 645,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 738,
"end": 804,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 814,
"end": 934,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 939,
"end": 1016,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1505,
"end": 1519,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1577,
"end": 1590,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1608,
"end": 1625,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1672,
"end": 1691,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1809,
"end": 1817,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1936,
"end": 1947,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2003,
"end": 2015,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2080,
"end": 2087,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Rajeev Bansal,\n Asj-03 (South District), Saket Courts,\n New Delhi.\n\n Sc No.: 74/10\n (Unique I.D. No. 02403R0839472008)\n\n Fir No. : 455/08\n Ps: Malviya Nagar.\n U/S: 393/397 r/w 511, 398/506/120-B/\n 186/353/307/34 of Ipc & 25 of Arms Act.\n\nThe State\n\n Versus\n\nMadan\nS/o Sh. Govind\nR/o C-95/B, Punjabi Basti,\nBaljeet Nagar, New Delhi.\n\n\nDate of Initial Institution : 31.08.2008.\nDate of Institution in the Present Court : 01.10.2010.\nDate of Pronouncement of Order : 28.07.2014.\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 120,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 537,
"end": 542,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 560,
"end": 565,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMuncipal Corporation For Greater Bombay\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nLala Pancham Of Bombay & Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 51,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 102,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 28-2-2014\n\nCoram :\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian\n\nWrit Petition No.61 of 2009\nand\nM.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2009\n\nD.Narayanasamy\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.The District Collector,\n Collectorate,\n Tiruvarur.\n\n2.The District Educational Officer,\n Deo Office,\n Thiruvarur.\n\n3.The Head Master,\n Government Higher Secondary School,\n Pulivalam,\n Thiruvarur District.\n\n4.The Assistant Manager,\n Oil Natural and Gas Commission,\n Niravi, Karaikkal,\n Pondicherry Union.\t\t ..\t Respondents\n\n\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents as jointly to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the petitioner as compensation.\n\n\tFor Petitioner\t\t: Mr.P.Vijendran\n\n\tFor Respondents-1 to 3\t: Mr.R.Ravichandran,\n\t\t\t\t Additional Government Pleader.\n\n\tFor Respondent-4\t\t: Mr.K.Shanmuga Kani\n\n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 114,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 187,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 297,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 364,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 461,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 566,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 848,
"end": 859,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 891,
"end": 905,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 971,
"end": 986,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n Appeals595.02+3\n\n\n\n\n \n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 595 Of 2002\n\n\n\n\n \n Ramesh Rajmal Jain ... Appellant/Ori.\n Accused No.11\n v/s\n\n The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n \n ig Along With\n Criminal Appeal No. 647 Of 2002\n\n\n Mangilal Modilal Dave ... Appellant/Ori.\n \n Accused No.12\n v/s\n\n The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent\n \n\n\n Along With\n \n\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 908 Of 2002\n\n\n Namdeo Sardar Shinde ... Appellant/Ori.\n Accused No.2.\n\n\n\n\n\n v/s\n\n The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent\n\n Along With\n Criminal Appeal No. 998 Of 2002\n\n\n\n\n\n Sahebrao Gulab Kale ... Appellant/Ori.\n Accused No.1\n V/s\n\n The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent\n\n\n Mr.Ganesh Gole, Advocate for the appellant in Criminal\n Appeal Nos.908 of 2002 and 998 of 2002.\n\n\n\n\n \n 2\n Appeals595.02+3\n\n\n Mr.I.A.Bagaria, Advocate for the appellant in Criminal Appeal\n\n\n\n\n \n No.595 of 2002.\n\n Mrs.Anjali Patil, Advocate for the appellant in Criminal\n\n\n\n\n \n Appeal No.647 of 2002.\n\n Mr.H.J.Dedhia, A.P.P. for the State.\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram: B. H. Marlapalle &\n U. D. Salvi, Jj.\n\n Reserved On : March 18, 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n Pronounced On : April 15, 2011\n \n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 146,
"end": 180,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 389,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 507,
"end": 527,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 679,
"end": 700,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 835,
"end": 855,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 987,
"end": 1007,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1128,
"end": 1148,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1268,
"end": 1287,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1403,
"end": 1423,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1459,
"end": 1470,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1715,
"end": 1726,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1879,
"end": 1891,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2019,
"end": 2029,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2137,
"end": 2153,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2191,
"end": 2202,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "\u00ad:1:\u00ad\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Preeti Agrawal Gupta: \n Judge: Mact (North): Rohini: Delhi\n\n\nUnique Case Id No. 02404Co17712010.\nSuit No. 263/13\n\n\n 1. Mst. Salman S/o Sh. Liyakat Ali\n 2. Afsana D/o Sh. Liyakat Ali\n 3. Master Imran S/o Sh. Liyakat Ali\n 4. Master Shahan Ali Khan S/o Sh. Liyakat Ali\n 5. Master Shahan Baz S/o Sh. Liyakat Ali\n These abovenamed five minors petitioner through their elder \n brother/guardian who is petitioner no. 6\n 6. Sharfaraj S/o Sh. Liyakat Ali\n 7. Shabana D/o Sh. Liyakat Ali\n 8. Shahana Khatoon D/o Sh. Liyakat Ali\n All R/o D\u00ad1079, J.J.Colony, Bawana, Delhi\u00ad39.\n\n\n ....Petitioners\n Versus\n\n 1. Abdul Tauwab S/o Abdul Hai \n R/o D\u00ad1160, Block J.J.Colony , \n Bawana, Delhi\u00ad39\n 2. Liyaqat Ali S/o Abdul Shakur \n R/o 1079, D Block, J.J.Colony,\n Bawana, Delhi\u00ad39.\n 3. M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd.\n Do\u00ad24\u00ad501 5th floor, Kailash Building, 26, \n Kg Marg, New Delhi.\n ....RespondentsDATE Of Institution : 04.05.2010\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 54,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 104,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 178,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 211,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 251,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 300,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 344,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 485,
"end": 494,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 521,
"end": 528,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 555,
"end": 570,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 759,
"end": 771,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 851,
"end": 862,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 949,
"end": 984,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Wp No. 883/2015\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh,\n Bench At Gwalior.\n\n Sb : Justice Sujoy Paul\n\n Writ Petition No. 883 / 2015\n Mahendra Gupta and another\n Vs.\n State of M.P. and others.\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri H.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Shri R.D. Sharma, Advocate\nfor the petitioners.\nShri K.N. Gupta, Sr, Advocate with Shri Mansingh Jadon,\nAdvocate for the respondent No.3.\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 60,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 188,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 281,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 370,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 477,
"end": 487,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 512,
"end": 523,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 560,
"end": 570,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 595,
"end": 609,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 5239 Of 2002\n\n\nDalip Singh ...Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nState of U.P. and others ...Respondents\n\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 61,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 177,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 292,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 16/12/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.Karpagavinayagam\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.Thangavel\n\nCrl.A. No. 810 Of 1998\n\n\n1.Thavaraj Pandian\n2.Palani\n3.Raja\n4.Packianathan ..Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nState, rep. by\nInspector of Police,\nG-1, Thilagar Thidal\nPolice Station (Crime),\nGeorge Town (North),\nMadurai. ..Respondent\n\n\n Criminal Appeal against the judgment dated 12-8-1998 in S.C. No.307\nof 1994 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Madurai.\n\n!For appellants 1 and 2: Mr. N.Ramu\nFor appellants 3 and 4: Mr. V.Gopinath,\n Senior Counsel for\n Ms.N.S.Nappinai\n\n^For respondent : Mr. E.Raja, Addl.P.P.\n\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 113,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 155,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 200,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 209,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 216,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 217,
"end": 231,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 290,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 623,
"end": 629,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 660,
"end": 670,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 742,
"end": 754,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 780,
"end": 786,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAghnoo Nagesia\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Bihar\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 60,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Balkrishan Sharma vs. Abdul Salam\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Sunil Beniwal, Additional Chief \nMetropolitan Magistrate (Shahdara), Kkd Courts Delhi.\n C.C. No.08/2013\n P.S. Anand Vihar\n U/S 138 Negotiable Instruments Act\nSh. Balkrishan Sharma ............. Complainant\n vs. \nSh. Abdul Salam ............. Accused\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 17,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 33,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 60,
"end": 73,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 145,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 394,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 484,
"end": 495,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Ori.Sms.2029.11\n\nSrp\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiciton\n\n\n\n\n \n Originating Summons No. 2029 Of 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n In\n Suit No. 2964 Of 2011\n\n Charu K. Mehta ... Plaintiff\n\n\n\n\n \n Vs\n\n 1. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust & Ors. ... Defendants\n\n\n\n\n \n \n Mr. J.P. Cama, senior counsel with Mr. Raj Patel, Mr. Karl Tamboly,\n Mr. Rizvi Nasir Ali and Mr. H.N. Thakore i/b Thakore Jariwalla &\n \n Associates for the Plaintiff.\n\n Mr. Dinyar Madon, senior counsel with Mr. Pranaya Goyal, Ms. Payal\n Shah i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Defendant Nos.1, 8 and 9.\n \n\n\n Ms. Rajni Iyer, senior counsel i/b Vna Legal for the Defendant No.2.\n \n\n\n\n Mr. Prateek Sakseria with Ms. Jyoti Shah, Ms. Jesal Shah i/b Daru\n Shah & Co. for the Defendant No.3.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. Iqbal Chagla, senior counsel with Mr. Dhirendra Sinha i/b Vidhi\n Partners for the Defendant Nos.5, 6, 7 and 11.\n\n Mr. Kevic Setalwad, senior counsel with Mr. Dakshesh Vyas, Ms.\n Sushma Nagraj and Mr. Nagendra Dube i/b Lex Firms for the\n\n\n\n\n\n Defendant Nos. 12, 14 & 15.\n\n Dr. Poornima Advani, Mr. Himanshu Kode, Mr. Omprakash Jha i/b\n Law Point for the Defendant No.10.\n\n Mr. Pranav Badheka i/b Parag Sharma for the Defendant Nos.13 & 16.\n\n\n\n\n \n 2 Ori.Sms.2029.11\n\n Coram: S.J. Vazifdar, J.\n Date of Reserving : Thursday, 9Th February, 2012. \n\n Date of Pronouncement : Monday, 5Th March, 2012. \n\n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 77,
"end": 111,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 461,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 593,
"end": 630,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 738,
"end": 747,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 773,
"end": 782,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 788,
"end": 800,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 812,
"end": 827,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 836,
"end": 848,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 946,
"end": 958,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 984,
"end": 997,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1003,
"end": 1019,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1098,
"end": 1108,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1182,
"end": 1198,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1208,
"end": 1218,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1224,
"end": 1234,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1300,
"end": 1312,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1338,
"end": 1353,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1428,
"end": 1442,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1468,
"end": 1481,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1493,
"end": 1506,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1515,
"end": 1528,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1601,
"end": 1616,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1622,
"end": 1635,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1641,
"end": 1654,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1711,
"end": 1725,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1956,
"end": 1969,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated: 09/02/2010\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V. Ramasubramanian\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice D.Hariparanthaman\n\nW.P.(MD)No.4412 of 2008\nAnd\nW.P.M.P.(Md) Nos.1 and 2 of 2008\n\nT.Sekaran\t\t \t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\nvs\n\n1.The State of Tamil Nadu,\n Represented by its Home Secretary,\n Government of Tamil Nadu,\n Secretariat,\n St. George Fort,\n Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The District Collector,\n Madurai District,\n Madurai-625 020.\n\n3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n Madurai District,\n Madurai-625 020.\n\n4.The Additional Director General of Prisons,\n Anna Salai,\n Chennai-600 002.\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\n\nWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,\npraying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to\npay a just and reasonable amount as compensation to the bereaved family of\nMr.Canicius Fernando, a Sri Lankan who was shot dead by the outside Security\nWarder Ii T.Devaraj, No.126 of Madurai Central Prison on 5.10.2007 in front of\nthe Central Prison Madurai at 3.15 P.M., in the light of the decision in\nChairman, Railway Board vs. Chandrima Das {2000 (2) Scc 465}, directing the\nrespondents to take stern action against the Warder Ii T.Devaraj, No.126 for the\nheinous crime he has committed against Mr.Canicius Fernando and directing the\nrespondents to prosecute him in accordance with law and directing the\nrespondents to take serious steps to inculcate in the Prison Staff and other\nprison officials the culture of human values and the sense of human rights and\nto eradicate anti-social, corruptive practices prevalent in the prisons all\nother Tamil Nadu.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.P.Rathinam\n^For Respondents ... Mr.S.Ramasamy,\n\t\t\t Additional Advocate General,\n\t\t\t Assisted by Mr.A.Edwin Prabhakar,\n\t\t\t Additional Government Pleader.\n\n:Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 117,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 166,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 230,
"end": 239,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 289,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 421,
"end": 480,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 489,
"end": 556,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 565,
"end": 638,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1697,
"end": 1707,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1738,
"end": 1748,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1806,
"end": 1823,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nM.V. Elisabeth And Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nHarwan Investment And Trading Pvt. Ltd., Hanoekarhouse, Swat\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 94,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nR.K. Garg Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India & Ors. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 65,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n W.P.(C) 6129/2007\n\n Reserved on: 12th March 2010\n Decision on: 14th May 2010\n\nKrishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate\n\n versus\n\nRamesh Chander Bawa ..... Respondent\n in person\n\n W.P.(C) 7787/2008\n\nNational Agricultural Cooperative\nFederation Of India Ltd. ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate\n with Ms. Anju Bhattarcharya, Mr. Om\n Prakash and Mr. M.I. Chaudhary, Ms.\n Maninder Acharya, Advocates.\n\n\n versus\n\nB.M. Verma ..... Respondent\n Mr. Brahm Dutt with\n Mr. Deepak Pandey, Advocates\n\n\n W.P.(C) 7770/2008\n\n\nNational Cooperative Consumer\nFederation Of India Ltd. ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate\n with Ms. Anju Bhattarcharya, Mr. Om\n Prakash and Mr. M.I. Chaudhary,\n Advocates.\n\n versus\n\n\nRaj Mangal Prasad ..... Respondent\n Through: Mr. Brahm Dutt with\n Mr. Deepak Pandey, Advocates\n\nW.P.(C) Nos. 6129/2007, 7787/2008 & 7770/2008 Page 1 of 47\n Coram: Justice S. Muralidhar\n\n1. Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed\n to see the judgment? Yes\n\n2. To be referred to the report or not? Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? Yes\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 256,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 314,
"end": 324,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 386,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 562,
"end": 620,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 683,
"end": 693,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 735,
"end": 753,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 759,
"end": 787,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 796,
"end": 810,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 834,
"end": 850,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 896,
"end": 906,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1004,
"end": 1014,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1056,
"end": 1069,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1135,
"end": 1189,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1252,
"end": 1262,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1304,
"end": 1322,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1328,
"end": 1356,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1365,
"end": 1379,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1443,
"end": 1460,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1529,
"end": 1539,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1566,
"end": 1579,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1681,
"end": 1694,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Miscellaneous Appeal No.453 of 2012\n===========================================================\n1. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Ramanuj Bhawan, A.P. Colony, Near Asha Singh More, Gaya, At & P.O.- Gaya, P.S.- Rampur, Distt.- Gaya Apeal And Appellant Through The Manager & Constituted Attorney, Regional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited, Chanakya Commercial Complex, 'R' Block, Patna .... .... Appellant/s Versus\n1. Biltan Sao @ Biltan Prasad S/O Lt. Gopali Sao R/O Mohalla- Manpur, Sudhi Tola, P.O.- Buniyadaganj, P.S.- Mufassil, Distt.- Gaya\n2. Ahima Devi @ Ahilya Devi W/O Biltan Sao R/O Mohalla- Manpur, Sudhi Tola, P.O.- Buniyadaganj, P.S.- Mufassil, Distt.- Gaya\n3. Sri Kali Yadav S/O Lt. Punit Yadav R/O Village- Kukiyasin, P.O.- Bigubigha, P.S.- Buniyadganj, Distt.- Gaya\n4. The Branch Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Buniyadganj, Gaya .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Appellant/s : Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh For Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Rajen Sahay, Mr. Anil kumar Saxena, Advocates. \n\nFor Respondent no.3 : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate. =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey Cav Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 204,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 578,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 683,
"end": 707,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 808,
"end": 822,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 923,
"end": 982,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1105,
"end": 1124,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1157,
"end": 1168,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1174,
"end": 1191,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1232,
"end": 1250,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1352,
"end": 1366,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nIncome Tax Officer\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nM.K. Mohammed Kunhi\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nWrit Petition (civil) 496 of 2002\n\nPetitioner:\nSalem Advocate Bar Association,Tamil Nadu\n\nRespondent:\nUnion of India\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 99,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 127,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl Mc No. 9610 of 2002\n\n\n1. John Idiculla,\n ... Petitioner\n2. Glory John @ Glory Samuel,\n\n Vs\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n2. Valsamma John,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.K.Ramakumar\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.Hema\n\n Dated : 23/05/2005\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 84,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 127,
"end": 152,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 202,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 264,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 315,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 399,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Vi Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge\n Bengaluru City\n Ccch. 11\n\n\n Dated this the 14th day of October, 2015\n\n Present: Smt.Kalpana M.Kulkarni, B.A.,LL.B.,(Spl.)\n Vi Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bengaluru City.\n\n A.S.No: 44/2010\n\nApplicants/ : 1) M/S.Karnataka State\nPlaintiff Construction Corporation Limited\n Nirman Bhavan, 80 Feet Road\n Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010.\n Reptd.by its Managing Director-\n Sri.K.Balakrishna, S/o.Sri.Kempaiah.\n\n 2) The Managing Director\n Karnataka State Construction\n Corporation Limited,\n Dr.Rajkumar Road, I Block,\n Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010.\n\n /Vs/\n\nRespondents/ : 1) Sri.J.Chengama Naidu,\nDefendants S/o.Sri.Rama Naidu,\n Contractor,\n R/at No.36, College Road,\n K.R.Layout, 6th Phase, J.P.Nagar,\n Bangalore-560 075.\n\n 2) Hon'Ble Mr.Justice K.A.SWAMI(Retd.)\n Arbitrator,\n Former Chief Justice,\n Madras High Court.\n --\n 2 A.S.No.44/2010\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 90,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 212,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 377,
"end": 394,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 688,
"end": 897,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 962,
"end": 978,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1236,
"end": 1250,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 664 of 2002\n\nPetitioner:\nS.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd.\t\t\n\nRespondent:\nNeeta Bhalla and anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 77,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 105,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nPrecision Steel And Engineering Works And Anoteer\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nPrem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 49,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 110,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Haryana And Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCh. Bhajan Lal And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 28,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 71,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n Kambli\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No.6403 Of 2010\n\n\n\n\n \n ...\n Smt.Shireen Sami Gadiali and another ...Petitioners v/s. \n\n Spenta Co.op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd. \n\n and others ...Respondents\n\n With\n Writ Petition No.7293 Of 2010\n\n\n\n\n \n ...\n Shri Vasantrao Madhavrao Deshmane\n \n and ors. ...Petitioners\n v/s.\n The Asst.Registrar,\n \n co.operative Societies,\n Chandwad and others ...Respondents\n ...\n Mr.D.S.Joshi for Petitioners in Wp No.6403 of 2010. \n\n Mr.R.M.Haridas i/bMr.P.N.Joshi for Petitioners in Wp No.7293 of 2010. \n\n Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl.G.P. for Respondents. \n\n Coram: D.K.Deshmukh , Anoop V. Mohta, & Ranjit More, Jjj. \n\n Dated: 21st April, 2011 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 99,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 411,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 472,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 705,
"end": 733,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 840,
"end": 918,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1009,
"end": 1018,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1064,
"end": 1075,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1082,
"end": 1091,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1137,
"end": 1150,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1189,
"end": 1201,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1204,
"end": 1218,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1222,
"end": 1233,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sebi vs. Timber World Resorts & Plantation & others\n\n\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain,\nAdditional Sessions Judge-01(Central), Thc: Delhi\n\nComplaint Case No. 25/2014\nId No: 02401R0124632001\n\n\nSecurities And Exchange Board Of India, a statutory body\nestablished under the provisions of Securities and Exchange Board of India\nAct, 1992, having its Head Office at Mumbai and Regional office at Block\nNo. 321, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, District Center, New Delhi-\n110008 and represented by its Assistant General Manager, Sh. Arvind\nKumar.\n\n Versus\n\n\n1. Timberworld Resorts & Plantations India Ltd.\n A company incorporated under the\n provisions of Companies Act, 1956\n and having its Registered office at:\n M-42, First Floor, Market Commercial Complex,\n Greater Kailash- Part Ii, New Delhi-110\n\n ........Accused no.1\n\n2. Sh. Ashwani Sud\n S/o Late Sh. Lekh Prakash Sud\n Director of accused no.1\n R/o C-159, East of Kailash\n New Delhi\n ........Accused no.2\n\n\n3. Sh. Sanjeev Sood\n S/o Late Narender Nath Sood\n Director of accused no.1\n R/o 28, Southern Avenue,\n Kolkata-700 026\n ........Accused no.3\n\n\nCc No. 25/2014 Page 1 of 40\n Sebi vs. Timber World Resorts & Plantation & others\n\n\n\n\n4. Sh. Rajesh Sud\n Director of accused no.1\n R/o N-21, Chittaranjan Park,\n New Delhi\n ........Accused no.4\n\n5. Sh. A. V. Mahindra\n Director of accused no.1\n R/o as of accused no.1\n ........Accused no.5\n\n\nDate of Institution : 15.10.2001\nDate of Transfer to Sessions Court : 22.09.2014\nDate of judgment reserved on : 17.11.2014\nDate of pronouncement of judgment : 27.11.2014\n\n\n\nPresent: Sh. Sanjay Mann, Advocate, counsel for Sebi\n Sh. Baldev Raj Advocate, counsel for accused no.1 & 2\n Sh. Rajshree Advocate, counsel for accused no.3\n\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 82,
"end": 98,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 149,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 242,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 594,
"end": 638,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 972,
"end": 983,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1211,
"end": 1223,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1643,
"end": 1653,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1844,
"end": 1858,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2296,
"end": 2307,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2349,
"end": 2359,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2412,
"end": 2429,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Karnataka And Anr Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nShri Ranganatha Reddy & Anr. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 84,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 26..03..2012\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon\u0012Ble Mr.M.Y.EQBAL, Chief Justice\nand\nThe Hon\u0012Ble Mr.JUSTICE T.S.Sivagnanam\n\nW.P.Nos.1015, 1030, 1113, 1989 and 3806 of 2011\nand\nConnected Miscellaneous Petitions\n------------\nW.P.No.1015 of 2011\n\nP.Mariadoss \t\t\t\t\t\t..Petitioner.\t\n\nVs. \n\n1. The District Collector,\n Kancheepuram District,\n Kancheepuram. \n\n2. The Deputy Director,\n Geology and Mining,\n Kancheepuram,\n Kancheepuram District. \n\n3. The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n Chengalpattu,\n Kancheepuram District.\n\n4. The Tahsildar,\n Chengalpattu Taluk,\n Kancheepuram District. \t\t\t\t..Respondents. \n\n\nPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the Proceedings in Na.Ka.3153/2010/A dated 28.09.2010 on the file of the 3rd respondent and the consequential final order made in the proceedings in Na.Ka.3153/2010/A dated 03.01.2011 on the file of the 3rd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 to conduct the inspection as per G.O.Ms.No.63 Industries (Mma-1) dated 11.05.2005 in the presence of the petitioner and decide the matter afresh after giving full and adequate opportunity by considering the petitioner\u0012s representations dated 06.10.2010, 11.12.2010 and 04.01.2011. \n-------------- \n\nW.P.No.1030 of 2011\n\nS.Simsumara Boopathy\t\t\t\t\t\t..Petitioner. \n\nVs. \n\nThe Revenue Divisional Officer,\nChengalpet,\nKancheepuram District. \t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondent. \n\nPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent relating to the order passed in Ref.Na.Ka.3153/2010/A dated 03.01.2011, quash the same, and pass such further or other orders. \n-------------- \n\nW.P.No.1113 of 2011\n\nK.Dhanasekar\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Petitioner \n\nVs.\n\nThe Revenue Divisional Officer,\nChengalpet,\nKancheepuram District. \t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondent. \n\nPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent relating to the order passed in Ref.Na.Ka.3153/2010/m dated 03.01.2011, quash the same, and pass such further or other orders. \n-------------- \n\nW.P.No.1989 of 2011\n\nP.Srinivasan\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Petitioner. \n\nVs. \n\nThe Revenue Divisional Officer,\nChengalpet,\nKancheepuram District. \t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondent. \n\n\tPrayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the respondent relating to the order passed in Ref.Na.Ka.3153/2010/ m dated 03.01.2011, quash the same, and pass such further or other orders.\n--------------- \nW.P.No.3806 of 2011\n\nS.Ramasamy\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..Petitioner. \n\nVs. \n\n1. The Revenue Divisional Officer,\n Chengalpattu,\n Kancheepuram District. \n\n2. The District Collector,\n Kancheepuram District,\n Kancheepuram. \t\t\t\t\t\t..Respondents. \n\n\tPrayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in Ref.Na.Ka.3153/2010/A, dated 03.01.2011, quash the same, and pass such further or other orders. \n------------- \n\n\t\tMr.M.Vivekanandan \t:: For Petitioner in W.P.No.3806/2011\n\t\tMr.V.Sanjeevi\t\t:: For Petitioner in W.P.No.1030, 1989,\n\t\t\t\t\t & 1113 of 2011\n\t\tMr.V.T.Gopalan, \t:: For Petitioner in W.P.No.1015 of 2011\n\t\tSenior Counsel \n\t\tFor Mr.N.Manokaran \n\n\t\tMr.T.N.Rajagopalan\t:: For Respondents in all the W.Ps. \n\t\tAddl. Govt. Pleader \n\n---------------- \n\n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 96,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 131,
"end": 153,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 286,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 385,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 396,
"end": 480,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 491,
"end": 562,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 572,
"end": 632,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1421,
"end": 1441,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1473,
"end": 1534,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1878,
"end": 1890,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1921,
"end": 1982,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2325,
"end": 2337,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2370,
"end": 2431,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2780,
"end": 2790,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2826,
"end": 2897,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2908,
"end": 2971,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3277,
"end": 3291,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3336,
"end": 3346,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3416,
"end": 3427,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3499,
"end": 3510,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3518,
"end": 3533,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil) 10653 of 1998\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil)\t12013\t of 1998\nSpecial Leave Petition (civil)\t16740\t of 1998\n\n\n\nPetitioner:\nState Of Bihar & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nKameshwar Prasad Singh & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 166,
"end": 180,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 207,
"end": 229,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nC. K. Subramonia Iyer & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nT. Kunhikuttan Nair And 6 Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 83,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nHindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nHindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Employees' Union\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 54,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 144,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSmt. Gian Devi Anand\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nJeeevan Kumar And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 65,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 1892 of 2007\n\nPetitioner:\nDirectorate of Film Festivals & Ors\n\nRespondent:\nGaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 87,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 119,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe State Of Uttar Pradesh\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMohammad Nooh\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 38,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 71,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay V.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nRanchhoddas Karsondas, Bombay\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 53,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 102,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Sameer Bajpai, Jscc\u00adCum\u00adAscj\u00ad\n Cum\u00adGuardian Judge (West): Delhi\n\n\nMca No. 09/12\nUnique Case I.D. No.02401C0510832012\n\n\n\nSh. Ved Prakash Gupta\nS/o Sh. Ram Nath Gupta\n1545, Pataudi House, \nDarya Ganj, Delhi. .... Appellant\n\n versus\n\n\n\n1. Sh. Ram Nath (deceased)\n through his LRs:\n\n (A). Smt. Pushpawati Bansal (since deceased)\n Through her LRs:\n\n (i). Sh. Shri Nath Bansal\n S/o Sh. Late Sh. Onkar Nath Bansal\n\n (ii). Sh. Ravinder Bansal\n S/o Late Sh. Onkar Nath Bansal\n\n (iii). Sh. Devender Bansal\n S/o Late Sh. Onkar Nath Bansal\n\n All R/o 4756, Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, \n Delhi\u00ad110006. \n\n A(iv). Smt. Sarita W/o Sh. Ajay Gupta\n R/o Pooja Apartment, \n 77, I.P. Estension, Delhi. \n\n\n\n\nMca No. 09/12 Page No. 1/17\n A(v). Sh. Satish Chand\n S/o Late Sh. Ram Nath Gupta\n Already defendant no. 3. \n\n (B). Smt. Sharda Devi (since deceased)\n Through her LRs:\n\n (a). Sh. Laxmi Narain Gupta\n S/o Late Satya Narain Gupta\n R/o H.No. D\u00ad135, Kamla Nagar, Delhi\n\n (b). Sh. Jai Kishan Gupta\n S/o Late Satya Narain Gupta\n R/o H.No. 13/10, Shakti Nagar, Delhi\n\n (c). Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta\n S/o Late Satya Narain Gupta\n R/o H.No. 14/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi\n\n (d). Sh. Ajay Gupta\n S/o Late Satya Narain Gupta\n R/o H.No. 14/5, Shakti Nagar, Delhi\n\n (e). Sh. Sanjay Gupta\n S/o Late Satya Narain Gupta\n R/o H. No. 25/121, Shakti Nagar, Delhi\n\n (f). Smt. Anita Gupta\n R/o 25/121, Shakti Nagar, Delhi.\n\n (C). Smt. Bimla Devi \n W/o Late Sat Parkash Gupta\n R/o H.No. 42, Gali no. 1, \n Kundan Nagar, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. \n\n (D). Smt. Nirmala Devi \n W/o Sh. Suresh Chand\n R/o H.No. B\u00ad604, Mayur Vihar, \n Phase\u00adI, Delhi.\n\nMca No. 09/12 Page No. 2/17\n (E). Ms. Sudha Rani Gupta\n D/o Late Sh. Ram Nath Gupta\n R/o 807\u00ad808, Farash Khana, Delhi. \n\n 2. Smt. Shanti Devi\n W/o Late Ram Nath Gupta ( since deceased). \n\n 3. Sh. Satish Chand \n S/o late Ram Nath Gupta\n R/o 807\u00ad808, Katra Hindu,\n Farash Khana, Delhi. \n .....Respondents\n\nDate of filing of the suit : 30.10.2012\nDate of reserving judgment : 12.05.2014\nDate of pronouncement of judgment : 12.05.2014\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 95,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 173,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 338,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 406,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 481,
"end": 492,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 571,
"end": 579,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 660,
"end": 675,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 823,
"end": 829,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1028,
"end": 1040,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1153,
"end": 1164,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1247,
"end": 1265,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1410,
"end": 1426,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1572,
"end": 1588,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1733,
"end": 1743,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1888,
"end": 1900,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2049,
"end": 2060,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2143,
"end": 2153,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2322,
"end": 2334,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2552,
"end": 2568,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2691,
"end": 2702,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2778,
"end": 2790,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/09/2015\n Kvm\n 1\n Arbp167.12Final\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n Arbitration Petition No. 167 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n Board of Control for Cricket in India, )\n a society registered under the Tamil Nadu )\n Societies Registration Act, 1975, having its )\n\n\n\n\n \n head office at Cricket Centre, Wankhade Stadium)\n 'D' Road, Churchgate, Mumbai - 400 020 )\n suing in the name of its Secretary, )\n Mr.Sanjay Jagdale ) ..... Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n 1. Nimbus Communications Ltd.,\n \n a company registered under the provisions of\n )\n )\n the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered )\n \n office at Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, )\n Off. New Link Road, Andheri (West), )\n Mumbai - 400 053 )\n \n\n 2. Neo Sports Broadcast Private Limited )\n company registered under the provisions of the )\n \n\n\n\n Companies Act, 1956 having its registered )\n office at Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, )\n Off. New Link Road, Andheri (West), )\n Mumbai - 400 053 ) ..... Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n Alongwith\n Arbitration Petition No. 595 Of 2012\n Nimbus Communications Ltd. )\n a company registered under the Companies Act,)\n\n\n\n\n\n 1956 having its registered office at )\n Nimbus Centre, Oberoi Complex, )\n Off. New Link Road, Andheri (West), )\n Mumbai - 400 053 ) ..... Petitioner\n\n Versus\n Board of Control for Cricket in India, )\n\n\n\n\n \n This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 04/09/2015\n Kvm\n 2\n Arbp167.12Final\n\n\n a Society Registered under the Tamil Nadu )\n Societies Registration Act and having its address)\n\n\n\n\n \n at Cricket Center, Wankhade Stadium, )\n Mumbai - 400020 ) ..... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.T.N.Subramanian, Senior Advocate, a/w. Ms.Akhila Premkumar, Mr.Aditya\n Mehta, Mr.Adarsh Saxena, Ms.Prabhjyot Chhabra, i/b.Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas\n for the Petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.167 of 2012 and for the Respondents in\n\n\n\n\n \n Arbitration Petition No.595 of 2012.\n\n Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate, a/w. Ms.L.M.Jenkins, i/b.Juris Consultus for the\n Respondent no.1 in Arbitration Petition No.167 of 2012 and for the Petitioner in\n\n\n\n\n \n Arbitration Petition No.595 of 2012.\n \n Mr.Zal Andhyarujina, a/w. Mr.Naser Rizvi, i/b.Thakore Jariwala & Associates for\n the Respondent no.2 in Arbitration Petition No.167 of 2012.\n \n Coram : R.D. Dhanuka, J.\n Reserved On : 28th July, 2015\n Pronounced On : 3Rd September, 2015\n \n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 272,
"end": 306,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 597,
"end": 634,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1145,
"end": 1171,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1712,
"end": 1748,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2186,
"end": 2212,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2539,
"end": 2555,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3315,
"end": 3330,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3357,
"end": 3373,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3378,
"end": 3394,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3399,
"end": 3412,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3417,
"end": 3434,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3677,
"end": 3688,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3715,
"end": 3726,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3986,
"end": 4002,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4012,
"end": 4023,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4211,
"end": 4223,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Kerala\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nK. M. Charia Abdullah & Co.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 70,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Narinder Kumar\n Additional Sessions Judge (Central): Delhi\n\n\nCrl. Rev. No.200/13\n\n\n1. Sh. A.K. Srivastava,\n S/o Sh. S.P. Srivastava\n\n2. Smt. Chandini Srivastava,\n W/o Sh. A.K. Srivastava,\n\n Both R/o :\u00ad A\u00ad137/A, Sector - 27,\n Noida (U.P.). .......Petitioners\n\n\nVersus\n\n\nCbi (Ac\u00adI), New Delhi. .......Respondent\n\nDate of institution : 21.10.2013\nDate of Judgment : 15.03.2014\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 138,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 201,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 372,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Miscellaneous Appeal No.264 of 2008\n===========================================================\n1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chanakya Commerical Complex 3rd Floor, R-Block, Patna through its Branch Manager. \n\n2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office at Tilak Road, Deoria, District- Deoria. \n\n .... .... Appellant/s Versus\n1. Smt. Sudha Singh, wife of late Ramanuj Prasad Singh. \n\n2. Miss Diksha Soni, daughter of late Ramanuj Prasad Singh. \n\n3. Astha, daughter of late Ramanuj Prasad Singh. \n\n4. Kumari Sweta Singh, daughter of late Ramanuj Prasad Singh. \n\n (All are resident of Chauhatta Matha, Darbhanga House Road, Ashok Raj Path, P.S.- Pirbahore, District- Patna.)\n5. Dinesh Duby, son of late Narbada Dubey, resident of House No.64, Daruf Safa, Lucknow, District- Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. \n\n .... .... Respondent/s With Miscellaneous Appeal No. 265 of 2008 ===========================================================\n1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chanakya Commerical Complex 3rd Floor, R- Block, Patna through its Branch Manager. \n\n2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office at Tilak Road, Deoria, District- Deoria. \n\n .... .... Appellant/s Versus\n1. Smt. Sudha Singh, wife of late Ramanuj Prasad Singh. \n\n2. Miss Diksha Soni, daughter of late Ramanuj Prasad Singh. \n\n3. Astha, daughter of late Ramanuj Prasad Singh. \n\n4. Kumari Sweta Singh, daughter of late Ramanuj Prasad Singh. \n\n (All are resident of Chauhatta Matha, Darbhanga House Road, Ashok Raj Path, P.S.- Pirbahore, District- Patna.)\n5. Dinesh Duby, son of late Narbada Dubey, resident of House No.64, Daruf Safa, Lucknow, District- Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. \n\n .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :\n(In both the Appeals) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ram Chandra Lal Das, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar For the Claimants : Mr. Shambhu Nath, Advocate : Mr. P.K. Roy, Advocate For Respondent no.5 : Mr. Shyam Kishore Singh, Advocate. . \n\n=========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Amaresh Kumar Lal Cav Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 193,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 317,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 424,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 471,
"end": 482,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 528,
"end": 533,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 579,
"end": 597,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 755,
"end": 766,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1006,
"end": 1037,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1131,
"end": 1162,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1258,
"end": 1269,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1316,
"end": 1327,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1373,
"end": 1378,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1424,
"end": 1442,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1600,
"end": 1611,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1867,
"end": 1886,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1901,
"end": 1912,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1937,
"end": 1949,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1966,
"end": 1974,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2011,
"end": 2030,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2136,
"end": 2153,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 3228 of 2006\n\nPetitioner:\nM/s Transcore\n\nRespondent:\nUnion of India & Anr\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 65,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 93,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Bank Of Travancore\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, Kerala\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 36,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 90,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Naveen K. Kashyap, Commercial Civil\n Judge-Cum-Additional Rent Controller (West), Tis\n Hazari Courts, Delhi.\n\n\nE-88/2013.\n\n1. Ashok Kumar Goel\n S/o Late Sh. Hukum Chand Goel,\n2. Sh. Raj Kumar Goel,\n S/o Late Sh. Hukum Chand Goel,\n3. Sh. Des Raj Goel,\n S/o Late Sh. Hukum Chand Goel,\n\n All Residents of\n House No. B-18 B,\n Mansarovar Garden,\n New Delhi - 110015. ...Petitioners\n\n Versus\n1. Sh. Rajiv Dhawan,\n S/o Sh. Durga Dass\n R/o F-51, Sector - 40,\n Golf Links, Noida, U.P\n2. Smt. Khima Dhawan,\n W/o Late Sh. Durga Dass,\n R/o F-51, Sector - 40,\n Golf Links, Noida, U.P\n3. Sh. Rohit Dhawan,\n S/o Late Sh. Prithvi Nath Dhawan,\n R/o 27/24, Shakti Nagar, Delhi - 110007\n Also at: Shop No. B-8, Tagore Garden,\n Kirti Nagar, New Delhi - 110015.\n4. Sh. Sanjiv Dhawan,\n S/o Late Sh. Prithvi Nath Dhawan,\n R/o B-436, New Friends Colony,\n New Delhi - 110065.\n Also at: Shop No. B-8, Tagore Garden,\n Kirti Nagar, New Delhi - 110015.\n ......Respondents\n\n\nE\u00ad88/2013 Ashok Kr. Goel and others Vs. Rajiv Dhawan and others page no\u00ad1 of 24\n Date of institution : 02/07/2013.\nDate of decision : 19/04/2014.\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 147,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 187,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 253,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 318,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 597,
"end": 609,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 713,
"end": 725,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 834,
"end": 846,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1037,
"end": 1050,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1363,
"end": 1377,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1393,
"end": 1405,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe State Trading Corporation Of India Ltd. & Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 50,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 136,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n Civil Appeal Nos. 5478-5483 Of 2014\n\n (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.\n 24297-24302 of 2007)\n\n\n Union of India & Ors. `\n \u2026. Appellants\n\n Versus\n\n Shiv Raj & Ors. \u2026.\n Respondents\n\n\n 1 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 43,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 329,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 428,
"end": 436,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Xix Addl. City Civil &\n Sessions Judge At Bangalore City:\n (Cch.18)\n\n Dated this 16th day of June, 2015.\n\n Present\n Smt.K.B.Geetha, M.A., Ll.B.,\n Xix Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bangalore City.\n\n O.S.No.7999/2013\n\nPlaintiff : Sri.Kiran Kumar.T,\n Aged about 30 years,\n s/o Sri.H.Thippa Reddy,\n r/at No.466, Rajapalya,\n Hoody, Itpl Main Road,\n Mahadevapura Post,\n Bangalore East Taluk.\n (By Sri N.Satish,Advocate)\n -Vs-\nDefendants : 1. Smt.Venkatamma,\n Aged about 57 years,\n w/o late Munivenkatappa.\n 2. Sri.M.Srinivas,\n Aged about 42 years,\n s/o late Munivenkatappa.\n 3. Sri.M.Narayan,\n Aged about 38 years,\n s/o late Munivenkatappa.\n\n All r/at No.285,\n \"Om Nilaya\", 2nd Main,\n 4th Cross, Nallurahalli Village,\n Whitefield Post,\n Bangalore East Taluk,\n Bangalore-560 066.\n (D.1 to D.3 - By Sri.N.K.K. Advocate)\n 2 O.S.No.7999/2013\n\n\n\nDate of Institution of the suit : 31/10/2013\n\nNature of the Suit : Recovery of money.\n\nDate of commencement of\nrecording of evidence : 12/6/2014\n\nDate on which the\nJudgment was pronounced : 16/6/2015\n\n\n Year/s Month/s Day/s\n\nTotal Duration : 01 07 15\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 201,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 350,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 586,
"end": 594,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 643,
"end": 653,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 750,
"end": 760,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 863,
"end": 872,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1217,
"end": 1223,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Date of decision: 3rd August, 2012\n+ Fao. No.445/2000\n\n Sanjay ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. O.P. Mannie, Advocate\n\n Versus\n\n Suresh Chand & Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate for\n R-3.\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Mr. Justice G.P.Mittal\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 167,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 278,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 341,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 450,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 557,
"end": 567,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSmt. Sarabati Devi & Anr.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSmt. Usha Devi\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 71,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Raj Kumar: Addl. District \n Judge\u00ad17: Tis Hazari Courts : Delhi\n\nSuit No. 376/14 (Old Suit No. 54/06)\nUnique Case Id No. 02401C0470982006\n\nHari Prakash S/o Sh. Jug Lal, \nRepresented by his General Attorney\nSh. Prem Chand, S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan, \nR/o A\u00ad37, Christian Colony, Patel Chest, \nDelhi. ........... Plaintiff. \n\n\n Versus \n\n\nM/s Cool All Beverages (P) Ltd. \nThrough its Director \nSh. P.S. Sareen, Plot No. 242, \nGround Floor, Industrial Area, \nPatparganj, Delhi. ......... Defendant. \n\nDate of institution of the suit : 30.05.2006\nDate on which order was reserved : 11.11.2014\nDate of decision : 02.12.2014\n\n\n\n Suit For Recovery Of Rs. 4,95,000/\u00ad As Damages For \n Unlawful & Unauthorized Occupation And Use\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 30,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 93,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 181,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 448,
"end": 475,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nR. K. Sabharwal And Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Punjab And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 71,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAzhar Hussain\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nRajiv Gandhi\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 57,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Lac No. 125/14\n Union of India v Gaon Sabha Dhoolsiras & Others \n Dod : 11.11.2014\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Raj Kumar Tripathi\n Additional District Judge\u00ad04, South West \n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi \n\n\nLac no. 125/14 Award No. 9/2008\u00ad2009\nComputerized No. 02405C0256322010 Village\u00ad Dhoolsiras\n\n\nIn the Matter of \n\n\n Union of India \n\n\n Versus \n\n\n1. Gaon Sabha,\n Dhoolsiras Ip no. 1\n\n\n2. Suresh @ Suresh Bahadur\n S/o Shri Sarjeet,\n R/o Village Dhoolsiras,\n New Delhi Ip no. 2\n\n\n\n\nDate of Institution : 26.08.2011 \nDate of Receipt in this court by way of transfer : 26.02.2014\nDate of reserving judgment : 27.10.2014\nDate of pronouncement of judgment : 11.11.2014\n\n\n\n\n 1 of 18\n Lac No. 125/14\n Union of India v Gaon Sabha Dhoolsiras & Others \n Dod : 11.11.2014\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 242,
"end": 260,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 357,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 554,
"end": 568,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 618,
"end": 628,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 718,
"end": 741,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nWrit Petition (civil) 61 of 2002\n\nPetitioner:\nM.Nagaraj & Others\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRespondent:\nUnion of India & Others\t\t\t\t\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 66,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 108,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nEmpire Industries Limited & Ors. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India & Ors. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 37,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 69,
"end": 83,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan And The Honble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy \n\nWrit Petition No.39671 of 2015 \n\n31-03-2016 \n\nMrs.Samala Dhana Laxmi .Petitioner \n\n1) The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,\nTelangana Secretariat, Hyderabad & Ors.. Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Vedula Venkataramana, Learned Senior Counsel for Sri Kurti Bhaskara Rao. \n\nCounsel for respondents: The Advocate-General (Tg) Government Pleader for Home (Tg) Government Pleader for P & E (Tg) Government Pleader for Revenue (Tg) Head Note: \n? Citations:\n1. (2006) 2 Ald 367 \n2. (2006) 5 Alt 739 \n3. (2011) 5 Scc 244 \n4. (2012) 2 Scc 386 \n5. (1975) 3 Scc 198 \n6. (2005) 3 Scc 663 \n7. (1999) 4 Scc 514 \n8. (2011) 10 Scc 215 \n9. (1970) 1 Scc 98 \n10. (2012) 2 Scc 176 \n11. Air 1953 Sc 318 = 1953 Scr 708 \n12. (1998) 1 Wlr 503 (Ca) \n13. (2004) 7 Scc 467 \n14. (2004) 3 Scc 75 \n15. 2013 (4) Alt 243 (D.B)\n16. Air 1981 Sc 746 \n17. (1996) 3 Scc 194 \n18. (1990) 3 Scc 148 \n19. (1974) 1 Scc 103 \n20. 1996(4) Alt 485 = (1997)1 ALT(Cri) 184\n21. (2008) 3 Scc 613 \n22. (1975) 3 Scc 198 \n23. (2011) 10 Scc 781 = 2012 (5) Scj 800 \n24. (1975) 2 Scc 81 \n25. (1951) 342 Us 98 \n26. (1990) 2 Scc 1 \n27. Air 1966 Sc 740 \n28. (1980) 4 Scc 531 \n29. (1972) 2 Scc 542 \n30. (1974) 1 Scc 637 \n31. (1975) 1 Scc 837 \n32. (1975) 3 Scc 395 \n33. (1974) 4 Scc 463 \n34. (1970) 3 Scc 746 \n35. (1972) 3 Scc 831 \n36. (1969) 1 Scc 10 \n37. (1969) 2 Scc 426 \n38. (1972) 3 Scc 845 \n39. (1972) 1 Scc 498 \n40. (1974) 1 Scc 185 \n41. (1992) 2 Scc 177 \n42. (2000) 6 Scc 168 \n43. (1980) 3 Scc 57 \n44. 2002 (1) Alt 611 (Fb)\n45. 2004 (1) Ald (Crl.) 561\n46. Air 1952 Sc 196 \n47. 1917 Ac 260 \n48. (1975) 4 Scc 47 \n49. Air 1951 Sc 157 = 1951 Scr 167 \n50. (1986) 4 Scc 378 \n51. Air 1967 Sc 295 \n52. (1974) 1 Scc 645 \n53. Air 1964 Sc 72 \n54. Air 1950 Fc 129 \n55. (1980) 4 Scc 470 \n56. (1995) 4 Scc 51 \n57. (1979) 4 Scc 370 \n58. (1975) 3 Scc 722 \n59. 1954 Scr 418 \n60. (1974) 4 Scc 573 \n61. 1943 Fcr 49 \n62. Air 1951 Sc 174 \n63. (1974) 3 Scc 600 \n64. Ilr 1972 Ap 1025 \n65. (1975) 3 Scc 710 The Honble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan And The Honble Sri Justice M.Satyanarayana Murthy Writ Petition No.39671 of 2015 Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 41,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 94,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 184,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 226,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 367,
"end": 387,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 438,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2153,
"end": 2171,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2199,
"end": 2221,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n Civil Appeal No. 5433 Of 2008\n (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16886 of 2008)\n\nCommissioner of Income Tax,\nDehradun & Anr. ... Appellants\n\n v.\n\nEnron Oil & Gas India Ltd. ....\nRespondent\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 242,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 347,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSuresh Koshy George\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe University Of Kerala & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 75,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Karnataka,\n Dharwad Bench\n Dated This The 03Rd Day Of March, 2014\n\n Before:\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice K.N. Phaneendra\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 100014/2014\n C/w Criminal Appeal No.100009/2014\n\nBetween:\n\nIn Crl. A. No.100014/2014:\n\n1. Ramesh\n S/o Giddappa Waddar,\n Aged about 29 years,\n Occupation: Lorry Maintenance,\n R/o Ramalingana Gudi,\n Chitrakeri Street, Hospete,\n (Undergoing Sentence).\n\n2. Baba Patel S/o Mohammed\n Patel Biradar,\n Aged about 24 years,\n Occupation: Driver,\n R/o Gudnal, Muddebihal Taluk,\n District : Bijapur,\n Presently Behind Regional\n Transport Office, B.T. Nagar,\n Hospet. (Undergoing Sentence). ... Appellants\n\n (By Sri. Vijay S. Chiniwar and\n Sri. Mahiboob S. Halli, Advs.)\n 2\n\nAnd:\n\nThe State by Munirabad Police,\nRepresented by\nState Public Prosecutor,\nDharawad. ... Respondent\n\n (By Sri. V.M. Banakar, Addl. Spp)\n\n This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2)\nof Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to allow this\nappeal and set aside the judgment and order of\nconviction passed by the learned District and Sessions\nJudge, Koppal in S.C. No.21/2013 dated 11.12.2013,\nand 12.12.2013, convicting the appellants for the\noffence punishable under Section 392 of I.P.C.\n\n\nIn Crl. A. No.100009/2014:\n\n1. Krishna\n S/o Tirupalappa,\n Aged about 28 years,\n Occupation: Driver,\n R/o Ward No.28,\n Chapparad Halli,\n Hospete,\n District Bellary.\n\n2. Kumar\n S/o Venkappa Devaramani,\n Aged about 26 years,\n Occupation: Driver,\n 3\n\n R/o Behind Regional\n Transport Office,\n B.T. Nagar, Hospet,\n District : Bijapur. ... Appellants\n\n (By Sri. S.B. Naik, Adv. for Sri. K.L. Patil, Advs.)\n\n\nAnd:\n\nThe State of Karnataka,\nRep. by State Public Prosecutor,\nHigh Court of Karnataka. ... Respondent\n\n (By Sri. V.M. Banakar, Addl. Spp)\n\n\n This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2)\nof Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to allow this\nappeal and set aside the judgment and order of\nconviction passed by the learned District and Sessions\nJudge, Koppal in S.C. No.21/2013 dated 11.12.2013,\nand 12.12.2013, convicting the appellants for the\noffence punishable under Section 411 of I.P.C. and\nacquit the appellants of the charges.\n\n These Criminal Appeals coming on for dictating\nJudgment this day, the Court delivered the following:\n 4\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 185,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 324,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 507,
"end": 517,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 801,
"end": 818,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 840,
"end": 857,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 910,
"end": 935,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1054,
"end": 1066,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1478,
"end": 1485,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1661,
"end": 1666,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1937,
"end": 1946,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1962,
"end": 1972,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1993,
"end": 2011,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2125,
"end": 2137,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar \n\nCriminal Petition No.6355 Of 2013 \n\n28-01-2014 \n\nM/s. Vasundhara Projects Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director\nSri K.V.Ramesh and three others......PETITIONERS/ACCUSED \n \nThe State of A.P. rep.by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and\nanother..RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT \n \nCounsel for Petitioner/Accused : Sri P.Nagendera Reddy \n\nCounsel for Respondents.: Sri A.Hanumantha Reddy for \n R-2\n\nHead Note : \n\n? Cases referred :\n 2013 (1) Dt (Sc) 428\n2Air 2010 Sc 1402 \n3 2013 (1_ Scc, 271 \n4 2013 (3) Alt (Criminal) 224 Sc\n5 1999 (8) Scc 608 \n6 1998 (2) Ald (Crl.) 201 (A.P.)\n7 1998 Crl.L.J. 22\n8 2002 (1) Ald (Crl.) 197 (Ap)\n9 Air 1965 Sc 1248 \n10Air 1963 Andhra Pradesh 442 (V.50 C 139) \n112012 (1) Ald (Crl.) 549 (Ap)\n12(2011) 13 Supreme Court Cases, 148 \n13Air 2010 Supreme Court, 2596 \n141999 Crl.L.J. 4246\n15Air 2002 Supreme Court 3014 \n\n\nHonble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar \nCriminal Petition No.6355 Of 2013 \n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 39,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 138,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 197,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 279,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 430,
"end": 447,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 480,
"end": 498,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1030,
"end": 1045,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh.Suresh Chand Rajan\n Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge(Ndps)\n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi\n\n\nCrl. Appeal No.06/14\n\nKuldeep Kumar \nS/o Sh Baliram\n ....Appellant\nVs. \n\nHemlata \nD/o Sh Nannumal\n ...... Respondent \nDate of Institution : 13.01.2014\nReserved for order on : 28.03.2014\nDate of Pronouncement: 31.03.2014\n\n\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 159,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 287,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Principal Seat At Jabalpur.\n\n Election Petition No.04/2014\n Dr.Vivek Tiwari\n Vs.\n Shri Divyaraj Singh\n ____________________________________________________\nPresent: Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar\nShri R.P.Agrawal, Senior counsel with Shri Anuj Agrawal,\ncounsel for the petitioner.\nShri Anuvad Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent\nNo.1.\nShri Siddharth Seth, counsel for the respondent Nos.2,3\n& 4.\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 147,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 216,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 317,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 334,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 373,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 426,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 466,
"end": 480,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nTr.P(Crl.).No. 50 of 2003(A)\n\n\n1. M.S. Santhoshkumar, S/O. Soman,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. K.G. Mohanan, Kadavunkal House,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State Of Kerala, Rep. By Public\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Grashious Kuriakose\n\n For Respondent :Sri.P.R.Ramachandra Menon\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\n\n Dated :10/07/2008\n\n O R D E R\n R.Basant, J\n ------------------------------------\n Tr.P.(Crl.). No.50 of 2003\n -------------------------------------\n Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 94,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 192,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 275,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 349,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 388,
"end": 409,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 443,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 504,
"end": 512,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 2641 of 2000\n\nPetitioner:\nState Of H.P. and Ors.\n\nRespondent:\nGujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. and Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 65,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 114,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n Criminal Appeal No.343/1997\n Criminal Appeal No.360/1997\n Criminal Appeal No.365/1997\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur\n Single Bench\n Present : Hon'Ble Shri Justice N. K. Gupta\n\n Criminal Appeal No.343/1997\n Rayees @ Achche Chacha\n\n -Versus-\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.360/1997\n Noor Mohammad\n\n -Versus-\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.365/1997\n Shabir Khan and another\n\n -Versus-\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n.................................................................................................\n Shri Shakeel Ahmed, counsel for the appellants.\n Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the State.\n.................................................................................................\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 275,
"end": 315,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 396,
"end": 407,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 518,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 606,
"end": 629,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 717,
"end": 730,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 813,
"end": 836,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 924,
"end": 935,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1030,
"end": 1053,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1166,
"end": 1179,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1222,
"end": 1235,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order\n\n\n Cri. Applns. 1346,1347, 1348/05\n 1\n\n\n In The High Court At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Appellate Side, Bench At Aurangabad\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Application No. 1346 Of 2005\n\n\n Mr. Amol Shripal Sheth ....Applicant.\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n\n M/s. Hari Om Trading Co. & Ors. ....Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. S.B. Lakhotiya h/f. Mr. R.F. Totala, Advocate for applicant.\n \n Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for respondent No. 1.\n \n With\n Criminal Application No. 1347 Of 2005\n\n\n Mr. Amol Shripal Sheth ....Applicant.\n \n\n\n Versus\n \n\n\n\n M/s. Haryana Trading Co. & Ors. ....Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. S.B. Lakhotiya h/f. Mr. R.F. Totala, Advocate for applicant.\n Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for respondent No. 1.\n\n\n With\n\n\n\n\n\n Criminal Application No. 1348 Of 2005\n\n\n Mr. Amol Shripal Sheth ....Applicant.\n\n Versus\n\n M/s. Sunderpuriya Brothers & Ors. ....Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order\n\n\n Cri. Applns. 1346,1347, 1348/05\n 2\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. S.B. Lakhotiya h/f. Mr. R.F. Totala, Advocate for applicant.\n Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for respondent No. 1.\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram : T. V. Nalawade, J.\n Dated : 3rd October, 2012.\n\n\n\n\n \n Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 230,
"end": 250,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 522,
"end": 540,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 682,
"end": 701,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1076,
"end": 1094,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1188,
"end": 1207,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1269,
"end": 1283,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1293,
"end": 1304,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1339,
"end": 1348,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1492,
"end": 1510,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1590,
"end": 1611,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2026,
"end": 2040,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2050,
"end": 2061,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2096,
"end": 2105,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2264,
"end": 2278,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 1877 of 2006()\n\n\n1. Dasan @ Viswambaran,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala.\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.S.Sachithananda Pai\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :29/01/2010\n\n O R D E R\n R.Basant & M.C.Hari Rani, Jj.\n *************************\n Crl.Appeal No.1877 of 2006\n ******************************\n Dated this the 29th day of January 2010\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 91,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 165,
"end": 180,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 283,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 361,
"end": 369,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 408,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 456,
"end": 464,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 480,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n Cr.R.No.856/2013\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Bench At Gwalior\n\n\n Sb : Hon'Ble Mr. Justice N.K. Gupta\n Cr.R. No. 856 of 2013\n\n\n Rajendra Bharti\n Vs.\n Shri Narottam Mishra & Ors.\nWhether reportable :- Yes /No\n__________________________________________________________\nFor Applicant : Shri V.K. Saxena, Senior Advocate\n with Shri Aditya Singh, Advocate.\nFor Respondents : Shri V.K.Bharadwaj,Senior Advocate\nNo. 1 & 2 with Shri M.P.S Raghuvanshi,\n Advocate.\nFor Respondent : Shri Arvind Dudawat, Additional\nNo. 3/State Advocate General.\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 136,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 185,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 273,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 350,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 483,
"end": 494,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 553,
"end": 565,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 613,
"end": 626,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 684,
"end": 701,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 780,
"end": 794,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur\n\n\n Writ Petition No : 5399 Of 2010\n\n Ashok Kumar Panchratan\n - V/s -\n Registrar, Public Trust and another\n\n\nPresent : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon.\n\n ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri R.N.Singh, Senior Counsel with Shri Alok Pathak, for the petitioner.\n Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Govt. Advocate, for respondent no.1\n Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Abinash Jargar and\n Shri A.Sapre for respondent no.2.\n ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 163,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 257,
"end": 280,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 356,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 462,
"end": 471,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 498,
"end": 509,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 544,
"end": 557,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 608,
"end": 627,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 662,
"end": 676,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 694,
"end": 701,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 3595-3612 of 1999\n\nPetitioner:\nSecretary, State of Karnataka and others\n\nRespondent:\nUmadevi and others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 86,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 111,
"end": 118,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSitaram Motilal Kalal\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSantanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 83,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "E. No.\u00ad02/2010 1 18.09.2014\n\n\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Kiran Gupta, Senior Civil Judge\u00adCum\u00ad\n Rent Controller: Patiala House Courts: New Delhi\n\n E. No.\u00ad02/2010 \n Unique Id No.02403C0050002010\n \n\n\nS.K. Gupta\nS/o Late Sh. Devi Charan Gupta,\nR/o 6, Under Hill Road,\nCivil Lines, Delhi\u00ad110054\n ....... Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n1. M/s Him Traders Pvt. Ltd.\n 84, Tolstoy Lane, Janpath,\n New Delhi\u00ad110001\n Through its Managing Director\n Sh. R.K. Gupta/Director\n\n2. Sh. Balbir Singh Mayal,\n 84, Tolstoy Lane, Janpath,\n New Delhi\u00ad110001\n\n3. Sh. Swaran Singh Mayal\n 84, Tolstoy Lane, Janpath,\n New Delhi\u00ad110001\n\n4. M/s New Airways Travels Delhi Pvt. Ltd.\n 84, Tolstoy Lane, Janpath,\n New Delhi\u00ad110001\n Through its Managing Director \n ........ Respondents\n\nDate of institution: 08.02.2010\nDate of arguments : 16.09.2014\nDate of decision : 18.09.2014\n\n\n\n\nS.K. Gupta Vs. Him Traders Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Page 1 of 36\n E. No.\u00ad02/2010 2 18.09.2014\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 119,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 441,
"end": 451,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 645,
"end": 666,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 793,
"end": 811,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 875,
"end": 893,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 956,
"end": 991,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1346,
"end": 1356,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1361,
"end": 1382,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Neeraj Vs Ajeet & Ors\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. K. S. Mohi: Presiding Officer : Mact\n South Distt. Saket Courts, New Delhi\n\nIn Petition No. 355/13\n\nIn Fir No. 385/13, P.S Sangam Vihar\n\nUnique Case Id : 02403C0361042013\n\n 1. Sh. Neeraj (Father)\n S/o Sh. Kalicharan\n 2. Smt. Kamlesh (Mother)\n W/o Sh. Neeraj\n Both R/o\n K1\u00ad18D/355, Block\u00adK,\n Sangam Vihar, Delhi\u00ad110062. ...... Petitioners\n Versus \n\n\n\n 1. Sh. Ajeet \n S/o Sh. Devi Charan\n R/o Village Parasar,\n Tehsil Mat, Distt. Mathura, \n Uttar Pradesh. ............ Driver\n\n 2. Tilak Raj\n S/o Sh. Krishan\n R/o 1754, L\u00ad1, Gali No. 8,\n Sangam Vihar, New Delhi. ........... Owner\n\n\n 3. Bharti Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Noida, U.P. ........ Insurer \n .......Respondents \n\n\n\n\nPetition No. : 355/13 Page No. 1 of 16\n Neeraj Vs Ajeet & Ors\n\n\n\n\n Date of Institution : 28.10.2013\n\n Date of reserving of judgment/order : 12.09.2014\n\n Date of pronouncement : 12.09.2014\n\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 6,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 10,
"end": 15,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 65,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 153,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 269,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 366,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 654,
"end": 659,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 877,
"end": 886,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1065,
"end": 1102,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1535,
"end": 1541,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1545,
"end": 1550,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Honble Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao \n\nC.R.P.No.4289 Of 2015 \n\n04-08-2016.\n\nMekala Satyanarayana..Petitioner \n\nAngadala Veera Raju and others ..Respondents \n\nCounsel for the petitioner:Sri Thota Suneetha\n \nCounsel for the respondents: Sri K.Sai Mohan Rao \n \nHead Note: \n\n? Citations: \n 2008(4) Ald 71\n2 1996(5) Scc 181 \n3 Air 1982 Sc 558 \n4 2001(1) Ald 77(Db) \n5 2002(6) Ald 251 \n6 2015(4) Ald 394 \n7 Air 1958 Sc 687 \n8 Air 2005 Sc 2821(1) \n9 (2003) 8 Scc 498 \n10 (2004)8 Scc 402 \n11Air 2005 Sc 353(1) \n12 (1966) Air 1966 Sc 1631 \n13 Air 1968 Ap 309(Vol.55, C.68) \n14 2010(7) scale 428\n\n\nHonble Dr. Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao \n\nC.R.P.No.4289 Of 2015 \n\n\nOrder",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 107,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 141,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 215,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 290,
"end": 305,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 714,
"end": 732,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "46\n*In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n + Fao No.842/2003\n\n Date of Decision: 21st December, 2009\n%\n\n Rajesh Tyagi & Ors. ..... Appellants\n Through : None.\n\n versus\n\n Jaibir Singh & Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through : Mr. Atul Nanda Standing.\n Counsel for Union of India.\n Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Additional\n Standing Counsel for Delhi\n Police.\n Mr. V.P. Chaudhary, Sr. Adv.\n and Mr. Anoop Bhambhani,\n amicus curiae.\n Mr. Arun Mohan, Sr. Adv.\n and Ms.Rajdeepa Behura,\n Adv. as Members of the\n Committee appointed by\n the Court.\n Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha,\n Adv.\n for R - 3.\n Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Adv.\n for New India Assurance Co.\n Ltd.\n Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Adv. for\n National Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa and\n Ms. Harsh Lata, Advs.\n for Oriental Insurance Co.\n Ltd.\n Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Adv. for\n United India Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Adv. for\n Reliance General Insurance Co.\n Ltd.\n Mr. Atul Nanda, Adv. for\n Bajaj Reliance General\n Insurance Co. Ltd., Future\n Generali India Insurance Co.\n Ltd. and Icici Lombard\n General Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Ms. Shantha Devi Raman,\n\nFao No.842/2003 Page 1 of 7\n Adv. for Iffco Tokyo\n General Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Ms. Anjali Bansal, Adv. for\n Tata Aig General Insurance\n Co. Ltd.\n Mr. Pankaj Seth, Adv. for\n Royal Sundaram Alliance\n Insurance Co. Ltd. and\n Universal Sompo General\n Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Mr. Sunil Kapoor and Mr.\n Anurag Sharma, Advs. for\n Hdfc Ergo General\n Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Ms. Suman Bagga, Adv. for\n Cholamandalam.\nCoram :-\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha\n\n1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes\n be allowed to see the Judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be Yes\n reported in the Digest?\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 175,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 290,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 370,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 477,
"end": 488,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 636,
"end": 650,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 701,
"end": 716,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 801,
"end": 811,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 861,
"end": 876,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1067,
"end": 1085,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1203,
"end": 1219,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1359,
"end": 1371,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1684,
"end": 1697,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1808,
"end": 1823,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1970,
"end": 1980,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2207,
"end": 2220,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2316,
"end": 2334,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2561,
"end": 2574,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2730,
"end": 2741,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3021,
"end": 3033,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3077,
"end": 3090,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3248,
"end": 3259,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3353,
"end": 3363,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. R.K. Gauba: District & Sessions \n Judge (South District) Saket: New Delhi\n\n\n(i) Criminal Revision No. 311/13\n Id No.: 02406R0312412013 \n\nSanjeev Kumar\nJr. Engineer, (Building)\nOffice of the Executive Engineer\nSouth Zone, Sdmc\nGreen Park, New Delhi. ... Revisionist\n Versus\n 1. The State \n Government of Nct of Delhi\n Through the Commissioner of Police\n Police Head Quarters, \n I. P. Estate, New Delhi.\n 2. Corruption Oonmulan, Sansthan\u00adNGO\n Rz\u00ad56, Chandan Colony, Said\u00adul\u00adajaib, New Delhi.\n Through its President: \n Pavit Singh s/o Sh. Satbir Singh\n R/o Rz\u00ad56, Chandan Colony,\n Said\u00adul\u00adajaib, New Delhi. ... Respondents \n\n\n(ii) Criminal Revision No. 320/13\n Id No.: 02406R0322112013 \n\nState (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)\nThrough Public Prosecutor (South). ... Revisionist\n Versus\n\n\nCrl. Rev. No. 311/2013 & 320/2013. Page No. 1 of 26\n 1. Corruption Onmulan Sanstha (Ngo)\n Through its President\n Pavit Singh\n R/o Rz\u00ad56, Chandan Colony,\n Saidulazab, New Delshi 30.\n 2. South Delhi Municipal Corporation\n Through its Commissioner, \n Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi .... Respondents \n\n\nInstituted on: 12.11.2013 & 21.11.2013 respectively.\nJudgment reserved on:03.02.2014.\nJudgment pronounced on: 03.02.2014\n\nJ U D G M E N T \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 185,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 356,
"end": 361,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 396,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 528,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 844,
"end": 849,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1028,
"end": 1054,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1184,
"end": 1217,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\n\nDated : 04/11/2006\n\n\nCoram\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice P.K. Misra\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar\nAnd\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice G.Rajasuria\n\n\nWrit Appeal (Md) No.313 Of 2006\nand\nM.P.No.1 Of 2006\n\n\n1. Director of Elementary Education,\n Chennai 6.\n\n2. District Elementary Educational\n Officer, Thoothukkudi,\n Thoothukkudi District.\n\n3. Assistant Elementary Educational\n Officer,\n Alkwarthirunagari 628 623.\n Thoothukkudi District.\t\t... \tAppellants\n\n\nVs.\n\n\n1. Tmt.S. Vigila\n 3/127, Church Street,\n Meignanapuram,\n Thiruchendur Taluk,\n Thoothukudi District.\n\n2. Manager,\n Meerania Middle School,\n Alagiamanavalapuram,\n Alwarthirunagari,\n Thoothukudi District.\t\t... \tRespondents\n\n\n\n\t\tAppeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order\npassed by the learned single dated 13.4.2006 made in W.P.(Md) No.1641 of 2004.\n\n\n!For Appellants\t\t...\tMr.R. Viduthalai\n\t\t\t\tAdvocate General\n\t\t\t\tAssisted by\n\t\t\t\tMr.R. Janakiramulu\n\t\t\t\tSpecial Govt. Pleader\n\n\n^For Respondents\t...\tMr.K. Chellapandian for\n\t\t\t\tMr.V. Panneerselvam.\n\n\t\t\t\tMr.Issac Mohanlal,\n\t\t\t\tAmicus Curiae.\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 152,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 191,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 298,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 304,
"end": 386,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 392,
"end": 491,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 522,
"end": 535,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 631,
"end": 735,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 935,
"end": 948,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 993,
"end": 1008,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1061,
"end": 1077,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1089,
"end": 1105,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1115,
"end": 1129,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Fir No. 148/13 : State V/s Sunil @ Machhar : Ps Ashok Vihar Dod: 22.04.2015\n\n\n In The Court Of Vinod Yadav: Addl. Sessions Judge: \n (North\u00adWest)\u00ad01: Rohini District Courts: Delhi\n\n\n(Sessions Case No. 133/13)\nUnique Id case No.02404R0236022013\n\n\n\nState Vs. Sunil @ Machhar\nFir No. : 148/13\nU/s : 377 Ipc & 4 of Pocso Act\nP.S. : Ashok Vihar\n\n\n\nState Vs. Sunil @ Machhar\n S/o Sh. Prem Raj Pal \n R/o Wpx\u00ad81, Jhuggie Wazirpur Village, \n Ashok Vihar, Delhi. \n\n\nDate of institution of case\u00ad 26.08.2013\nDate of arguments : 10.04.2015\nDate of pronouncement of judgment :\u00ad 22.04.2015 \n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 23,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 29,
"end": 44,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 149,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 227,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 300,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 338,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 471,
"end": 476,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 499,
"end": 514,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "M.F.A.No.23183/2009\n :1:\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka\n Dharwad Bench\n\n Dated This The 31st Day Of August, 2017\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice H.B.Prabhakara Sastry\n\n Mfa No.23183/2009 (Mv)\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Smt.Iramma W/O Bhimangouda Patil @ Goudar,\n Age: 45 Years, Occ: Household Work,\n\n2. Smt.Parwatewwa @ Tippawwa\n W/O Hanumgouda Patil @ Goudar,\n Age: 72 Years, Occ: Household Work,\n\n3. Savita D/O Bhimangouda Patil @ Goudar,\n Age: 23 Years, Occ: Student,\n\n4. Hanumgouda S/O Bhimangouda Patil @ Goudar,\n Age: 22 Years, Occ: Student,\n\nAll R/O Madarkhandi, Tq.Jamakhandi, Dist: Bagalkot.\n\n ... Appellants\n(By Sri.N.L.Batakurki, Adv.)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Sri.Surendra S/O Venkanna Gadadi,\n Age: Major, Occ: Business,\n R/O Murnal Village, Tq. & Dist: Bagalkot.\n\n2. Raghavendra S/O Vivekanand Vaidya,\n Age: Major, Occ: Owner Of Lorry\n No.Ka-31/190, R/O Gaddankeri, Tq.Bagalkot.\n\n3. The Branch Manager,\n National Insurance Co.Ltd.,\n M.F.A.No.23183/2009\n :2:\n\n\n\n Melligari Complex, Bagalkot.\n4. Shriram Investments Ltd.,\n Branch Offie, Navanagar.\n ... Respondents\n(By Sri.M.Amaregouda, Adv. For R1,\n Sri.Santosh B.Mane, Adv. For R2,\n Sri.P.H.Pawar, Adv. For R3,\n R4 Served And Unpresented)\n ---\n This Mfa Is Filed Under Section 173(1) Of The Mv\nAct, 1988 Against The Judgment And Award Dated\n26.09.2008, Passed In Mvc No.357/2004 On The File Of The\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal No.V, Jamkhandi,\nDismissing The Claim Petition For Compensation And\nSeeking Set Aside The Impugned Judgment And Award\nDated 26.09.2008 In Mvc No.357/2004.\n\n This Appeal Having Been Heard And Reserved For\nJudgment Coming On For Pronouncement Of Judgment\nThis Day, The Court Delivered The Following:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 266,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 336,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 424,
"end": 445,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 535,
"end": 541,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 618,
"end": 628,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 820,
"end": 833,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 859,
"end": 867,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 980,
"end": 991,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1116,
"end": 1165,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1302,
"end": 1326,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1424,
"end": 1436,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1459,
"end": 1473,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1496,
"end": 1505,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "upa 1 fb-cri-wp2523-10\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Writ Petition No. 2523 Of 2010\n\n\n\n\n \n Along With\n Criminal Application No. 3478 Of 2010\n\n Criminal Writ Petition No.2523 Of 2010\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr. Rajesh Bhalchandra Chalke )\n Age : 37 years, Occupation : Business )\n Indaga House, 82, Dr. Annie Basent Road )\n Worli, Mumbai 400 018. ).. Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus \n 1) State of Maharashtra )\n \n 2) M/s Emco Dynatorq Pvt. Ltd. )\n (Formerly known as Emco Lenze Pvt. Ltd.) )\n having its office located at 1st Floor )\n Sita Mauli, Above Bank of Maharashtra )\n \n\n\n Madanlal Dhingra Road, Panch Pakhadi )\n Thane (W), 400 602. ).. Respondents\n \n\n\n\n Mr. S.V. Marwadi i/b Mr. S.P. Narkar for the Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. M.R. Tidke, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.\n\n\n\n Along With\n\n\n\n\n\n Criminal Application No. 3478 Of 2010\n\n 1) Nikhil Vasantlal Merchant, age 48 years )\n\n a) 347-A, Pancharatna, Opera House, M.P. Marg )\n Mumbai 400 004. )\n\n b) H-2, Breach Candy Apts., Bhulabhai Desai )\n Road, Mumbai 400 026. )\n\n\n\n\n \n upa 2 fb-cri-wp2523-10\n\n 2) Manepanda Joyappa Subbaiah )\n a) 347-A, Pancharatna, Opera House, M.P. Marg )\n Mumbai 400 004. )\n\n\n\n\n \n b) 201, Skyline Apts., Langford Road, )\n\n\n\n\n \n Shanthinagar, Bangalore, Karnataka 560025 )\n\n 3) Ashok Kumar Ram Gopal Doda )\n\n\n\n\n \n a) 347-A, Pancharatna, Opera House, M.P. Marg )\n Mumbai 400 004. )\n\n b) A-203/204, Mt. Everest, Bhakti Park )\n Wadala (East), Mumbai 400031 ).. Applicants\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus \n 1) The State of Maharashtra )\n \n 2) Global Trade Finance Ltd. )\n through its Registered Office situated at )\n Metropolitan Building, 6th Floor, Bandra-Kurla )\n Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 ).. Respondents\n \n \n\n\n\n Mr. Ashish Chavan for the Applicant.\n Mr. Jatin Shah for the Respondent in other matter.\n Mr. Yashpal Thakur i/b M/s Paras Kuhad and Associates\n\n\n\n\n\n for Respondent No.2.\n Mr. M.R. Tidke, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.\n\n\n Coram : Mohit S. Shah, C.J.,\n\n\n\n\n\n V.M. Kanade And\n Smt. R.P.Sondurbaldota, Jj.\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 108,
"end": 142,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 598,
"end": 623,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 966,
"end": 986,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1067,
"end": 1090,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1515,
"end": 1527,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1536,
"end": 1547,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1583,
"end": 1593,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1722,
"end": 1747,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2203,
"end": 2229,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2662,
"end": 2688,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3137,
"end": 3157,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3229,
"end": 3254,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3535,
"end": 3548,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3578,
"end": 3588,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3635,
"end": 3649,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3727,
"end": 3737,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3825,
"end": 3838,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3889,
"end": 3900,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3948,
"end": 3965,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCCC.No. 1488 of 2001(S)\n\n\n\n1. Sri.P.Damodaran\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n1. Sri.Cherkalam Abdulla\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.K.Sasikumar\n\n For Respondent :Advocate General\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B.Koshy\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K.Basheer\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.P.Balachandran\n\n Dated :27/03/2008\n\n O R D E R\n J.B.Koshy, A.K.Basheer & K.P.Balachandran, Jj.\n ------------------------------------\n C.C.C.No.1488 of 2001\n -------------------------------------\n Dated 27th March, 2008\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 87,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 179,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 273,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 359,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 384,
"end": 395,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 436,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 483,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 485,
"end": 496,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 499,
"end": 515,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.MC.No. 2225 of 2009()\n\n\n1. Dr. V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma, Aged 70 Yrs,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Bindu V., Aged 34 Years,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Arjun Rajagopal, Aged 8 Years,\n\n3. State Of Kerala, Represented By\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.C.Harikumar\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Sasidharan Nambiar\n\n Dated :02/12/2009\n\n O R D E R\n M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J.\n ===========================\n CRL.M.C.No. 2225 Of 2009\n ===========================\n\n Dated this the 2nd day of December,2009\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 99,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 194,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 259,
"end": 274,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 309,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 375,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 453,
"end": 473,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 520,
"end": 540,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nSpecial Leave Petition (crl.) 1971 of 1999\n\n\n\nPetitioner:\nM/S. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nM/S. Biological E. Ltd. & Ors. Respondents\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 110,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 155,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 7467 of 1996\n\nPetitioner:\nK.S. Vidyanadam And Ors.\n\nRespondent:\nVairavan\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 67,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 98,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMohan Lal\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nManagement Of M/S Bharat Electronics Ltd.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 82,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 25/11/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.Kanagaraj\n\nCriminal Original Petition No.28474 Of 2003\nAnd\nCRL.M.P.No.7883 Of 2003 .\n\nM.G.Singaravelu ... Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.The State,\n rep.by The Deputy Superintendent of Police,\n Forest Cell Cid.,\n Vellore District,\n Vellore.\n\n2.The Forest Range Officer,\n Alangayam.\n (O.R.37/92-93) ... Respondents\n\n\n Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of\nCriminal Procedure for the relief as stated therein.\n\nFor petitioner : Mr.G.Ethirajulu\n\nFor respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai,\n Govt.Advocate (crl.side)\n\n\n:O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 198,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 263,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 403,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 616,
"end": 628,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 652,
"end": 667,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 719 1995\n\n\nPetitioner:\nN. Narsinga Rao\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Andhra Pradesh\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 47,
"end": 63,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 83,
"end": 106,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nManak Lal\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nDr. Prem Chand\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 55,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": ":1:\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 13Th Day Of June 2012\n Before\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana\n\n Miscellaneous First Appeal No.3078/2009 (Mv)\n\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Smt. Leela Bai,\n W/o. Shivaprasad,\n 42 years,\n\n2. Vishnu Prasad,\n S/o. Shivaprasad,\n 24 years,\n\n3. Lalji,\n S/o. Shivaprasad,\n 19 years,\n\n4. Divya Bharathi,\n D/o. Shivaprasad,\n 17 years,\n\nAll are residing at Goplapur,\nJondhra Post, Masthuri Thana,\nBhilaspur District, Chatisgarh.\n4th appellant since minor represented\nby 1st appellant - guardian. ... Appellants\n\n(By Shri R.Chandrashekar, Advocate)\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. The Managing Director,\n B.M.T.C., Central Office,\n\n\n\n\n 1\n :2:\n\n\n K.H.Road, Double Road,\n Shanthinagar, Bangalore - 27.\n\n2. The Divisional Manager,\n United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n No.40, 1st Floor, Lakshmi Complex,\n Opp. Vani Vilas Hospital,\n K.R.Road, Fort,\n Bangalore - 560 002. ...Respondents\n\n(By Shri S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, Advocate for R-2\nR1 notice dispensed with)\n\n\n This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under\nSection 173(1) of Motor Vehicle Act against the\njudgment and award dated 04.10.2008 passed in\nM.V.C. No.8553/2007 on the file of Judge and Member,\nMotor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, partly\nallowing the claim petition for compensation and\nseeking enhancement of compensation.\n\n This Miscellaneous First Appeal coming for\nhearing on this day, the Court delivered the following: -\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 53,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 182,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 263,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 328,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 380,
"end": 385,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 451,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 689,
"end": 704,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 735,
"end": 785,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 958,
"end": 1015,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1170,
"end": 1188,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "33\n* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n + MAC.APP.No.601/2007\n\n Date of Decision : 15th January, 2010\n%\n\nKeith Rowe ..... Appellant\n Through : Mr. Rajesh Yadav and\n Ms. Ruchira V. Arora, Advs.\n\n versus\n\nPrashant Sagar & Ors. ..... Respondent\n Through : Mr. Atul Nanda and\n Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advs.\n for R-2.\n\nCoram :-\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha\n\n1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes\n be allowed to see the Judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be Yes\n reported in the Digest?\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 182,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 289,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 351,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 390,
"end": 404,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 488,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 525,
"end": 540,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 619,
"end": 629,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n Civil Appeal No. 1374 of 2008\n\n\n Union of India\n ....Appellant\n Versus\n Ibrahim Uddin & Anr.\n ....Respondents\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 250,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 347,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur\n S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12656/2014\nChhotu Ram & Another - Petitioners\nVersus\nState Of Rajasthan & Others - RESPONDENTSDate of Judgment -::- 25th February, 2015.\n\nHon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi\n\nMr. Paras Kuhad Senior Counsel with\nMr. Pradeep Choudhary, for the petitioners.\n\nMr. P.S. Narsimha, Asg, with\nMr. Rajendra Prasad, Aag, for the respondent-State.\n\nMr. S.K. Gupta, Aag for the respondent Jda.\n\nReportable\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 69,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 120,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 170,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 281,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 299,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 342,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 384,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 416,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 465,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 5124 of 2004\n\nPetitioner:\nR.M. Yellatti\t\t\t\t\n\nRespondent:\nThe Asst. Executive Engineer\t\t\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 65,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 111,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 490 of 2008\n\nPetitioner:\nPremkumari & Ors\n\nRespondent:\nPrahlad Dev & Ors\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 61,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 81,
"end": 92,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Criminal Appeal (Db) No.760 of 2009\n Arising Out of Ps. Case No. -47 Year- 2005 Thana -Mokama District- Patna\n\n\n (Against the judgment dated 29.06.2009/30.06.2009\n passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-XIII,\n Patna in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 2008/40 of 2009,\n arising out of Mokama P.S. Case No. 47 dated\n 11.04.2005)\n===========================================================\nGyan Ravi Das @ Gyan Prakash, S/o Hari Ravidas, R/o- Chandi Brindavan, P.S.- Sheikhapur, District- Sheikhpura at present of Doghara, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna. \n\n .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Appellant : Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate. \n\n Mr. Binod Murari Mishra, Advocate. \n\n Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate. \n\nFor the State : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. For the Informant : Mr. K.M.Joseph, Advocate. \n\n Mr. Hemant Kumar, Advocate. \n\n=========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice V.N. Sinha and Honourable Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 499,
"end": 527,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 696,
"end": 710,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 829,
"end": 845,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 868,
"end": 887,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 906,
"end": 916,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 950,
"end": 969,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1002,
"end": 1012,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1031,
"end": 1043,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1147,
"end": 1157,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1185,
"end": 1202,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Crl.RP 404/08\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n T\n 20\n Dated This The Day Of April, 2012\n\n Before:\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice A.S. Pachhapure\n\n\n Criminal Revision Petition No.404 Of 2008\n\n\nBetween:\n\nAjith Balse,\nAged about 65 years,\nSb. Mohan Pal Singh,\nManaging Director,\nM/s. East Export Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd.,\nA/20, Midc, Patala Ganga,\nRaighad District,\nMaharashtra--410 220. ... Petitioner/S\n\n [By Sri. G. Jeevaprakash &\n Sri. Prasanna V.R., Advs.)\n\n\nAnd:\n\nCapt. Ranga Karkere,\nAged about 51 years,\nSb. Chenga Kendwer,\nManaging Partner,\nYermal Fish Traders,\nSurinal [First) Processing Unit,\nYermal Tenka,\nUdupi Taluk & District. ... Respondent/S\n\n [By Sri. P.P. Hegde, Adv.)\n\n ***\n\n\n This Crl.R.P. is filed u/Section 397 r/w. 401\nCr.P.C. praying to set aside the Judgment/Order dt.\n7.3.2008 passed by S.J., Udupi District, Udupi, in\nCrl.A. No.52/07 and set aside the conviction Order\ndated 22.03.07 in C.C. No.(4700/07) passed by the I\n 7D0/ 02*\n*rr*cf vide Cou. t Order\n datd 11.06.2012.\n\n ----\n\n\n /\n 2 Crl.RP 404/08\n\n\nAddi. C.J. [Jr. Dn.] & Jmfc., Udupi District, Udupi\nand acquit the petitioner.\n\n This Crl.R.P. having been heard and reserved\n for Orders, this day the Court pronounced the\n following:\n\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 86,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 304,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 379,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 616,
"end": 631,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 644,
"end": 657,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 680,
"end": 693,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 900,
"end": 913,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAssociated Hotels Of India Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nR. N. Kapoor\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 75,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe Corporation Of Calcutta\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSm. Padma Debi And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 39,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 73,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 07.03.2011\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice D.Murugesan\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.K.Sasidharan\n\nC.M.A.No.3700 of 2010\n\nM/s Meenakshisundaram Textiles\n1st Floor, Sona Towers\n72, Millers Road, Bangalore-52\nrep by its Managing Director\t\t\t\t..\tAppellant\n\n-vs-\n\nM/s Valliammal Textiles Ltd.,\nNo.50/1, Aandipalayam, Mangalam Road\nTiruppur\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..\tRespondent\n\n\tMemorandum of Grounds of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order Xliii Rule 1(d) of Civil Procedure Code against the order and decretal order dated 26.8.2010 made in I.A.No.1776 of 2009 in O.S.No.16 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.5, Tiruppur.\n\n\t\tFor Appellant\t\t::\tMr.V.Raghavachari\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tfor Mr.AR.M.Arunachalam\n\n\t\tFor Respondent\t\t::\tMr.S.K.Raghunathan\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 107,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 152,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 207,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 342,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 737,
"end": 751,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 766,
"end": 782,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 808,
"end": 823,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nM/S. J. K. Cotton Spinning & Weaving Nulls Co. Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSales Tax Officer, Kanpur And Another\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 64,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 109,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ajay Goel, Additional District Judge-12\n Central District:Delhi\n (Old Case)\nPc-39/13/05\n\n\n In the Matter of:\n\n 1. Rajesh Nagpal\n s/o Sh. Om Prakash Nagpal,\n r/o A-4, Inderprastha Society,\n Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi.\n 2. Smt. Neenu Nagpal\n w/o Sh. Rajesh Nagpal\n r/o A-4, Inderprastha Society,\n Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi.\n .................. Petitioner\n\n Versus\n\n 1. The State\n 2. Smt. Brij Bala Kapoor\n w/o Sh. Vijay Kapoor\n r/o Jasmal Building,\n Lawrence Road, Amritsar,\n Punjab.\n 3. Sh. Nand Lal Nagpal\n s/o Sh. Hari Ram Nagpal\n r/o 205, Shastri Nagar,\n Amritsar, Punjab.\n 4. Sh. Tilak Raj Kathuria\n s/o late Sh. D.N. Kathuria\n r/o 130/53, P.G.H. Shah Road,\n Jadavpur, Kolkata-32\n 5. Smt. Sheela Kathuria\n w/o Sh. Tilak Raj Kathuria\n r/o 130/53, P.G.H. Shah Road,\n\nPc-39/13/05 Page:-1/46\n Jadavpur, Kolkata-32\n 6. Sh. Lalit Narula\n s/o Sh. Ram Prakash Narula\n r/o 110/1-B, Amherst Street\n Kolkata-9\n 7. Sh. Om Prakash Nagpal (since expired)\n s/o Sh. Panna Lal Nagpal\n r/o F-104-A, Ekta Society,\n Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi.\n through his LRs :-\n (i) Mrs. Shefali Malhotra\n d/o late Om Parkash Nagpal\n w/o Sh. Parveen Malhotra\n r/o A-61, Prashant Vihar,\n Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi-110085.\n ii) Mrs. Namrita Gulati\n d/o of late Om Prakash Nagpal\n w/o Sh. Sandeep Gulati\n r/o B-292, Prashant Vihar, Delhi.\n iii) Rajesh Nagpal\n s/o Sh. Om Prakash Nagpal\n r/o A-4, Inderprastha Apartment\n Sector-14, Delhi, Rohini-110085\n (disowned by respondent no. 7 Om Prakash and his wife\n on 7.2.97)\n\n ................ Respondents\n\n\nDate of Institution: 28.3.05\nDate of Assignment to this court: 6.7.13(At the stage of Re)\nDate of Arguments: 5.11.14\nDate of Decision: 17.11.14\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 25,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 27,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 205,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 342,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 582,
"end": 587,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 601,
"end": 617,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 741,
"end": 756,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 859,
"end": 877,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 993,
"end": 1008,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1201,
"end": 1213,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1319,
"end": 1336,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1505,
"end": 1521,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1708,
"end": 1722,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1867,
"end": 1880,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 745 of 2000\n\nPetitioner:\nState of Rajasthan\n\nRespondent:\nKashi Ram\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 68,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 91,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Id No. 02403R0158332009\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Vinay Kumar Khanna:\n Additional Sessions Judge - 04 & Special Judge (Ndps)\n South East: Saket Courts: Delhi\n\nSessions Case No. 02/2011\nUnique Id no. 02403R0158332009\n\n Fir No. 398/2007\n U/s : 308/341/506/34 Ipc\n Ps : Kalkaji\nState\n\nVersus\n\nBimlesh Yadav\nw/o Sh. Mukesh Yadav\nr/o H. No. B-621, Transit Camp,\nGovind Puri , New Delhi ..........Accused no. 1\n\nMukesh Yadav @ Fauji\ns/o Sh. Prakash Yadav\nr/oH. No. B-621, Transit Camp,\nGovind Puri , New Delhi ..........Accused no. 2\n\n\nInstituted on : 20th January, 2011\nArgued on : 08th May,2013\nDecided on : 23rd May, 2013\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 82,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 200,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 477,
"end": 482,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 492,
"end": 505,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 638,
"end": 658,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 AaO415-14\n\n Farad Continuation Sheet No.\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Appeal From Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 207,
"end": 241,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 6277 of 2004\n\nPetitioner:\nUnited India Insurance Co.Ltd. \n\nRespondent:\nM/s.Harchand Rai Chandan Lal\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 82,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 125,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "6\n*In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n + MAC.APP.No.13/2007\n\n Date of Decision: 14th July, 2009\n%\n\n National Insurance Co.Ltd. ..... Appellant\n Through : Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Adv.\n\n versus\n\n Farzana Ors. ..... Respondents\n Through : Mr. Arun Srivastava and\n Ms. Anupama Srivastava, Advs.\n for R - 1 & 2.\n\nCoram :-\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha\n\n1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes\n be allowed to see the Judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be Yes\n reported in the Digest?\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 10,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 194,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 267,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 322,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 412,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 446,
"end": 464,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 546,
"end": 556,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Anu Malhotra \n District & Sessions Judge / Arct (West) : Delhi\n\nArct\u00ad23/2013\nUnique Id No. 02401C0079792013\n\nLeela Ahuja\nW/o Late S.N. Ahuja,\nR/o 1st Floor, 13/27,\nEast Patel Nagar, New Delhi - 110 008 ............ Appellant\n\n Versus \n1. Tanjeet Singh Ghai\n2. Baljeet Singh Ghai\n Both sons of Late Sarup Singh Ghai\n3. Manveet Chopra\n D/o Shri Sarup Singh Ghai,\n All R/o 25/29, East Patel Nagar,\n New Delhi - 110 008. ............Respondents\n\nDate of Institution : 20.02.2013\nDate of reserving the judgment : 21.08.2013\nDate of pronouncement of : 01.07.2014\nJudgment\n\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 87,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 145,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 324,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 356,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 418,
"end": 432,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 212-216 of 2000\n\nPetitioner:\nKusum Ingots And Alloys Ltd.\n\nRespondent:\nPennar Peterson Securities Ltd. And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 54,
"end": 82,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 127,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWp(C) No. 24258 of 2007(K)\n\n\n1. J.Prabhavathiamma, D/O. Jagathamma,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The State Of Kerala, Rep. By\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Director General Of Police,\n\n3. The Superintendent Of Police,\n\n4. The Director,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Siraj Karoly\n\n For Respondent :Sri.S.Sreekumar, Sc For Cbi\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.B.Koshy\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.Hema\n\n Dated :20/09/2007\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 91,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 201,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 289,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 323,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 342,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 393,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 432,
"end": 443,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 481,
"end": 490,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 516,
"end": 522,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Manoj Kumar : Additional \n Sessions Judge\u00ad4 (South District), New Delhi\n \nCriminal Appeal No. 01/14 (Original no. 58/13)\nUnique Id No.: 02406R0035022013\n\n\n\nIn the matter of:\n\n\nNitin Chaudhary,\nS/o Sh. Ved Chaudhary,\nR/o G\u00ad93, Lgf, Saket,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110017. ................Appellant\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nAmit Khaneja,\nS/o Sh. Ashok Khaneja,\nR/o A\u00ad12/4, Rana Pratap Bagh,\nDelhi\u00ad110007. ............Respondent\n \nDate of Institution : 08.02.2013\nDate of Reserving judgment: 29.5.2014\nDate of pronouncement : 31.5.2014\n\n\nFor Appellant : Mr. Khalil A. Ansari, Advocate.\n\n\nCriminal Appeal No. 01/14 Page no. 1 of 28\n For Respondent : Mr. R. P. Sharma, Advocate. \n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 32,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 96,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 250,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 463,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 819,
"end": 835,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 984,
"end": 996,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 617 of 2000\n\nPetitioner:\nRamesh Kumar\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Chhattisgarh\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 62,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 97,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated :: 12-07-2010\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.Dhanapalan\n\nWrit Petition No.9077 of 2010\n\nA.K.Viswanathan\t\t\t...\t\t\tPetitioner \n\n\t\t\t\t\t-vs-\n\n1.State of Tamil Nadu, \n rep.by the Principal Secretary to Government,\n Home Department,\n Fort St.George,\n Chennai-600 009.\n\n2.The Chief Secretary to Government,\n Fort St.George,\n Chennai-600 009.\n\n3.The Vigilance Commissioner,\n Fort St.George,\n Chennai-600 009.\n\n4.The Director,\n Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,\n Chennai-600 028.\n\n5.Deputy Superintendent of Police,\n Vigilance and Anti-Corruption,\n Chennai City Iii,\n Chennai-600 035.\t\t...\t\t\tRespondents\n \n \n\t\tPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus.\n\t\tFor petitioner : Mr.V.Selvaraj\n\t\tFor respondents : Mr.P.S.Raman,\n\t\t\t\t\tAdvocate General,\n\t\t\t\t\tassisted by Mr.N.Senthil Kumar,\n\t\t\t\t\tAdditional Govt.Pleader.\n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 111,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 159,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 213,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 400,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 469,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 541,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 543,
"end": 652,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 881,
"end": 891,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 915,
"end": 924,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 969,
"end": 984,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 921 of 2000\n\nPetitioner:\nBodh Raj @ Bodha And Ors.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Jammu And Kashmir\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 66,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 115,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka\n Dharwad Bench\n Dated This The 17Th Day Of January, 2014\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice K.N. Phaneendra\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 2619/2008\n\nBetween:\n\nPramod\nS/O. Adiveppa Kanabargi\nAge : 33 Years\nR/O. Kacheri Galli,\nMacche, Tq. & Dist. Belgaum. .. Appellant\n\n (By Sriyuths Santosh D. Naragund &\nVishwanath V. Badiger, Advocates)\n\nAnd :\n\nThe State Of Karnataka\nThrough The Belgaum Rural\nP. S. Belgaum Now R/By Its Spp\nHigh Court Of Karnataka\nCircuit Bench, Dharwad.\n ... Respondent\n\n(By Sri V.M. Banakar, Addl. S.P.P.)\n\n This Crl.A. Is Filed Under Section 374(2) Of\nCr.P.C Praying To Call For The Records In\nS.C.No.227/2007 On The File Of The Fast Track\nCourt No.Iii And Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum\nAnd Set Aside The Judgment/Order Of Conviction\n 2\n\n\nDtd.22/08/2008 And Sentence Dated 23/08/2008\nMade In S.C.No.227/2007 Passed By The Fast Track\nCourt-Iii And Addl. Sessions Judge, Belgaum, For\nThe Offences Punishable Under Sections 304B\nAnd 498A Of I.P.C. And Grant Such Other And\nFurther Reliefs.\n\n This Criminal Appeal Coming On For Final\nHearing This Day, The Court Delivered The\nFollowing:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 80,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 210,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 272,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 394,
"end": 422,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 443,
"end": 464,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 489,
"end": 507,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 676,
"end": 688,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 arbp767.09gp.sxw\n ssm\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n Arbitration Petition No. 767 Of 2009\n\n\n\n\n \n Prakash Kumar Sinha ......Petitioner.\n\n Vs.\n\n\n\n\n \n Konkan Mercantile Co-operative\n Bank Ltd. & Ors. ......Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n With\n \n Arbitration Petition No. 677 Of 2009\n \n Akbar Ismail Mansoori ......Petitioner.\n\n Vs.\n \n\n Konkan Mercantile Co-operative\n Bank Ltd. & Ors. ......Respondents.\n \n\n\n\n Mr. Devendra Sharma a/w Mr. Ashwin R. Singh for the Petitioner in \n Arbitration Petition No. 767 and for Respondent No. 8 in Arbitration \n Petition No. 677 of 2009.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. Vikas Singh a/w Mrs. A.R. Lambay for Respondent No.1 in both \n the Petitions. \n Mr. H.R. Sharma for the Petitioner in Arbitration Petition No. 677 of \n 2009 and for Respondent No.8 in Arbitration Petition No. 767 of 2009. \n None for the others.\n\n\n\n\n\n Coram :- Anoop V. Mohta, J.\n Date :- 16 March 2012. \n\n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 73,
"end": 107,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 384,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 506,
"end": 550,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 811,
"end": 832,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 907,
"end": 951,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1025,
"end": 1040,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1049,
"end": 1064,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1205,
"end": 1216,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1226,
"end": 1237,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1295,
"end": 1306,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1512,
"end": 1526,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms.RIYA Guha, Mm\u00ad02\n( Negotiable Instruments Act) Central District,\n Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi\nM/S Aneja Agencies\nB\u00ad14, (Ff), Sangam Market,\nKatra Neel , Chandni Chowk, Delhi\nThrough its partner Mr. Gurpreet Singh ......Complainant\n Versus \n1. M/S R.K. Apparels\n 17\u00adA/2B, W.E.A, Ajmal Khan Road, \n Karol Bagh, New Delhi\n Through its partner/proprietor \n Mr. Arun Singhal\n1. Mr. Arun Singhal, Proprietor\n Authorized signatory\n M/S R.K. Apparels\n 17\u00adA/2B, W.E.A, Ajmal Khan Road, \n Karol Bagh, New Delhi ........Accused\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 19,
"end": 28,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 30,
"end": 134,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 363,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 500,
"end": 512,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 22352 of 2010(T)\n\n\n1. Mohandas M.K., Junior Accountant,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Represented By The\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies,\n\n3. The Kottayam District Co-Operative\n\n4. Joy Joseph, Senior Accountant,\n\n5. The Kollam District Co-Operative\n\n6. Tensy Scaria, Senior Accountant,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.Ramakrishnan\n\n For Respondent :Smt.Aysha Youseff,Sc,Kollm District Co-\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Surendra Mohan\n\n Dated :16/08/2010\n\n O R D E R\n K.Surendra Mohan, J\n ...........................................\n WP(C).Nos.22352 & 22888 Of 2010\n ............................................\n Dated This The 16Th Day Of August, 2010\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 87,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 195,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 303,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 313,
"end": 333,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 358,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 387,
"end": 405,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 420,
"end": 432,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 491,
"end": 505,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 544,
"end": 557,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 605,
"end": 621,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 677,
"end": 693,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh : Additional Sessions Judge Spl. Judge : Ndps\n (Nw) : District Courts : Rohini : Delhi\n\n In the matter of:\n Sc No. : 52/13 (Old Sc no. 31/10)\n Fir No. : 364/07\n Ps : Bawana\n U/s. : 308/34 Ipc\n State\n\n Versus\n\n 1) Madan Lal\n S/o Chhote Lal\n R/o F-340, Shahbad Dairy,\n Delhi.\n\n 2) Mangat Ram\n S/o Madan Lal\n R/o F-340, Shahbad Dairy,\n Delhi.\n\n 3) Mohinder Singh\n S/o Madan Lal\n R/o F-340, Shahbad Dairy,\n Delhi.\n\n\n Date of receipt : 29.03.2010\n (Received in this court on : 25.112013)\n Date of arguments : 31.01.2014\n Date of announcement : 11.02.2014\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 157,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 619,
"end": 624,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 662,
"end": 671,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 761,
"end": 771,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 860,
"end": 874,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta And The Honble Sri Sanjay Kumar \n\nContempt Case No.965 Of 2013 \n\n12-11-2014 \n\nT. Madan Mohan Reddy and others. ..Petitioners \n\nSri B.R. Meena, I.A.S. Principal Secretary to Revenue Department,Andhra \nPradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & others.Respondents Counsel for Petitioners: Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, Senior counsel for Sri N.V. Raghava Reddy. \n\nCounsel for the respondents: Sri P. Venugopal, Advocate General (Ap) Sri L. Ravichander, Amicus-Curiae Sri P. Vishnuvardhan Reddy (Asst. Solicitor General) Head Note: \n? Cases referred\n\n1. Air 2002 Sc 1432 \n2. Air 1976 Sc 997 \n3. (2002) 5 Scc 440 \n4. Air 2007 Sc 1563 \n5. (2000) 4 Scc 357 \n6. (2014) 1 Scc 1 The Honble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta And The Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar Contempt Case No.965 Of 2013 Dated: 12.11.2014 The Honble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta And The Honble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar Contempt Case No.965 Of 2013 Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 54,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 86,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 176,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 219,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 387,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 412,
"end": 430,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 479,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 507,
"end": 521,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 541,
"end": 563,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 790,
"end": 811,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 839,
"end": 851,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 932,
"end": 953,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 981,
"end": 993,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 28/01/2005 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Markandey Katju, Chief Justice \nand \nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice D.Murugesan \n\nW.A.No.1081 of 2004 \nand \nW.A.M.P.No.1958 of 2004 \n\n1. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n rep. by its Secretary,\n 793, Anna Salai,\n Chennai 600 002.\n\n2. The Chairman, \n Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n 793, Anna Salai,\n Chennai 600 002. ..Appellants.\n\n-Vs-\n\nTamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers\u0012\nAssociation, \u0013Electricity Avenue\u0014,\nRep. by its General Secretary Mr.G.Balakrishnan,\n793, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. ..Respondent\n\n\n Prayer: Appeal against the order of the learned single Judge\n dated 08.10.2003, passed in W.P.No.572 of 2002,\n as stated therein.\n\n!For Appellants :: Mr.V.Radhakrishnan\n\n^For Respondent :: Mr.A.E.Chelliah, Senior Counsel\n For Mr.P.Karunakaran\n\n:J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 182,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 283,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 455,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 503,
"end": 554,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 907,
"end": 922,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 947,
"end": 959,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 999,
"end": 1012,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 cri.applns.3618-10, 5640-2009\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Application No. 3618 Of 2010\n\n\n\n\n \n Union of India ...Applicant\n vs.\n Ravindran Krarapaya @ Ravi & Ors. ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n \n With\n\n Criminal Application No. 5640 Of 2009\n\n\n\n\n \n Union of India ...Applicant\n vs. \n Xie Jing Feng @ Richard & Anr. ...Respondents\n \n Appearance in above matters :-\n\n Mr.Mandar Goswami, Public Prosecutor and Special\n Counsel for the Appellant Union of India.\n \n\n\n Mr.Anil Lalla i/b. M/s.Lalla & Lalla for Respondent\n Nos.1 and 2 and for respondent no.1 in Cri.Appln.No.\n \n\n\n\n 5640/2009.\n Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, App for Respondent No.3 and for\n Respondent No.2 in Cri.Appln.No.5640/2009.\n\n\n\n\n\n Coram : J.H. Bhatia, J.\n Dated : November 19, 2010 Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 57,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 314,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 399,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 593,
"end": 607,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 674,
"end": 697,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 795,
"end": 801,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 905,
"end": 915,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1040,
"end": 1051,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1174,
"end": 1185,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAnil Kumar Gupta, Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 28,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 76,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMaula Bux\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 55,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBhagirath Kanoria & Ors. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of M.P. & Ors. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 61,
"end": 85,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nManohar Lal Chopra\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nRai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 83,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nC.I.T., Punjab, Haryana, J & K, H.P. & Union Territory Ofcha\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nPanipat Woollen & General Mills co. Ltd.Chandigarh\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 72,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 142,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nUnion Of India And Ors\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nFilip Tiago De Gama Of Vedem Vasco De Gama\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 96,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh Sunil K. Aggarwal: Addl. District Judge \n (Central) 10: Delhi\n Tm: 05/10\nAnil Grover\nSon of Sh. H. R. Grover\nTrading as Foamtex India\nLibaspur Road, Libaspur,\nDelhi \u00ad110042. ..... Plaintiff\n Versus\n1. Rajeev Aggarwal\nSon of Late Sh. K.S.Aggarwal\nB\u00ad2550, Narela Industrial Park,\nDelhi - 110040\n\n2. Mohit Foam (India)\nB\u00ad2550, Narela Industrial Park,\nDelhi - 110040. .....Defendants\n Plaint presented on 19.07.2004\n\nJ U D G M E N T \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 109,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 182,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 372,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 453,
"end": 463,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Hon'Ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao \n\nC.M.A.Nos.856 of 2003 and Batch \n\n24.04.2013 \n\nN.Sree Ramulu and others. \n\nB.Lakshmi Narayana (died) and others \n\nHead Note: \n\nCounsel for the Appellants : Sri N.Subba Rao and others.\n\nCounsel for the respondents: Sri T.Sree Ramulu and others?Cases referred:\n1 Air 1976 S.C. 222 2 2007 (4) Alt 607 (D.B.) 3 2001 (1) Ald 423 4 2001 (1) Ald 435 5 2002 Acj 1392 6 2000 (1) Ald 554 7 1995 (3) Ald 1108 8 Aplj 1991 (2) 337 9 1997 Acj 1141 10 1996 Acj 1253 112004 (6) Ald 534 121995 (1) Ald 205 (2) 13 2001 (3) Ald 177 14 2008 (3) Ald 650 (Db) 15 (2008) 8 S.C.C 518 16 2006 (4) Ald 398 17 2011 1 Scc 343 18 (2010) 13 S.C.C. 777 19 (2010) 10 S.C.C. 341 20 (2010) 10 S.C.C. 347 21 (2008) 9 S.C.C. 492 22 (2007) 2 Scc 349 24 (2009) 6 Scc 280 25 (2012) 2 Scc 2670 C.M.A.Nos.856, 1210 & 2274 of 2001, 335, 550, 1685, 2380 & 3406 of 2002 & 2197 of 2003 Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 118,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 151,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 247,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 307,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala, Ernakulam\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nTravancore Sugar & Chemicals Ltd.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 57,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 110,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 18.06.2012\n\nCoram:\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nThe Honourable Ms. Justice R. Mala\n\nCriminal Appeal Nos.814 of 2009 and \n8, 33 & 40 of 2010\n\n\nBadrilal Sharma\t \t\t\t.. Appellant/A4 (in Crl.A.No.814/2009)\n\nTofan Singh\t \t.. Appellant/A3 (in Crl.A.No.8/2010)\n\nBabulal Jain\t \t.. Appellant/A1 (in Crl.A.No.33/2010)\n\nPrem @ Kannan @ Sudeshwaran \t.. Appellant/A2 (in Crl.A.No.40/2010)\n\nVs \n\nState by\nThe Intelligence Officer\nNarcotics Control Bureau\nSouth Zonal Unit\nChennai-90. \t.. Respondent/Complainant (in all cases)Criminal Appeal Nos.814 of 2009 & 33 of 2010 filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 18.12.2009, made in C.C.No.55 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Special Court under Ndps Act, Chennai. \n\nCriminal Appeal Nos.8 of 2010 & 40 of 2010 filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 36-B of Ndps Act, 1985, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 18.12.2009, made in C.C.No.55 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Special Court under Ndps Act, Chennai. \n\n\tFor Appellant/A1\t : \tMr. N.R.Elango, senior counsel for\n\t\t\t\t \tMr.S.T.Raja for M/S.Ohm Sairam\n\t\t\t\t\t \tin Crl.A.No.33 of 2010\n\n\tFor Appellant/A2\t\t: \tMr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj in\n \tCrl.A.No.40/2010\n\n\tFor Appellants/A3&A4 \t: \tMr.B.Kumar, senior counsel for\n\t\t\t\t\t \tMr.T.S.Sasikumar in\n \tCrl.A.Nos.814/2009 and 8/2010\n \n\tFor Respondent\t \t: \tMr.N.P.Kumar, Spl. Public Prosecutor\n\t(in all cases)\t\t \t\tfor Ncb cases. \n\n\nC O M M O N J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 111,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 186,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 236,
"end": 247,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 308,
"end": 320,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 408,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 475,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1184,
"end": 1194,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1235,
"end": 1243,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1321,
"end": 1339,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1442,
"end": 1449,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1483,
"end": 1496,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1617,
"end": 1626,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Crl.A. 1051 of 2008\n\n B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Standing\n Counsel with Mr. Deepak\n Pathak, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n Jagat Ram & Anr. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Aditya Sharma proxy for\n Mr. S. Satyanarayana, Advocate.\n\n With\n\n Crl.A. 1052 of 2008\n\n B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Standing\n Counsel with Mr. Deepak\n Pathak, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n R.K. Gupta & Anr. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Vijay Gupta, Advocate\n\n With\n\n Crl.A. 1053 of 2008\n\n B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Standing\n Counsel with Mr. Deepak\n Pathak, Advocate\n\n versus\n\n P.P. Singh & Anr. ..... Respondents\n Through: None.\n\n With\n\nCrl. A. Nos.1051 to 1056 of 2008 Page 1 of 15\n Crl.A. 1054 of 2008\n\n B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, standing\n counsel with Mr. Deepak Pathak,\n Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n Rajiv Bhasin & Anr. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Mukul Dhawan, Advocate\n\n With\n\n Crl.A. 1055 of 2008\n\n B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Standing\n Counsel with Mr. Deepak\n Pathak, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n Hasibuddin & Anr. ..... Respondents\n Through: None.\n\n With\n\n Crl.A. 1056 of 2008\n\n B.S.E.S. Rajdhani Power Ltd. ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Sunil Fernandes, Standing\n Counsel with Mr. Deepak\n Pathak, Advocate\n versus\n\n Grover Restaurant & Caterers & ......Respondents\n Through: None.\n\n Coram: Justice S. Muralidhar\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 123,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 200,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 260,
"end": 305,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 378,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 484,
"end": 497,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 556,
"end": 572,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 680,
"end": 708,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 769,
"end": 784,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 844,
"end": 889,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 952,
"end": 962,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1067,
"end": 1078,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1185,
"end": 1213,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1275,
"end": 1290,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1350,
"end": 1395,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1458,
"end": 1468,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1747,
"end": 1775,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1838,
"end": 1853,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1913,
"end": 1926,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2022,
"end": 2034,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2145,
"end": 2157,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2254,
"end": 2282,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2344,
"end": 2359,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2419,
"end": 2464,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2528,
"end": 2538,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2740,
"end": 2768,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2832,
"end": 2847,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2907,
"end": 2952,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3002,
"end": 3019,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3110,
"end": 3123,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 4.2.2011\n\nCoram: \n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice P.Jyothimani\n\nW.P.Nos.15646 and 24824 of 2010\n\nV.Lakshmi\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tin Wp:15646/2010\n\nT.A.Johnson\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tin Wp:24824/2010\n\nVs.\n\n1. The Government of Tamil Nadu\n rep. by its Principal Secretary\n Home Department\n Fort St.George, Chennai \u0016 9.\n\n2. The Director General of Police\n Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai\n Chennai \u0016 4.\n\n3. The Commissioner of Police\n Suburban, Chennai \u0016 16.\n\n4. The Inspector of Police\n S-13, Chromepet Police Station\n Chennai \u0016 44.\n\n5. The Director \n Central Bureau of Investigation\n Iii Floor, Block No.3\n Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road\n New Delhi \u0016 3.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tin both WPs.\n\nPrayer: Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.593, Home (Pol.VII) Department, dated 25.6.2010 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.\n\n\t\tFor Petitioner\t\t:\tR.Thiagarajan, Sr.Counsel\n\t\tin WP:15646/2010\t\t\tfor M/s.R.Karthikeyan\n\n\t\tFor Petitioner \t\t:\tMr.Sriram Panchu, Sr.Counsel\n\t\tin WP:24824/2010\t\t\tfor M/s.M.Suresh Kumar\n\n\t\tFor Respondents\t\t:\tMr.N.Senthil Kumar\n\t\t1 to 4 in both WPs.\t\tAdditional Government Pleader\n\n\t\tFor 5th respondent \t\t:\tMr.N.Chandrasekaran\n\t\tin both WPs.\t\t\tSpecial Government Pleader\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 113,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 157,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 217,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 302,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 400,
"end": 453,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 479,
"end": 525,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 538,
"end": 609,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 619,
"end": 736,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1074,
"end": 1087,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1168,
"end": 1181,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1263,
"end": 1278,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1361,
"end": 1377,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "State Vs. Sanjay\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Sandeep Gupta: Metropolitan\n Magistrate (North): Rohini Court: Delhi.\n\n Fir no. 177/01\n Ps Narela\n U/s. 279/337 Ipc\n Sate Vs. Sanjay\n Date of Institution of case:- 01.04.02\n Date of Judgment reserved:- 07.02.14\n Date on which Judgment pronounced:- 24.03.14\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 10,
"end": 16,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 60,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 459,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 464,
"end": 470,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1)\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay,\n Aurangabad Bench, At Aurangabad.\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Revision Application No. 186 of 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n Ramnath s/o. Yashwant Gholap,\n Age : 35 years,\n Occupation : Driver,\n\n\n\n\n \n R/o. Talegaon,\n Taluka & District : Beed. .. Applicant.\n\n versus\n\n\n\n\n \n The State of Maharashtra,\n \n Through Police Inspector,\n Police Station, Ashti,\n Taluka : Ashti, District : Beed. .. Respondent.\n \n .......................\n\n Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, with\n \n\n Mr. S.D. Bade, Advocate, for the applicant.\n \n\n\n\n Mr. P.N. Muley, Additional Public Prosecutor,\n for the respondent.\n\n ........................\n\n\n\n\n\n Coram : Abhay M. Thipsay, J.\n\n Date of reserving the\n\n\n\n\n\n judgment : 25th October 2013.\n\n Date of pronouncing the\n judgment : 29th November 2013.\n\n\n\n\n \n (2)\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 346,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 670,
"end": 690,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 971,
"end": 983,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1029,
"end": 1038,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1097,
"end": 1107,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1289,
"end": 1305,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 518 of 2006\n\nPetitioner:\nKrishna Janardhan Bhat\n\nRespondent:\nDattatraya G. Hegde\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 72,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 86,
"end": 105,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nAjax Products Ltd. Through Its Liquidator\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 84,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n\n Criminal Appeal No.2509/1998\n\n Dwarka Prasad Mishra, Son of Ram Piyare Mishra,\n L.D.C., Lower Sihaval Canal Division Churhat\n District-Sidhi R/o Village Karah Ps Shapur District\n Rewa M.P.\n Appellant\n\n Vs.\n\n The State of Madhya Pradesh\n Through - Special Police Establishment,\n Lok Ayukt Office,\n Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh\n\n Respondent\n----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Shri Anoop Nair with Shri Siddharth Datt, Adv. for the appellant.\n\n Shri Aditya Adhikari, Special Public Prosecutor for Spe Lokayukta\n for respondent.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Db : Hon. Rakesh Saksena & Hon. M.A. Siddiqui, Jj.\n\n\n Judgment Reserved On 21/09/2011\n Judgment Delivered On 28 /09/2011\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 116,
"end": 136,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 488,
"end": 511,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 842,
"end": 852,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 863,
"end": 877,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1108,
"end": 1122,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1130,
"end": 1143,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated: 13/08/2010\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.Manikumar\n\nWrit Petition (MD)No.10727 of 2006\nM.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2006\n\nR.Sakthivel, (Sub-Inspector),\nNagamalai Pudukottai Police Station,\nMadurai District.\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nvs.\n\n1.The Director General of Police,\n (Law and Order),\n Chennai-600 004.\n\n2.The Additional Director General of Police,\n (Law and Order),\n Chennai-600 004.\n\n3.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,\n Madurai Range,\n Madurai.\n\n4.The Additional Superintendent of Police (Crime),\n Madurai, Madurai District.\t\t\t ... Respondents\n\t\t\t\t\nPrayer\n\nWrit Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying\nfor issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the\nfirst respondent made in his proceedings in Rc.No.2395/AP2(3)/2006, dated\n17.02.2006, confirming the order of the second respondent made in his\nproceedings Rc.No.98967/AP/2(2)/2005 dated 15.07.2005, confirming the order of\nthe third respondent made in his order No.A2/6953/03 Pr 312/03 'F' order dated\n11.01.2005 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to\nconsider the petitioner for promotion for the next higher post from the date his\njuniors were promoted.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Karthik\n\t\t For Mr.S.Silambanan\n^For Respondents ... Mr.K.Balasubramanian,\n\t\t\t Additional Government Pleader.\n\n:Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 109,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 185,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 289,
"end": 355,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 364,
"end": 441,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 523,
"end": 596,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1297,
"end": 1306,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1332,
"end": 1344,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1380,
"end": 1397,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1699 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No. 26558 Of 2010)\n\nM/s Topman Exports \u2026 Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai \u2026 Respondent\n\n\n With\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1700 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No. 27418 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1701 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.27552 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1704 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.27583 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1705 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No. 27608 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1706 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.27994 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1707 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.28036 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1708 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.28044; of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1709 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.28131 of 2010),\n\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1710 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.28167 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1711 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.28173 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1728 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.27952 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1729 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.28365 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1730 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.29290 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1731 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.29314 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1732 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.29596 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1733 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30461 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1734 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30462 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1735 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30011 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1736 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30018 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1737 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30020 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1738 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30023 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1739 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30100 of 2010),\n\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1740 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30281 of 2010),\n\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1741 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30283 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal Nos. 1712 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30289 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1713 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30306 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1714 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30345 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1715 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30374 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1716 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30375 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1717 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30379 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1718 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30381 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1719 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30393 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1720 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30411 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1721 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30426 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1722 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30468 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal Nos. 1723-1724 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30521-30522 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1725 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30549 of 2010),\n\n\n Civil Appeal Nos. 1726-1727 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) Nos.29853-29854 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1742 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30215 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1743 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30378 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1744 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30380 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1745 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30388 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1746 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30390 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1747 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30543 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1748 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30546 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1749 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30572 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1750 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30574 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1754 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30657 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1755 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30569 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1756 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.32066 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1757 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.32069 of 2010),\n\n\n Civil Appeal Nos. 1758-1759 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) Nos.30733-30734 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1760 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30597 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1761 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30626 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1762 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30634 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1763 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30644 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1764 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30665 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1765 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30671 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1766 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30680 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1767 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30684 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1768 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30689 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1769 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30721 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1770 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30902 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1771 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.31085 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1772 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.31107 of 2010),\n\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1773 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.31131 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1774 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.31134 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1775 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.31304 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1776 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.31385 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1777 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.31450 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1778 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.31849 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1779 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.32531 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1780 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30628 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1781 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30635 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1782 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30646 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1783 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.32532 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1784 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30647 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1785 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.32533 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1786 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30653 of 2010),\n\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1787 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30673 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1788 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30674 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1789 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30675 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1790 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30677 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1791 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30686 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1792 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30708 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1793 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.32534 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1794 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.30906 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1795 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.33218 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal Nos. 1796-1799 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) Nos.34081-34084 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1800 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.34078 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1801 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.32228 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1802 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.32256 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1803 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.33925 of 2010),\n\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1804 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.32308 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1805 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.32339 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1806 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.32384 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1807 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.34046 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1808 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.34047 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1809 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.32946 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1810 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.33708 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1811 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.33692 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1812 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.33084 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1813 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.33157 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1814 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.33265 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1815 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.33504 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1816 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.35013 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1817 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.35016 of 2010),\n\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1818 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.35028 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1819 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.35029 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1820 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.35030 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1821 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.35031 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1822 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.35032 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1823 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.35129 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1824 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.35865 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1825 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.35866 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1826 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.35867 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1827 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.35868 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1828 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.33644 of 2010),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1829 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.57 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1830 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.136 of 2011),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1831 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.138 of 2011),\n\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1832 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.131 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1833 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.132 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1834 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.376 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1835 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.302 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1836 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.428 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1837 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.2755 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1838 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.2756 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1839 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.2757 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1840 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.2759 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1841 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No. 2388 of 2011,\n Civil Appeal No. 1842 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.2585 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1843 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.2588 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1844 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.2626 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1845 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.2689 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1846 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.2932 of 2011),\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1847 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.2953 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1848 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.2742 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1850 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.2693 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1851 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.5377 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1852 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.5379 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1853 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.5972 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1854 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.7859 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal Nos. 1855-1856 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) Nos.7868-7869 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1858 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.8786 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1859 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.9547 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1860 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.9548 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1861 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.9549 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1862 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.9550 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1863 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.9551 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1864 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.7795 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1865 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.9552 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1866 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.9553 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1867 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.11029 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1868 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.10958 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1869 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.13774 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1870 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.11716 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal Nos. 1871-1872 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) Nos.14068-14069 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1873 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.14070 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1874 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.14071 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1875 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.14072 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1876 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.14073 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1877 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.14074 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1878 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.14075 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1879 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.14076 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal Nos. 1880-1881 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) Nos.14077-14078 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal Nos. 1882-1883 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) Nos.14079-14080 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal Nos. 1884-1885 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) Nos.16937-16938 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1886 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.16821 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1887 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.16822 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1888 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.16823 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1889 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.16824 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1890 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.16825 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1891 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.15474 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1892 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.16968 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1893 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.16969 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1894 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.17643 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1895 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.16505 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1896 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.17645 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1897 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.17644 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1898 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.16695 of 2011)\n Civil Appeal No. 1899 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.22460 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1900 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.22180 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1901 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.22446 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1902 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.22449 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1903 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.22447 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1904 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.22772 of 2011),\n\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1905 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.26556 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1906 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.27677 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1907 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.28775 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1908 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.27044 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1909 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.27048 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1910 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.28776 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1911 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.28067 of 2011),\n Civil Appeal No. 1912 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.28607 of 2011)\n And\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1913 Of 2012\n (Arising out of Slp (C) No.29542 of 2011)\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 45,
"end": 67,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 262,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 357,
"end": 391,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 1585 of 2005()\n\n\n1. Mohanan, S/O.Karithikeyan,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.C.K.Sajeev\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S.Gopinathan\n\n Dated :16/12/2009\n\n O R D E R\n K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.S.Gopinathan, Jj.\n\n = = = = = = = = = = = = =\n Crl.Appeal No.1585 of 2005\n &\n R.C.No. 1 of 2005.\n = = = = = = = = == = = = =\n\n Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009.\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 79,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 171,
"end": 186,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 280,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 358,
"end": 377,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 402,
"end": 416,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 470,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 473,
"end": 487,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 486 of 2003\n\nPetitioner:\nM. Prabhulal\n\nRespondent:\nAssistant Director, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 62,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 131,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax,Bihar And Orissa, Patna\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nS. P. Jain\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 62,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 92,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* 1 * F.A.1081/99 &\n F.A. 1428/2002\n 25.4.2011\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n First Appeal No. 1081 Of 1999\n\n\n\n\n \nUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd .... Appellant\nV/S.\n\n\n\n\n \n 1. Smt. Vijaya Harish Bolar & Ors. ..... Respondents\n And\n\n\n\n\n \n First Appeal No. 1428 Of 2002\nSmt. Vijaya Harish Bolar & anr.\n ig .... Appellants\nV/S.\n \nMohammad Ismail Bhagwan & anr. ..... Respondents\n \n\n * * * * \n \n\n\n\nMrs. Anita Agarwal, adv.for the appellant in F.A.1081/1999 & respondent in \n1428 of 2002.\nMr. T.J. Mendon, adv.for the respondent in F.A. 1081/1999 & for appellant in \n\n\n\n\n\nF.A. No. 1428 of 2002.\n * * * *\n Coram :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.\n 25th April, 2011. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 245,
"end": 279,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 558,
"end": 588,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 733,
"end": 752,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 978,
"end": 997,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1133,
"end": 1156,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1294,
"end": 1307,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1383,
"end": 1394,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1590,
"end": 1608,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 12Th Day Of March 2014\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice N. Ananda\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1652/2007 C/W\n Criminal Appeal No.1726/2007\n\nCRL.A.No.1652/2007\nBetween:\n1. Mapillai K H Sulaiman\n S/O Hydros, 45 Years,\n Coolie, R/At Anepare\n Coffee Estate Line\n Kutta Village.\n\n2. M N Venu\n S/O Madhavan, 50 Years\n Poojekallu, Kutta Village\n\n3. C Subber\n S/O Ahamed Kutty, 39 Years, Driver\n Nazim Manzil, Keelaloor Village\n Panchayath, Yedeyannur Village\n Mattanoor Taluk, Kannanoor District\n Kerala State\n\n4. K P Azeez\n S/O Late Mohammed, 44 Years\n Kottarthil House\n Yedeyannur Village\n Keelaloor Village Panchayat\n Mattanoor Taluk, Kannanoor District\n Kerala State\n\n5. E K Azeez\n S/O Mamuti, 37 Years\n 2K House, Palur Palli\n Mattanoor Taluk ... Appellants\n 2\n\n\n\n\n(By Sri N Ravindranath Kamath, Advocate)\n\n\nAnd:\nThe State Of Karnataka\nBy Deputy Superintendent Of Police\nC.A.Squad, C.O.D., Bangalore. ... Respondent\n\n\n(By Sri B Visweswaraiah, Hcgp)\n\n\n This Appeal Is Filed Under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.,\nAgainst The Judgment Dated 26.10.2007 In S.C.No.48/2000, On\nThe File Of The Sessions Judge, Kodagu At Madikeri,\nConvicting Appellants-Accused For Offences Punishable\nUnder Sections 489-B, 489-C And 120-B Ipc & Etc.\n\nCRL.A.No.1726/2007\nBetween:\nNayar K Vinodh\nS/O Kunhiraman, 39 Years\nChakkekekal, Maka Post\nAnjaranakandi, Kannanoor District,\nKerala State. ... Appellant\n\n(By Sri N Ravindranath Kamath, Advocate)\nAnd:\n\nThe State Of Karnataka\nBy Deputy Superintendent Of Police\nC A Squad, C.O.D., Bangalore. ... Respondent\n(By Sri B Visweswaraiah, Hcgp)\n\n This Appeal Is Filed Under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C.,\nAgainst The Judgment Dated 26.10.2007 Passed By The\nDistrict & Sessions Judge, Kodagu At Madikeri In\nS.C.No.48/2000, Convicting Appellant/Accused No.3 For\nOffences Punishable Under Sections 489-B, 489-C And\n120-B Ipc And Etc.\n\n These Appeals Coming On For Final Hearing This\nDay, The Court Delivered The Following:\n 3\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 170,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 286,
"end": 307,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 409,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 469,
"end": 477,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 644,
"end": 653,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 817,
"end": 826,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 970,
"end": 991,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1014,
"end": 1032,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1134,
"end": 1149,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1460,
"end": 1474,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1624,
"end": 1645,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1667,
"end": 1685,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1787,
"end": 1802,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Pawan Kumar Matto: Additional District Judge \u00ad01: \n East District : Karkardooma Courts : Delhi. \n\n\nSuit No. 771/09\nUnique Case Id No.02402C0046442014\n\nIn The Matter Of :\n\n\n 1. Santosh Garg\n w/o late Shri Ram Krishan Garg\n r/o 124/6, West Azad Nagar,\n Delhi\u00ad110051.\n 2. Smt Sarita Gupta\n w/o Shri S K Gupta\n r/o C\u00ad68, NiralaNagar, \n Lucknow(UP)\n 3. Smt Vibha Goyal\n w/o Shri N K Goyal\n r/o H.no.403, Street no.12,\n Bhola Nath Nagar,\n Shahdara,Delhi\u00ad32\n 4. Smt Abha Agarwal\n w/o Shri Alok Agarwal\n Quarter no.7/2,Type\u00ad4,\n Hvf Estate, Avadi, Chennai .....Plaintiffs.\n\n Versus\n\n 1. Ajay Garg\n s/o late Shri Ram Krishan Garg\n r/o 124/6, Wes Azad Nagar,\n Delhi - 110 051.\n 2. S.Vijay Garg,\n s/o late Shri Ram Krishan Garg\n r/o 124/6, West Azad Nagar,\n Delhi\u00ad110051. .....Defendants.\n\nS.no: 771/2009 Santosh Garg and another vs Ajay Garg and another 1 of 22\n Date of institution : 16.04.2009\nArguments heard on : 31.10.2014\nDate of Judgment : 07.11.2014\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 123,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 223,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 346,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 449,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 589,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 786,
"end": 795,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 904,
"end": 916,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1081,
"end": 1093,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1109,
"end": 1118,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl Mc No. 1397 of 2007()\n\n\n1. Haridas P.Nair, Aged 33 Years,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Station House Officer,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.K.Ramakumar (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.Ramkumar\n\n Dated :07/04/2008\n\n O R D E R\n V. Ramkumar, J.\n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n Crl. M.C. No. 1397 of 2007\n * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *\n Dated the 7th day of April 2008\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 87,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 191,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 262,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 313,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 407,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 466,
"end": 477,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Crr-2597-2014\n (Arvind Mishra Vs Dinesh)\n\n\n09-09-2015\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : At Jabalpur\n Criminal Revision No. 2597/2014\n Arvind Mishra and three others\n Vs.\n Dinesh and another\n\u00c3\u0083\u00c2\u00a2\u00c3\u0082\u00c2\u0080\u00c3\u0082\u00c2\u00a6...........................................................................\n......................\nPresent:- Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar\n..................................................................................................\n.............\nShri Rajneesh Jain, counsel for the applicant.\nShri V.Chouksey, counsel for the respondent No.1.\nShri K.S.Patel, Panel Lawyer for the respondent No.2/State.\n.................................................................................................\n............\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 51,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 109,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 197,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 306,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 461,
"end": 475,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 594,
"end": 607,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 641,
"end": 651,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 691,
"end": 700,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 wp.2800.2013 J5.5.doc\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Writ Petition No. 2800 Of 2015\n\n\n\n\n \n 1] Uran Education Society ]\n a Registered Public Charitable Trust, ]\n under the provisions of Bombay Public ]\n\n\n\n\n \n Trust Act, having its Registered Office at ]\n Palak Maidan, Bori, Uran, Dist. Raigad, ]\n Uran 400 702. ]\n\n\n\n\n \n 2] The Hon. General Secretary, ]\n Uran Education Society\n ig ]\n a Registered Public Charitable Trust, ]\n under the provisions of Bombay Public ]\n Trust Act, having its Registered Office at ]\n \n Palak Maidan, Bori, Uran, Dist. Raigad, ]\n Uran 400 702. ]\n \n\n 3] Unaided Schools Forum, a Society ]\n registered under the Societies ]\n \n\n\n\n Registration Act, 1860, which has ]\n its registered office at ]\n Hiranandani Foundation, 17, ]\n Saraswati Road,Santacruz (West), ]\n\n\n\n\n\n Mumbai, 400 054 and having an ]\n office for correspondence at ]\n Gujarat Research Society,Dr. ]\n Madhuri Shah Campus, R.K. Mission ]\n Road, Khar (West), Mumbai - 400 052 ] ... Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n\n Versus\n\n 1] The State of Maharashtra, ]\n Through the Secretary, ]\n for School Education and Sports ]\n Department, having its address ]\n\n Shraddha Talekar Pa 1/33\n\n\n\n \n 2 wp.2800.2013 J5.5.doc\n\n\n\n\n at Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032. ]\n ]\n\n\n\n\n \n 2] The Director of Education (Primary), ]\n Maharashtra State, Pune. ]\n\n\n\n\n \n ]\n 3] Education Officer (Primary) ]\n Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibag ]\n ]\n\n\n\n\n \n 4] Education Officer ]\n Panchayat Samiti, Uran, ]\n District Raigad. ]\n ]\n\n\n\n\n \n 5] Union of India, ]\n Ayakar Bhavan,\n \n Opp, Churchgate Station,\n ]\n ]\n Mumbai - 400 032. ] ... Respondents\n \n Dr.Birendra Saraf a/w. Mr.Piyush Raheja, Mr.Vishesh Malviya, Ms.Nikita\n Mishra i/b M/s. Federal & Rashmikant for petitioners.\n \n\n\n Mr.Sunil Manohar, Advocate General a/w. Ms.S.S.Bhende, Agp for\n \n\n\n\n respondent no.1-State.\n\n Mr.Anil Singh, A.S.G. a/.w Mr.R.A. Rodrigues, Mr.Rajiv\n Chavan,Mr.D.A.Dube, Mr.Ajay Patil, Mr.D.P. Singh and Mr.N.R.Prajapati\n\n\n\n\n\n for respondent no.4.\n\n Coram : Anoop V. Mohta,\n K.R.Shriram, Jj.\n Date : 28Th April, 2015 Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 429,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 900,
"end": 1343,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1404,
"end": 1425,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2138,
"end": 2158,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2864,
"end": 2942,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3103,
"end": 3191,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3345,
"end": 3478,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3636,
"end": 3650,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 4014,
"end": 4028,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4037,
"end": 4050,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4055,
"end": 4070,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4075,
"end": 4092,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4160,
"end": 4173,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4302,
"end": 4319,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4326,
"end": 4342,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4346,
"end": 4354,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4359,
"end": 4369,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4374,
"end": 4384,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4392,
"end": 4405,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4479,
"end": 4493,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 4537,
"end": 4548,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur\n\n Election Petition No. 02/2007\n\n Sahab Singh Patel\n ............Petitioner\n vs.\n\n Smt. Shashi Prabha\n .............Respondent\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri Virendra Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.\n Shri Mrigendra Singh with Shri A. Patel, Advocates for the\n respondent.\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nDate of Hearing : 29.07.2008\nDate of Order : 25.09.2008\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 146,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 310,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 491,
"end": 505,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 548,
"end": 563,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 574,
"end": 582,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 Cr.A. No.844 /2003\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur\n\nDivision Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena\n Hon'Ble Shri Justice Subhash Kakade\n\n Criminal Appeal No.844/2003\n\n\nAppellant: Sukhdeo S/o Anjulal Katiya,\n Aged about 35 years,\n R/o Dodasemar Koltidhana,\n P.S. Nawegaon,\n District Chhindwara\n\n Versus\n\nRespondent: The State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Appellant : Ku. Savita Chaudhary,\n Learned Counsel\n\nFor the Respondent/State : Shri Amit Pandey\n Learned Panel Lawyer\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nDate of hearing : 25.04.2013\nDate of judgment: 19.06.2013\n\n\nPer: Subhash Kakade, J.\n (J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 156,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 208,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 306,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 628,
"end": 651,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 807,
"end": 823,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 947,
"end": 958,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1196,
"end": 1210,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\n Present:\n\n The Honourable The Ag.Chief Justice Mr.Ashok Bhushan\n The Honourable Mr.Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair\n The Honourable Mr.Justice K.Surendra Mohan\n The Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai\n &\n The Honourable Smt. Justice P.V.Asha\n\n Friday,The 20Th Day Of February 2015/1St Phalguna, 1936\n\n WP(C).No. 31599 of 2009 (T)\n ------------------------------------------\n\n\nPetitioner(S) :\n------------------------\n\n K.L.Francis, Aged 56 Years,\n S/O.Laser, Driver (Retd), Ksrtc, Adoor And\n Residing At Cheriparambil House, Chayalodam.P.O,\n Ezhamkulam Adoor.\n\n By Adv. Sri.N.Unnikrishnan\n\n\nRespondent(S) :\n---------------------------\n\n 1. The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation,\n Transport Bhavan, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram,\n Rep.By Its Managing Director.\n\n 2. The Assistant Transport Officer,\n Ksrtc, Adoor.\n\n By Adv. Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, S.C\n\n This Writ Petition (Civil) Having Been Finally Heard\n On 28-01-2015, Along With W.P.(C).No.7910 Of 2012 And Connected\n Cases, The Court On 20-02-2015 Delivered The Following:\n\n\n\n\nMsd.\n\f\nWP(C).No. 31599 of 2009 (T)\n------------------------------------------\n\n Appendix\n\nPetitioner(S)' Exhibits\n-------------------------------------\n\nExhibit P1: Atrue Copy Of Certificate Dated 10.03.2008 Issued By A.T.O.\n Adoor, The 2Nd Respondent To The Petitioner.\n\nExhibit P2: A True Copy Of The Page No. One Of Service Book.\n\nExhibit P3: A True Copy Of The Page No. Six Of Service Book.\n\nExhibit P4: Atrue Copy Of The Letter Dated G1-2-780/08/Adr\n Dated 08.07.2008 Issued By The Ato, Adoor.\n\nExhibit P5: A True Copy Of Memorandum Of Settlement Dated 13.04.1999.\n\nExhibit P6: A True Copy Of Representation Dated 12.08.2008 Submitted By\n The Petitioner.\n\nExhibit P7: A True Copy Of Judgment Dated 18.12.2006 In W.A.No.243/06.\n\nExhibit P8: A True Copy Of Judgment In W.P.(C).No.26795/2008\n Dated 16.07.2009.\n\nExhibit P9: A True Copy Of Personal Hearing Note Dated 10.09.2009.\n\nExhibit P10: A True Copy Of Letter Dated 11.09.2009.\n\nExhibit P11: A True Copy Of Order No.Pa.18/003221/08 Dated 14.10.2009.\n\nRespondent(S)' Exhibits\n-----------------------------------------\n Nil\n\n //True Copy//\n\n\n P.S.To Judge.\n\nMsd.\n\f\n\n\n (C.R.)\n Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ,\n T.R.Ramachandran Nair, J,\n K.Surendra Mohan, J,\n A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai, J,\n &\n P.V.Asha, J\n ----------------------------------------------\n\n W.P(C).No.31599 of 2009,\n\n W.P(C).No.7910 of 2012,\n\n W.P(C).No.7032 of 2013,\n\n W.P(C).No.7816 of 2013,\n\n W.P(C).No.15379 of 2013\n\n W.A.No.149 of 2010\n\n &\n\n W.A.No. 150 of 2010\n\n ----------------------------------------------\n\n Dated this the 20th February, 2015\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 164,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 230,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 294,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 362,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 482,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 751,
"end": 762,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 950,
"end": 964,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1029,
"end": 1125,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1188,
"end": 1242,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1269,
"end": 1291,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3046,
"end": 3067,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3087,
"end": 3103,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3121,
"end": 3143,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3204,
"end": 3212,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nRCRev..No. 276 of 2005()\n\n\n1. Mrs.Nabeesa Abdul Khader,\n ... Petitioner\n2. Abu Sali Abdul Khader @ Sali,\n3. Nazzar, S/O.Do.Do.\n4. Sajeev, S/O.Do.Do.\n5. Anitha Abdul Khader, D/O.Do.Do.\n6. Jeby Abdul Khader, D/O.Do.Do.\n7. Jameela, D/O.Do.Do.\n8. Azeena, D/O.Do.Do.Do.\n9. Sabeena, D/O.Do.Do.\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Suresh Kurian, S/O.Joseph Kurian,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Aboobacker Abdul Khader,\n\n3. Seli, D/O.Abdul Kahder, Do.Do.\n\n4. Beakutty, Of Do.Do.\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Rajeev V.Kurup\n\n For Respondent :Smt.Deepthy.S.Nath\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pius C.Kuriakose\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K.Abdul Rehim\n\n Dated :17/02/2009\n\n O R D E R\n Pius.C.Kuriakose & C.K.Abdul Rehim, Jj.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n R.C.R.No.276 Of 2005\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 96,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 167,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 178,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 194,
"end": 200,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 235,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 268,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 291,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 313,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 339,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 399,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 468,
"end": 491,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 497,
"end": 501,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 532,
"end": 540,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 590,
"end": 604,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 643,
"end": 657,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 683,
"end": 699,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 724,
"end": 739,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 780,
"end": 796,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 799,
"end": 814,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 30/10/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Gnanaprakasam\n\nCivil Misc.Appeal No. 1603 of 2001\nand\nC.M.P.No. 21316 of 2001\n\nThe Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,\n139, Eswaran Koil Street, Pondy. .. Appellant/2nd Respondent.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Kaliya Pillai,\n2. Thangam ..Respondent 1 and 2/Petitioner 1 and 2.\n\n3. N. Velu.\n ..Respondent 3/1st respondent.\n\n\nAppeal against fair and decretal order dated 12-12-2000 made in O.P.No. 171\nof 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court)\nKallakurichi, as sated therein.\n\n!For appellant : Mr. M.S. Krishnan\n\n^For Respondents 1 and 2 : Mr. R. Muralidharan\n\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 151,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 221,
"end": 285,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 351,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 356,
"end": 363,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 444,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 728,
"end": 741,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 781,
"end": 796,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Satvir Singh Lamba, Mm-01\n ( Negotiable Instruments Act) West District,\n Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi\n\nSh. Aman Vij\nProprietor of M/s Aman Services,\n7-8, Mohan Garden,\nMain Najafgarh Road,\nUttam Nagar,\nNew Delhi - 110059. ......Complainant\n\n Vs.\n\nShri Anand Kumar,\nProprietor of M/s Rahul Trading Company,\nB-3, Kushak Road no.2,\nSaroop Nagar,\nNew Delhi - 110042. ........Accused\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 39,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 156,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 170,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 393,
"end": 404,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao \n\nW.P.Nos.30790 of 2014 and batch \n\n07-11-2014 \n\nEdara Haribabu...petitioner\n\nThe District Collector cum Presiding Officer, Prakasam District and others.\n...respondents!Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.Nos.30790 and 30791 of 2014: Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri M.Karthik Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. \n\n^Counsel for the for respondent No.1 in W.P.No.30790 of 2014, W.P.No. 30791 of 2014 and W.P.No.30799 \n of 2014 : Learned Government Pleader for\n Panchayat Raj\n\nCounsel for the for respondent No.2: Sri V.V.Prabhakar Rao in all three cases;\nCounsel for the for respondent No.3 in W.P.No.30790 of 2014, 30791 of 2014 and for the petitioner in W.P.No.30799 of 2014 : Sri B.V.Subbaiah, learned Senior Counsel for Smt. K.Aruna, learned counsel. \n\nHead Note: \n? Cases referred (2014) 5 S.C.C. 312 2 2002(4) Ald660 3 (2004) 3 Scc 723 4 Air 1967 Sc 295 5 (2000) 8 Scc 82 6 (2003) 6 Scc 675 7 2001(5) Alt 553 (F.B) 8 (2009) 5 Scc 616 9 2010(4) Ald 646 (Db) 10 Air 1967 Sc 1 11 2005 (1) Alt 552 (Db) 12 Air 1975 Sc 1297 13 Air 1978 Sc 949 14 Air 1968 S.C. 13 15(2008) 4 S.C.C. 451 16 (2003) 10 S.C.C. 121 17 (2005) 2 S.C.C. 673 18 2012 (1 Ald 107 (Db) 19 2014 (4) Alt 22 20 Air 2000 S.C. 388 The Hon'Ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao W.P.Nos.30790, 30791 and 30799 of 2014 Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 118,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 291,
"end": 306,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 354,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 661,
"end": 678,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 827,
"end": 839,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 873,
"end": 880,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1377,
"end": 1396,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\nDated: 24.01.2012\nCoram:\nThe Hon\u0012Ble Mr. Justice T.S.Sivagnanam \nC.R.P.(NPD)No.2308 of 2005\n\nCentral Government Employees\nWelfare Housing Organization,\nRep. by its Chief Executive Officer,\n'A' Wing, 6th Floor, Janpath Bhavan\nJanpath, New Delhi \u0016 110 001.\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner \n-vs-\n\n1.Consolidated Civil Constructions (I) Ltd.,\n Rep. by its Executive Director,\n 20, Lakshmi Bhavan, \n 609, Anna Salai\n\n2.Bharath Overseas Bank,\n Chennai Main Branch,\n Rep. by its Manager,\n Karunai Kudil,\n 226, Cathedral Road, Chennai \u0016 86.\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\nPrayer: \tThe above Petition is filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the order dated 22.06.2005, of the learned Vii Assistant Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.1755 of 2004, dismissing the plea of the petitioner to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Cpc r/w Section 151 Cpc, due to lack of jurisdiction.\n\n\t\tFor Petitioner : Mr.K.S.V.Prasad\n\t\tFor Respondents:M/s.Ajay Kumar Gnanam for R1\n\t\t\t\t\tNo Appearance for R2\nO R D E R \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 135,
"end": 295,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 364,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 445,
"end": 468,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 947,
"end": 959,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 982,
"end": 999,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.60/2012\n Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Jodhpur Vs. M/s Jain Construction Co.\n\n\n 1/24\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan\n\n At Jodhpur\n\n Judgment\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 59,
"end": 97,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 106,
"end": 127,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 263,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 21/03/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice E.Padmanabhan\n\nWrit Petition No.15920 of 1995\nWrit Petition Nos. 15922 of 1995, 15983, 15986, 10854, 10862, 10864,\n10865, 10875, 10876, 10880, 11238, 11239, 11368, 11369, 11370 ,\n11557, 12152, 12921, 13084, 13085, 11410, 11411, 11412, 13364, 13365,\n13366, 13373 to 13375, 13382, 13383, 13509, 13573, 13574,\n1334, 13335, 16363 to 16366, 16459, 17371, 17372, 17408, 17409,\n17410,14139, 14308 to 14310, 15915, 17480, 17504 to 17508,\n16861 of 1995 & 3358 of 1996 & 1234, 4636, 1380, and 9685 of 1998\nand\nW.M.P.Nos:25431, 25433, 25435, 25437, 7436, 7439/97 & 17252/95,\n52552 , 52089/2002, 17261, 17265, 17282, 17284, 170288, 17836,\n17838/1995, 18045, 18047, 18049, 18351/1995, 19366, 65866/1996,\n20701, 20982 20984, 21447, 21455, 21456, 21469, 21661, 21749, 21751,\n25991, 25993, 25995, 25997/1995, 11855 to 11858/1997 27495, 27497,\n22505, 22766, 22768 , 22770, 25304, 25322, 25324, 25326/1995, 4729,\n4730, 4731/97, 5400/96, 20602, 7093/98 and 15379/95.\n\nW.P.No:15920/95\n\nSri Lakshmi Saraswathi Bus Service\nTeachers' Colony, Erode. ..Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The Government of Tamil Nadu\n rep. by the Secretary Home\n (Tansport Dept.,) Secretariat,\n Chennai-9\n\n2. The Regional Transport Authority,\n Periyar District., Erode.\n\n3. Jeeva Transport Corporation Ltd.,\n rep. by its Managing Director\n Chennimalai Road,\n Erode 738 002 ..Respondents !For petitioners:\n Mr.S.Varadachachi :: WP.Nos:15983 to 15986, 15920 to 15922/95 Mr.M.Krishnappan :: W.P.Nos:10854, 11410, 11411 and 11412/95 Mr.S.C.Palanisamy :: W.P.Nos:10862, 10864, 10865, 10875, 10876, 10880, 13364, 13365, 13366, 13373, 13383, 17480, 13334 , 1335, 13374, 13375, 13382, 17504, 17505, 17506, 17507 and 17508/95 Mrs.S.Radhagopalan :: W.P.Nos:11238,16861 & 11557/95 Mr.R.S.Ramanujam :: W.P.Nos:11368 to 11370, 13084, 17408, 17409 and 17410/95 Mr.N.Gopalakrishnan:: W.P.Nos:12152, 17371, 17372/95 Mr.C.R.Krishnamoorthy W.P.Nos:11239/95, 6114/98, 13573, 13574 , 16459, 14308 to 14310/95 and 6086 of 1998 Mr.K.M.Venugopal :: W.P.Nos:13509/95, 15915/95 Mr.R.Neatesan :: W.P.Nos:16363 to 16366 of 1995 Mr.V.Lakshminarayan:: appearing in person (Wp3358/96) Mr.K.Hariharan :: W.P.Nos:1234, 4636/98 & 9685/95 Ms.P.Vedavalli :: W.P.1380/98 Mr.M.Palani :: for implead petitioners' ^For Respondents: :: In all the Writ Petitions Mr.N.R.Chandran, Advocate General assisted by Mr.Sanjay Ramasami Petitions filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorari as stated therein. \n\n:C O M M O N O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 8,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 106,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1065,
"end": 1119,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1171,
"end": 1195,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1281,
"end": 1338,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1344,
"end": 1376,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1516,
"end": 1530,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1578,
"end": 1591,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1639,
"end": 1653,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1828,
"end": 1842,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1880,
"end": 1893,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1957,
"end": 1973,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2010,
"end": 2028,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2116,
"end": 2129,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2163,
"end": 2173,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2211,
"end": 2227,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2265,
"end": 2276,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2315,
"end": 2326,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2345,
"end": 2353,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2432,
"end": 2444,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2478,
"end": 2493,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh\n ASJ/Special Judge : Ndps (N-W) : Rohini Courts : Delhi\n\n In the matter of :\n Sc No. 57/12\n State Vs. Om Prakash & anr.\n Fir no. 152/12\n Ps Crime Branch\n U/s 18 of Ndps Act\n\n State\n\n Versus\n\n\n 1) Om Prakash\n S/o Sh. Chuna Ram\n R/o Village Jajiwal,\n Vishnoiyan, Distt. Jodhpur, Rajasthan\n 2) Pramod\n S/o Late Sh. Om Prakash\n R/o Village Buda Khera,\n Ps Uklana, Mandi,\n Distt. Hisar, Haryana.\n\n Date of receipt : 17.09.2012\n Date of arguments : 26.09.2014\n Date of announcement : 17.10.2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 41,
"end": 56,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 126,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 269,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 276,
"end": 286,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 514,
"end": 519,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 568,
"end": 578,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 732,
"end": 738,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 25626 of 2009(W)\n\n\n1. Panachikunnel Annamma Thomas,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Special Tahsildar (L.A.),\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.O.Ramachandran Nambiar\n\n For Respondent : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan\n\n Dated :29/09/2009\n\n O R D E R\n Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J\n ...........................................\n WP(C).NOs.25626 & 24875 Of 2009\n ............................................\n Dated This The 29Th Day Of September, 2009\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 102,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 191,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 258,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 327,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 402,
"end": 428,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 501,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Additional Sessions \n Judge\u00adII, South District, Saket Court, Delhi.\n\nSession Case No. 71/2013\n\nIn the matter of :\n\nState \n\nVersus\n\n1. Afroj Ali,\nS/o Sh. Sarjan Ali,\nR/o 5/430, Dakshinpuri,\nNew Delhi.\n\n\n2. Farhan Ali,\nS/o late Gaffar Ali,\nR/o 5/430, Dakshinpuri,\nNew Delhi.\n\n\n3. Bhagwan @ Dasi,\nS/o Sh. Madan Lal,\nR/o L\u00ad240, Dakshinpuri,\nNew Delhi.\n\n\nFir No. : 446/2012.\nPolice Station : Ambedkar Nagar\nUnder section. : 307/34 Ipc & 25/54/59 Arms Act.\n\nDate of assignment : 20.04.2013.\nReserved for judgment on : 09.05.2014.\nDate of decision : 15.05.2014\n\n\n\n\nState Vs. Afroz Ali etc. 1 of 29\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 117,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 171,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 195,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 268,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 346,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\nDated: 25.03.2010\nCoram:\nThe Honourable Ms.Justice R.Mala\nCrl.A.Nos.1033 to 1048 of 2002\n1. G.Nagarajan\n2. K.Srinivasan\t \t\t \n .. Appellants in Crl.A.No.1033 of 2002\nVs.\nState rep. by Deputy Supdt. Of Police,\nVigilance & Anti-Corruption Special Cell,\nSalem.\t\t \n\t\t .. Respondent in Crl.A.No.1033 of 2002\n\n\tCriminal Appeal No.1033 of 2002 against the judgment dated 30.5.2002 in C.C.No.3 of 1996 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.\n\nFor appellants in Crl.A.No.1033 of 2002 :\n\t\t\t\tMr.R.Sankarasubbu\n\nFor respondent in Crl.A.No.1033 of 2002: \n\t\t\t\tMr.I.Paul Noble Devakumar,\n\t\t\t\tGovt. Advocate (Crl. Side).\n\n\t\t\tJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 99,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 145,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 161,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 218,
"end": 223,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 624,
"end": 638,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 689,
"end": 711,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "ash 1 crapeal-611.12\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n Criminal Appeal No.611 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n Sadanand Shivaji Kadam )\n Age about 86 years, )\n Occupation : Agriculturist, )\n\n\n\n\n \n R/at Flat No.12, Bharati Apartments, )\n Shivajinagar, Pune 411 005. )\n (at present in Yerawada Central Prison, )\n Pune. ).. Appellant\n\n\n\n\n \n Vs \n State of Maharashtra, )\n (Through Haveli Police Station. ).. Respondent\n \n -\n Shri V.R. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Shri M.S. Mohite, Shri S.V. Kotwal & Shri Shrikant Shiwade i/by Shri Ashish Sawant and Shri A.R. Kapadnis for the Appellant. \n Shri S.M. Gorwadkar for the original Complainant. Shri H.J. Dedhia, App for the State. \n\n -\n Coram : Abhay S. Oka & \n Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Jj \n\n\n\n\n\n Date : 4Th September, 2012\n\n\n Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 116,
"end": 150,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 410,
"end": 432,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 965,
"end": 985,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1144,
"end": 1156,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1184,
"end": 1195,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1202,
"end": 1213,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1221,
"end": 1237,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1248,
"end": 1261,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1271,
"end": 1284,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1311,
"end": 1325,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1361,
"end": 1372,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1446,
"end": 1458,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1515,
"end": 1532,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n+ MAC.APP.No.792/2006\n Date of Decision : 11th January, 2013\n\n Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..... Appellant\n Through : Mr. Karan Chaudhary, proxy\n counsel for Mr. R.N.\n Sharma, Adv.\n versus\n\n Ranjit Pandey & Ors. .... Respondents\n Through : Mr. Idresh Ahmed, Adv. for\n R-1\nCoram :-\nHon'Ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 146,
"end": 173,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 353,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 404,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 493,
"end": 505,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 587,
"end": 597,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ii Addl. City Civil And Sessions\n Judge And Special Judge At Bengaluru,\n (Cch-17)\n\n Dated this the 1st day of October, 2015\n\n :Present:\n\n M. Chandrashekar Reddy, B.A., Ll.B.,\n Ii Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,\n and Special Judge.\n\n Sessions Case No. 1345/2011\n\nComplainant : State by:\n Chandra Layout police,\n Bengaluru.\n (By Ld.Spl. Public Prosecutor)\n\n -Versus-\n\nAccused : 1. Nagesha @ Penne ,\n S/o Muniraju,\n Aged about 20 years,\n R/o No.35/5, Thotada road,\n Nayandahalli,\n Bengaluru - 39.\n\n 2. Madhu @ Madhu\n\n (Juvenile - case is split up)\n\n 3. Raghavendra @ Piya,\n S/o Muniyappa,\n Aged about 26 years,\n R/o No.22, Revanna Layout,\n Behind Ganesha temple,\n Nayandahalli,\n Bengaluru - 39.\n\n (A-1 & A-3 in Judicial custody)\n 2 S.C.No. 1345/2011\n\n\n\n (By Smt.N.Padmavathi, Adv for A-1,\n Shri. A. Vedamurthy, Adv for A-3)\n\n (A-2 being Juvenile case against\n him split up and sent to Juvenile\n Justice Board)\n\n\n1 Date of commission of Intervening night of\n offence 31.07.2011 and\n 01.08.2011\n\n2 Date of report of 01.08.2011\n occurrence\n3 Date of arrest of Accused 02.08.2011\n\n4 Date of release of ---\n Accused on Bail\n5 Period undergone in 04 years 1 month 29\n custody days\n\n6 Date of commencement 26.07.2012\n of recording of evidence\n7 Date of closing of 18.10.2014\n evidence\n8 Name of the Complainant Prosecutrix (P.W.1)\n\n9 Offences Complained of Ss.376(2)(g) and 392 r/w\n Sec.34 of Ipc and\n Sec.3(1)(x)(xi)(xii) of Sc/St\n (Prevention of Atrocities)\n Act, 1989.\n\n1 Opinion of the Judge A-1 & A-3 convicted of\n0 offences u/s Ss.376(2)(g)\n and 392 r/w Sec.34 of Ipc\n and Sec.3(1)(xi)(xii)\n and acquitted of\n Sec.3(1)(x)SC/ST\n (Prevention of Atrocities)\n Act, 1989\n 3 S.C.No. 1345/2011\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 203,
"end": 225,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 382,
"end": 387,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 592,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 820,
"end": 833,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 915,
"end": 933,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1345,
"end": 1357,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1405,
"end": 1418,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n \u00ae\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At\n Bangalore\n Dated This The 21st Day Of May, 2013\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy\n\n Criminal Petition No.4104 Of 2009\n\n Connected With\n\n Criminal Petition No.4369 of 2009\n\nBetween:\n\n1. M/s. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills\n Limited, represented by its\n Director, Mr. Ashok Kumar Saraf,\n 14-A, Ennore High Road,\n Thiruvottiyur,\n Chennai - 600 019.\n2. Mr. Ashok Kumar Saraf,\n Son of D.D. Saraf,\n Aged about 46 years,\n Director,\n M/s. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills\n Limited, 14-A, Ennore High Road,\n Thiruvottiyur,\n Chennai - 600 019.\n3. Mrs. Ruchira Saraf,\n Wife of Mr. Ashok Kumar Saraf,\n 2\n\n\n\n\n Aged about 38 years,\n Director,\n M/s. Shree Ganesh Steel Rolling Mills\n Limited, 14-A, Ennore High Road,\n Thiruvottiyur,\n Chennai - 600 019. ...Petitioners\n Common\n\n(By Shri. G.L. Rawal, Senior Advocate for Shri. K. Sachindra\nKaranth, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\nM/s. Stcl Limited\n(A Government of India undertaking)\nHaving their office at No.166/2,\n13th Main Road,\nVasanthanagar,\nBangalore - 560 052,\nRepresented by its Managing Director,\nthrough its Authorised Officer,\nMr. Jagadeesh Kumar,\nManager - Marketing (in-charge). ...Respondent\n Common\n\n(By Shri. Chandrashekara .K, Advocate for Shri. Kiran S Javali,\nAdvocate)\n *****\nIn CRL.P.No.4104 of 2009\n\n This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of\nCriminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated\n20.07.2009 passed by the Xv Additional Chief Metropolitan\nMagistrate, Bangalore, in P.C.R.No.11982 of 2009 now\nnumbered as C.C.No.16289 of 2009 issuing summons to the\n 3\n\n\n\n\npetitioners and allow this petition by quashing the entire\nproceedings in P.C.R.No.11982/2009 now numbered as\nC.C.No. 16289 of 2009 on the file of Xv Additional Chief\nMetropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.\n\nIn CRL.P.No.4369 of 2009\n\n This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of\nCriminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated\n17.06.2009 passed by the Xv Additional Chief Metropolitan\nMagistrate, Bangalore, in C.C.No.13784 of 2009 originally\nnumbered as P.C.R.No.7831/2009 and issuing summons to the\npetitioners\n\n\n These petitions having been heard and reserved on\n19.04.2013 and coming on for pronouncement of orders this\nday, the Court delivered the following:-\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 71,
"end": 128,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 255,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 454,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 605,
"end": 622,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 840,
"end": 853,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1207,
"end": 1217,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1245,
"end": 1265,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1289,
"end": 1301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1633,
"end": 1650,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1671,
"end": 1685,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Jyoti Kler, Additional Senior Civil Judge\u00ad\n Cum\u00adJudge Small Cause Court\u00adCum\u00ad Guardian Judge, South\u00ad\n East District, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi\n\n\nRca No: 05/13 \n\nCase Id No. 02406C0139602013\n\nIn The Matters Of :\n\nSh. Bhagwat\nS/o Sh. Jaipal,\nR/o A\u00ad66, Near Bharat Ghar,\nGarhi, East of Kailash,\nNew Delhi .....Appellant \n Versus\n\nSh. Vijay Kumar\nS/o Sh. Rampal,\nR/o 24, Garhi,\nEast of Kailash,\nNew Delhi. .....Respondent\n\nDate of Institution: 01.06.2013\nDate of Final Arguments: 22.03.2014\nDate of Judgment: 09.04.2014\nDecision: Partly allowed.\n\n And\n\nRca No. 03/13\n\nCase Id No. 02406C0108652013\n\nIn The Matters Of :\n\nSh. Vijay Kumar\nS/o Sh. Rampal,\nR/o 24, Garhi,\n\n\nRca No. 05/13 Sh. Bhagwat Vs. Vijay Kumar & Rca No. 03/13 Vijay Kumar Vs. Bhagwat 1/22\n East of Kailash,\nNew Delhi. .....Appellant \n\n\n Versus\n\nSh. Bhagwat\nS/o Sh. Jaipal,\nR/o A\u00ad66, Near Bharat Ghar\nGarhi, East of Kailash,\nNew Delhi .....Respondent \n\n\n\nDate of Institution: 30.04.2013\nDate of Final Arguments: 22.03.2014\nDate of Judgment: 09.04.2014\nDecision: Dismissed.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 178,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 259,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 453,
"end": 464,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1095,
"end": 1106,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1111,
"end": 1118,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1295,
"end": 1302,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 9508 of 2009(G)\n\n\n1. Valsala Kumari Devi.M.,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Represented By Its\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Director Of Higher Secondary Education,\n\n3. Regional Deputy Director,\n\n4. Manager, B.A.R. Higher Secondary School,\n\n5. Principal, B.A.R. Higher Secondary\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Smt.P.K.Priya\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair\n\n Dated :22/02/2011\n\n O R D E R\n T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n W.P.(C) No. 9508 of 2009-G\n - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2011.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 95,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 184,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 291,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 321,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 327,
"end": 366,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 372,
"end": 406,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 445,
"end": 462,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 507,
"end": 516,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 542,
"end": 563,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 617,
"end": 639,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Puneet Pahwa \n Metropolitan Magistrate \u00ad 01 (N.I. Act)\n Patiala House Courts : New Delhi\n\n\n\nSh. Ramesh\nS/o Sh. Kishan Lal,\nR/o 2028\u00ad1/E, Pillanji,\nKotla Mubarakpur,\nNew Delhi\n ....................... Complainant\n\n\n Vs.\n\n\nSh. Mahender Singh @ Mahender Sardar\n(Senior Clerk, Steno)\nBlock No.3, Punjab Cell,\nCgo Complex, Lodhi Road,\nNew Delhi. \n\n\n . ................................Accused\n\n\n\nCase Number. : 267/1\n\n\nDate of Institution of Present Case. : 31.05.2004\n\n\nOffence Complained Of. : U/s 138 Ni Act\n\nCase No. 267/1 \n Plea of the Accused. : Not Guilty\n\n\nArguments Heard On. : 07.03.2014.\n\n\nFinal Order. : Convicted.\n\n\nDate of Judgment. : 26.03.2014\n\n\n\n - :: Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 137,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 145,
"end": 151,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 394,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey \n Additional District Judge\u00ad02 (Ne)\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\n Cs No. 243/14\n\n\n In The Matter Of :\u00ad\n\n Lokesh Kumar Jain\n S/o Sh. R. P. Jain \n R/o C\u00ad8, West Jyoti Nagar, \n Delhi\u00ad 110094. ....... Plaintiff\n \n Versus\n\n (1) Tulsha Devi \n W/o Late Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma \n\n (2) Gaurav Sharma ( 17 years)\n S/o Late Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma \n\n (3) Saurabh Sharma (16 years)\n S/o Late Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma \n\n (4) Kumari Bhawna Sharma (15 years)\n D/o Late Sh. Rajesh Kumar Sharma \n\n All minors through their natural mother/ \n Guardian i.e. addressee No. 1 Smt. Tulsha Devi. \n\n All R/o H. No. 1/ 2091, ( Old No. 603/5\u00adD/3L), \n Gali No. 21, East Ram Nagar, \n Shahdara, Delhi\u00ad110032 ..... defendants \n\n\n\n Cs No. 243/14 1/15\nLokesh Kumar Jain V/s Tulsha Devi \n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 136,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 237,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 452,
"end": 463,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 526,
"end": 539,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 613,
"end": 627,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 700,
"end": 720,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Sunil Rana\n Addl. District Judge : 02 (North West)\n Rohini Courts: Delhi\n Rca No. 104/13.\n Unique Id No.02404C0264692013. \n\n K.L.Dhawan\n S/o Sh. Devi Dayal Dhawan,\n R/o. A\u00ad56/5 (Back Portion),\n Kewal Park Extn., Near Ram\n Lila Ground, Delhi\u00ad33.\n ........Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n Shuveta Abhichandani\n W/o Sh. Dhiraj Abichandani,\n R/o. 56/4, Kewal Park Extn., \n Near Ram Lila Ground, Delhi\u00ad33.\n ........Respondent Date of Filing : 17.09.2013. \n Date of Reserving order : 26.02.2014.\n Date of Judgment : 26.02.2014.\n\n\n Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 136,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 212,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 519,
"end": 539,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Mohan Tiwari Vs. Satinder Kumar & Ors.\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. K S Mohi : Presiding Officer : Mact\n South District : Saket Courts : New Delhi\n\nPetition No. : 158/13\n\nUnique case Id : 02406C0125192013\n\n 1. Mohan Tiwari ...... Father \n S/o Sh. Babu Nandan \n 2. Indrawati ...... Mother\n W/o Sh. Mohan Tiwari\n Both R/o H. No. 26, Vill. & P.S. Kotava\n Distt. Padrauna, Kushi Nagar, U.P.\n ..... Petitioners\n\n Versus \n\n 1. Satinder Kumar\n S/o Sh. Mool Chand\n R/o 62\u00adK, Humayun Pur village\n Ps : Safdarjung Enclave\n New Delhi - 110 029 ..... Driver\n\n 2. Anil Kumar\n S/o Sh. Mukhtiyar Singh\n R/o H. No. 502, Vill. Sihi,\n Sector\u00ad8, Ballabgarh, Faridabad\n Haryana ..... Owner\n\n\n 3. Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Birla Tower, 5th Floor,\n 25, Barakhamba Road,\n New Delhi ..... Insurer\n ..... Respondents\n\n\n\nPetition No. : 158/13 Page No. 1 of 17\n Mohan Tiwari Vs. Satinder Kumar & Ors.\n\n\n Date of Institution : 08.05.2013\n\n Date of reserving of judgment/order : 28.07.2014\n\n Date of pronouncement : 28.08.2014\n\n\n\nJ U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 12,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 17,
"end": 31,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 80,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 253,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 328,
"end": 337,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 643,
"end": 657,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 821,
"end": 831,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1002,
"end": 1042,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1430,
"end": 1442,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1447,
"end": 1461,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 290 of 2002()\n\n\n1. N.I.Shaju, S/O.N.I.Ippan,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. T.K.Paulose, Thondanala House,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State, Represented By The\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.C.P.Udayabhanu\n\n For Respondent :Sri.P.B.Asokan\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S.Satheesachandran\n\n Dated :17/07/2009\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 86,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 175,
"end": 186,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 259,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 318,
"end": 332,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 381,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 427,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n Reserved Judgment\n\n In The High Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital\n\n Special Appeal No. 14 of 2015\n\n\n\nRajesh Goyal & others. ............ Appellants\n\n Versus\n\nState of Uttarakhand & others. ............. Respondents\n\nMr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate, along with Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the\nappellants.\nMr. Vinay Garg, Advocate, with Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the Mdda.\nMr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 84,
"end": 121,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 188,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 315,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 372,
"end": 384,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 411,
"end": 422,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 457,
"end": 467,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 488,
"end": 500,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 529,
"end": 542,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge\u00ad2( Ne), Kkd Courts, Delhi\n\n\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. G. N. Pandey \n Additional District Judge\u00ad02 (Ne)\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n \n Rca No. 36/14\n Case I.D. Number : 02402C0238582010\n\n In The Matter Of :\u00ad\n\n Amar Singh \n S/o Sh. Rattan Singh\n R/o Village & P.O. Gokalpur, \n Delhi\u00ad110094. .......Appellant\n \n\n Versus\n (1) Hans Raj \n S/o Sh. Ari Singh \n Proprietor of Plastic Industry \n Village & P.O. Gokalpur, Shahdara, \n Delhi\u00ad110094. \n (2) Dharam Pal\n S/o Sh. Bishamber\n Proprietor of Plastic Dana Factory\n (through LRs)\n (a) Rajesh Kumar (Son) \n S/o Late Dharampal \n R/o Village & P. O. Gokalpuri, Shahdara, \n Delhi.\n (b) Nandoi Kumar ( Son)\n S/o Late Dharampal \n\n\n Rca No. 36/14 1/17\nAmar Singh V/s Hansraj & Anr.\n Sh. G. N. Pandey, Additional District Judge\u00ad2( Ne), Kkd Courts, Delhi\n\n\n R/o Village & P. O. Gokalpuri, Shahdara, \n Delhi.\n (c) Smt. Brahamwati \n W/o Late Dharampal \n R/o Village & P. O. Gokalpuri, Shahdara, \n Delhi. \n (3) Chander Pal \n S/o Sh. Ari Singh \n Proprietor of Polythene Bags Factory\n Village & P. O. Gokalpur, Shahdara, \n Delhi\u00ad110094. ......Respondents \n \nDate of Institution of Appeal:23.08.2010\nReceived in this Court :10.02.2014\nArguments heard on : 20.09.2014 \nDate of Judgment/Order : 20.09.2014 \nDecision : Dismissed with cost. \n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 16,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 19,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 134,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 502,
"end": 512,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 777,
"end": 785,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 974,
"end": 984,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1121,
"end": 1133,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1278,
"end": 1290,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1440,
"end": 1450,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1455,
"end": 1462,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1493,
"end": 1505,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1667,
"end": 1677,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1817,
"end": 1828,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the Court of Pawan Kumar Matto\n Additional District Judge\u00ad01 (East)\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\nMca No.17/2013\n\nUnique Case Id No.02402C0305962013\n\nIn the matter of :\u00ad\n\nSh. Jagat Singh Talwar\nS/o late Sh. Sujan Singh\nR/o House No.J\u00ad1/14, Upper Ground Floor,\nKrishna Nagar, Delhi\u00ad110051 ..........Appellant/Plaintiff\n\n Versus\n\n 1. Sh. Nirmal Singh Talwar\n S/o late Sujan Singh Talwar \n 2. Smt. Deep Kaur\n W/o Sh. Nirmal Singh Talwar\n Both R/o House No.C\u00ad8, Hazara Park,\n Chander Nagar, Delhi\u00ad110051. \n 3. Sh. Rajesh Jain\n Sole Proprietor / Partner\n of M/s. J.R.N. Textiles,\n One Shop in Property No.IX/6629,\n Nehru Gali, Gandhi Nagar,\n Delhi\u00ad110031. .........Respondents/Defendants\n\nDate of institution : 19.09.2013\n\nArguments heard on : 03.06.2014\n\nOrder announced on : 09.06.2014\n\n\n\nMca No.17/2013 Page No.1 of 16\n 09.06.2014\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 206,
"end": 224,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 427,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 474,
"end": 483,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 606,
"end": 617,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 23.8.2006\n\nC O R A M :\n\nThe Honourable Mr.A.P.Shah, The Chief Justice\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice K.Chandru\n\nW.P.Nos.18898 of 2000, 19998 of 2001,\n24316 of 2002 and 17646 of 2006\n&\nW.M.P.Nos.27383 and 27384 of 2000,\n29477 and 29478 of 2001, 33424 and\n33425 of 2002 and MP.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2006\n\nW.P.NOs.18898 of 2000, 19998 of 2001\nand 24316 of 2002:\n\nConsumer Action Group rep.by its\nTrustee Tara Murali,\nNo.7, 4th Street, Venkateswara Nagar,\nAdyar, Chennai-600 020.\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n \n\t\t\t-vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its\n Secretary to Government,\n Law Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.\n\n2. The State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its\n Secretary to Government,\n Housing and Urban Development\n Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.\n\n3. The Chennai Metropolitan Development\n Authority, rep.by its Member-Secretary,\n Thalamuthu Natarajan Malegai,\n Egmore, Chennai-600 008.\t\t\t...Respondents \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \n\n\n Wp.17646 Of 2006:\n\n\nK.R.Ramaswamy @ Traffic Ramaswamy\t\t \t ... Petitioner \n\n\t-vs-\n\n1. State rep.by the Secretary,\n Municipal Administration,\n Government of Tamil Nadu, \n Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.\n\n2. The Member Secretary,\n Chennai Metropolitan Development\n Authority, Gandhi Irwin Road,\n Egmore, Chennai-600 008.\n\n3. The Commissioner,\n Corporation of Chennai,\n Ripon Building,\n Chennai-600 003.\n\n4. The Commissioner of Police,\n Greater Chennai City,\n Egmore, Chennai-8.\n\n5. The Chairman,\n Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n 800, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.\n\n6. The Chairman,\n Chennai Metropolitan Water supply\n and sewerage Board, Pumping \n Station Road, Chennai-2.\t\t ... Respondents\n (Respondents 5 and 6 impleaded \n suo motu as per the order of\n this court, dated 21.7.2006)\n\n\n\n\tPrayer in Wp.18898 of 2000: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of declaration declaring (a) Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,1971 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Amendment Ordinance, 2000 (Ordinance 7 of 2000) ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and (b) The provisions of the Application, Assessment and Collection of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999 as ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and pass such further orders.\n\n\tPrayer in Wp.19998 of 2001: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of a writ of declaration declaring (a) Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Amendment Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance 5 of 2001) ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and (b) The provisions of the Application, Assessment and Collection of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999 as ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and pass such further orders.\n \n\tPrayer in Wp.24316 of 2002: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for the issuance of a writ of declaration declaring (a) Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 as amended by the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Amendment Act, 2002 (Act 7 of 2002) ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and (b) The provisions of the Application, Assessment and Collection of Regularisation Fee (Chennai Metropolitan Area) Rules, 1999 as ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and pass such further orders.\n\n\tPrayer In Wp.17646 Of 2006 : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2, 3 and 4 to enforce the provisions on the Tamil Nadu Multi-storeyed Building Act and Rules, 1973 and City Municipal Act, 1919 in respect of building in the city of Chennai to ensure the public safety and effective free flow of Traffic and pass such further orders.\n\nFor petitioner in Wp.\nNos.18898 of 2000,\n9998 of 2001 and \n24316 of 2002\t\t:: Mr. Sriram Panchu, Sc for\n\t\t\t\t Mr.T.Mohan\n\nFor petitioner in Wp.\nNo.17646 of 2006\t\t:: Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran\n\nFor respondents\t\t:: Mr.R.Viduthalai, Advocate General\n\t\t\t \t assisted by Mr.Raja Kalifulla, Gp\n\t\t\t\t for State \n \t\t\t assisted by Mr.J.Ravindran,\n\t\t\t\t for Cmda, Tneb and Cmwssb\n\t\t\t\t assisted by Mr.L.N.Praghasham,\n\t\t\t\t for Chennai Corporation. \n\n\n********* \nCommon Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 93,
"end": 101,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 160,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 427,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 559,
"end": 578,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 680,
"end": 699,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 831,
"end": 969,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1096,
"end": 1101,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1235,
"end": 1357,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1369,
"end": 1456,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1468,
"end": 1543,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1556,
"end": 1636,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1649,
"end": 1766,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 4230,
"end": 4243,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4319,
"end": 4339,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4365,
"end": 4377,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4421,
"end": 4435,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4489,
"end": 4500,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4559,
"end": 4573,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sbcwp No.10833/2010 - M/s R.P.Bricks Industries vs. State & Ors. &\n other connected matters\n Judgment dt:26/4/2013\n\n\n 1/106\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At\n Jodhpur\n Order\n\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 47,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 52,
"end": 57,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 375,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n The High Court Of Meghalaya\n Wp(C) No. 276 of 2013\n\n\n1. Shri Banshanbor Thangkhiew,\n S/o (L) Din Singh Dkhar,\n R/o Mawlai Nongpdeng,\n Shillong, East Khasi Hills District,\n Meghalaya.\n\n ... Petitioner\n\n -Versus-\n\n\n1. The State of Meghalaya\n Represented by the Secretary\n (Revenue Department),\n Shillong.\n\n2. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector,\n Ri-Bhoi District,\n Meghalaya.\n\n3. The Extra Assistant Commissioner\n (Incharge - Revenue),\n Ri-Bhoi District,\n Meghalaya.\n\n4. The Union of India,\n Defence Ministry,\n Represented by Defence Estate Officer,\n Silpukhuri, Guwahati,\n Assam.\n\n ....Respondents Before The Hon'Ble Mr Justice T Nandakumar Singh For the petitioner : Mr. E.Nongbri, Adv. \n\n For the respondents : Ms. N.G.Shylla, Ga. \n\n Mr. R.Deb Nath,CGC. \n\n\nDate of hearing : 04-06-2015\n\nDate of Judgment : 03-07-2015\n\n\n\n\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 38,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 113,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 346,
"end": 364,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 525,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 538,
"end": 634,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 647,
"end": 661,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 865,
"end": 883,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 909,
"end": 918,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 954,
"end": 964,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 977,
"end": 987,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Cs(Os) 1417/2009 & Ia 9891/2009\n\n Reserved on : 12th August 2009\n Decision on : 18th August 2009\n\nM/S Oval Investment Pvt Ltd & Ors ..... Plaintiffs\n Through Mr. C.A. Sundram, Senior Advocate and\n Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate with\n Mr. Manish Sharma & Ms. Rohini Musa, Advocates\n\n versus\n\nM/S Indiabulls Financial Services\nLtd & Ors ..... Defendants\n Through Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Senior Advocate and\n Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with\n Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Mr. Mahesh Agarwal and\n Mr. Akshay Ringe, Advocate for Defendant No.1.\n Ms. Neelima Tripathi, Advocate for\n Defendant Nos. 2 to 19.\n\n Coram:\n Hon'Ble Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar\n\n 1.Whether reporters of the local news papers\n be allowed to see the judgment? No\n 2.To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 250,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 323,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 376,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 417,
"end": 430,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 448,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 497,
"end": 530,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 613,
"end": 626,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 666,
"end": 677,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 718,
"end": 732,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 738,
"end": 752,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 775,
"end": 787,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 836,
"end": 852,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 947,
"end": 960,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Illa Rawat : Addl. Sessions Judge \n (North\u00adWest)\u00ad01, Rohini : Delhi\n\n\n\n(Sessions Case No. 63/12)\n\n\nUnique Id case No. 02404R0119022012\n\n\nState Vs. Sandeep @ Amit\nFir No. : 77/2012\nU/s : 323/365/376/506 Ipc \nP.S. : Sultanpuri\n\n\nState Vs. Sandeep @ Amit\n s/o Sh. Devtan Din\n r/o C\u00ad6/30, Sultanpuri\n Delhi.\n\n\n \nDate of institution of case\u00ad 02.05.2012\nDate on which, judgment has been reserved\u00ad 17.02.2014 \nDate of pronouncement of judgment - 20.02.2014\n\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 132,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 207,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 223,
"end": 237,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 349,
"end": 354,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 389,
"end": 403,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Xlv Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bengaluru City (Cch-46)\n\n\n\n Present: Sri Suresh .K., B.Sc., Ll.B.,\n Xlv Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.\n\n\n\n Dated This The 19Th Day Of October 2015\n\n\n\n S.C. No. 86/2009\n\nBetween:\n\nThe State Of Karnataka\nBy Basaveshwara Nagara Police\nBengaluru. .. Complainant\n\nAnd\n\n1. Srinivasa\n S/O Govindaiah\n Aged 31 Years\n\n2. Shobha\n D/O Govindaiah\n Aged 29 Years\n\n Accused Nos.1 And 2 Are\n R/At Avaragere Village\n Amruthur Hobli\n Kunigal Taluk\n Tumakuru District.\n\n3. Rangaswamy\n S/O Rangaiah\n Aged 46 Years\n\n4. Lakshmamma\n W/O Rangaswamy\n Aged 35 Years\n 2 Cr.Misc.86/2009\n\n\n\n Accused Nos.3 And 4 Are\n R/At No.16, 1St Main, 1St Cross\n Next To Basavanna Temle\n Kamalanagar\n Bengaluru - 560 079. .. Accused\n\n\nDate of offence 23-06-2008\n\nDate of report of offence 23-06-2008\n\nDate of arrest of the accused 24-06-2008 (A1)\n\n\nDate of release on bail 04-06-2009 (A1)\n\nTotal period of custody 11 Months 10 Days (A1)\n\nName of the complainant Smt.Varalakshmi /\n Dr.G.Ramesh\n\nDate of commencement of 02-11-2009\nrecording of evidence\nDate of closing of evidence 26-02-2014\n\nOffences complained of 498A, 306, 304B of I.P.C.\n\nOpinion of the Judge Accused found not guilty\n\nState represented by Learned Public Prosecutor\n\nAccused defended by Shri.K.B.K.Swamy, Advocate\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 93,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 118,
"end": 128,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 306,
"end": 324,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 428,
"end": 437,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 486,
"end": 492,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 667,
"end": 677,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 724,
"end": 734,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1683,
"end": 1694,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 17/04/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.Paul Vasanthakumar \n\nWrit Petition No.4421 of 2006\nW.P.M.P.No.4736 of 2006 \n\n1. N.S.Balasubramanian\n2. Koshy Kuruvilla\n3. A.R.Subramanian\n4. B.Balasubramania Iyer\n5. V.Marimuthu\n6. E.Selvanayagam\n7. T.R.Jaya Lakshmi\n8. Siva Shanmugham \n9. C.R.narayana Pillai\n10. V.Prakasham \n11. C.P.Sukumar\n12. K.Chandra\n13. D.Uma Devi\n14. M.Papaiah Naidu\n15. S.Meenakshi Sundaram \n16. N.Sundaram\n17. P.R.Anantha Raman \n18. V.Chellian\n19. P.M.Rudramani ... Petitioners\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Food Corporation\n of India,\n rep.by the Chairman and Managing Director,\n Headquarters, 16-20, Barakhama Lane,\n New Delhi 110 001.\n\n2. The Executive Director (South)\n Food Corporation of India Zonal Office,\n No.3, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.\n\n3. The General Manager,\n Food Corporation of India,\n Regional Officer, Greams Road,\n Chennai 600 006. ... Respondents\n\n This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of\nIndia, for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend\nthe benefits arising from the judgment of the Honourable Kerala High Court in\nO.P.No.13651 of 2001 dated 20.10.2003 and confirmed by the Division Bench of\nthe Honourable Kerala High Court in W.A.No.293 of 2004 as well as by the\nHonourable Supreme Court in S.L.P. No.20319 of 2005 to the petitioners\nherein, who are identically situated by stepping up of the petitioners' pay on\npar with that of their junior Rajan C.Abraham, with effect from 2.1.1993 with\nall the consequential benefits including arrears of pay etc.\n\n!For Petitioner : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Sr.Counsel\n for Mr.R.Parthiban\n\n^For 1st Respondent : Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy \n Addl. Advocate General\n for Mr.P.D.Audikesavalu\n\n\n:O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 125,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 199,
"end": 218,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 227,
"end": 242,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 266,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 296,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 316,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 339,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 364,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 388,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 398,
"end": 417,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 426,
"end": 437,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 458,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 476,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 485,
"end": 495,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 504,
"end": 519,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 528,
"end": 548,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 559,
"end": 569,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 578,
"end": 595,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 605,
"end": 615,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 624,
"end": 637,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 698,
"end": 731,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 870,
"end": 988,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1003,
"end": 1124,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1906,
"end": 1919,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1971,
"end": 1982,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2019,
"end": 2037,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2134,
"end": 2150,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.MC.No. 702 of 2011()\n\n\n1. Mehaboob, Aged 43 Years, S/O. Koya\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The State, Rep. By The City Traffic\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Nirmal. S\n\n For Respondent : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice Thomas P.Joseph\n\n Dated :30/03/2011\n\n O R D E R\n 'Cr'\n\n Thomas P Joseph, J.\n\n ----------------------------------------\n\n Crl.M.C.No.702 of 2011\n\n ---------------------------------------\n\n Dated this 30th day of March, 2011\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 80,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 188,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 303,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 396,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 518,
"end": 533,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\n Dated: 02.01.2007\n\n Coram\n\n The Honourable Mr.Justice P.D.Dinakaran\n And\n The Honourable Mrs.Justice Chitra Venkataraman\n\n\n Tax Case Reference Nos.87 to 94 of 2001\n\n\n\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax\nCoimbatore. ..Applicant in\n all T.Cs.\n\n Vs.\n\n \nM/s. Sakthi Finance Ltd.\nCoimbatore. ..Respondent in\n all T.Cs.\n\n\n For Applicant :: Mr.T.Ravikumar\n\n For Respondent :: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench,\nChennai in R.A. Nos.253 to 260/Mds/97 in I.T.A.\nNos.3260/Mds/90, 1996/Mds/91, 2175/Mds/95, 2174/Mds/93,\n1573/Mds/96, 1574/Mds/96, 1338/Mds/96 and 2586/Mds/92 for\nthe assessment years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1990-91, 1991-92,\n1992-93, 1993-94 and 1989-90.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 169,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 256,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 316,
"end": 353,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 529,
"end": 548,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 695,
"end": 706,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 736,
"end": 752,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.MC.No. 4160 of 2009()\n\n\n1. Perumapallipad Payyuril Hydru Haji,\n ... Petitioner\n2. Perumapallipad Payyuril Fasalu,\n3. Perumapallippad Payyuril Anwar,\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The State Of Kerala, Represented By\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Royal Hospital (P) Ltd.,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.C.P.Mohammed Nias\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Millu Dandapani\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Sasidharan Nambiar\n\n Dated :24/11/2010\n\n O R D E R\n M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.\n --------------------------\n Crl.M.C.No.4160 of 2009\n --------------------------\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 107,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 180,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 215,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 255,
"end": 270,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 358,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 398,
"end": 415,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 454,
"end": 469,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 495,
"end": 515,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 561,
"end": 581,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n% Judgment delivered on: 10.01.2013\n\n+ W.P.(C) 14562/2006\n\nNtpc Ltd ... Petitioner\n versus\n\nDcit & Others ... Respondents\nAdvocates who appeared in this case:\nFor the Petitioner : Mr S. E. Dastur, Sr Advocate with\n Mr Muralidhar, Ms Bindu Saxena, Ms Aparajita\n Swarup, Ms Neha Khattar and Mr K. K. Patra\nFor the Respondents : Ms Prem Lata Bansal, Sr Advocate with\n Mr Ruchir Bhatia\nCoram:-\nHon'Ble Mr Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed\nHon'Ble Ms Justice Veena Birbal\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 36,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 147,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 269,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 425,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 486,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 491,
"end": 503,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 508,
"end": 553,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 558,
"end": 570,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 578,
"end": 589,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 622,
"end": 638,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 689,
"end": 702,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 730,
"end": 748,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 768,
"end": 780,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Raj Kumar: Addl. District \n Judge\u00ad17 (Central) : Tis Hazari Courts : Delhi\n\n\n\nSuit No. 107/14 (Old Suit no. 239/10/04)\nUnique Case Id No. 02401C0024942004\n\n Avinash Chandra Jain, \n S/o Late Shri Areh Dass Jain, \n R/o 103, Pushpanjali, \n Vikas Marg Extension, \n Delhi. ........... Plaintiff. \n Versus \n\n\n Ravi Chand Jain (since deceased)\n Through legal heirs :\u00ad\n 1. Smt. Trishla Jain,\n Widow of Sh. Ravi Chand Jain,\n 2. Sh. Kapil Jain, \n S/o Late Sh. Ravi Chand Jain,\n 3. Sh. Vikas Jain,\n S/o Late Sh. Ravi Chand Jain, \n\n\n All R/o 1st & 2nd Floor of front portion \n of H. No. 4510\u00ad12, 7/33, Darya Ganj,\n Ansari Road, New Delhi\u00ad110002 ......... Defendants. \n\nDate of institution of the suit : 10.08.2004\nDate on which order was reserved: 13.02.2014 \nDate of decision : 01.03.2014\n\n\n\nSuit No. 107/14 (Old Suit No. 239/10/04) Page No. 1/51\n Suit For Possession, Recovery Of Mesne Profits & \n Injunction\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 99,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 208,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 436,
"end": 451,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 30948 of 2009(Q)\n\n\n1. Dr. Preceline George @ Antony Preceline\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala Represented By The Chief\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Bency.N.L, (Treesa Bency) Aged 26 Years,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Santhan V.Nair\n\n For Respondent : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Sasidharan Nambiar\n\n Dated :07/01/2010\n\n O R D E R\n M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J.\n ===========================\n W.P.(C)No. 30948 Of 2009\n ===========================\n\n Dated this the 7th day of January,2010\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 113,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 186,
"end": 201,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 275,
"end": 284,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 354,
"end": 368,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 443,
"end": 463,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 508,
"end": 528,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nOP.No. 27937 of 2001(A)\n\n\n\n1. Forum For Social Justice\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n1. State Of Kerala\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.R.Surendran\n\n For Respondent :Government Pleader\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.Siri Jagan\n\n Dated :07/09/2009\n\n O R D E R\n S. Siri Jagan, J\n ...............................................\n O.P.No. 27937 of 2001\n .................................................\n Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 96,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 182,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 276,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 355,
"end": 367,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 427,
"end": 440,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 11/04/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice Malai Subramanian\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice A. Packiaraj\n\nH.C.P. No.1633 of 2001 and H.C.P.No. 1152 Of 2001\n\nHidaya Banu :: Petitioner in Hcp 1633/2001\nMohamed Razick @\nPonnambalam :: Petitioner in Hcp 1152/2001\n\n :versus:\n\n1. State of Tamil Nadu\n rep. by Secretary to Govt.\n Public (Sc) Department\n Fort St. George\n Chennai \u2013 600 009 :: R1 in both the HCPs\n\n2. State of Tamil Nadu\n rep. by Secretary to Govt.\n Public (L & O) Department\n Fort St. George\n Chennai \u2013 600 009 :: R2 in Hcp 1152/2001\n\n3. Union of India, rep. by\n Secretary to Government\n Ministry of Finance R2 in Hcp 1633/2001\n New Delhi \u2013 1 :: R3 in Hcp 1152/2001\n\n4. The Superintendent\n Central Prison\n Chennai :: R3 in Hcp 1633/2001\n\n\nPetitions under Art.226 of the Constitution\nfor a Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated in the petitions\n\n\n!For Petitioners :: Mr. Habibullah Basha, S.C.\n For Mr. M.M. Abdul Huck\n (in Hcp No.1633 of 2001)\n Mr. C.T. Subbiah\n (in Hcp No.1152 of 2001)\n\n^For Respondents :: Mr. I. Subramanian,\n Public Prosecutor for R1 & R3\n\n Mr. K. Raviananthapadmanabhan\n A.C.G.S.C. For R2 in\n H.C.P.No.1633 of 2001\n\n Mr. Su. Srinivasan,\n A.C.G.S.C. for R3 in\n H.C.P. No.1152 of 2001\n\n:Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 9,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 119,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 169,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 202,
"end": 215,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 270,
"end": 281,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 368,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 459,
"end": 478,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 619,
"end": 638,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 782,
"end": 796,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 957,
"end": 1002,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1187,
"end": 1203,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1239,
"end": 1255,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1325,
"end": 1337,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1409,
"end": 1423,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1502,
"end": 1527,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1640,
"end": 1654,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 22Nd Day Of March, 2013\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar\n\n\n Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4363/2009(Mv)\n C/W\n Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 609/2009\n\nM.F.A.4363/2009\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Smt.Saramma,\n Aged About 45 Years,\n\n2. Abubacker Siddique,\n Aged 26 Years,\n\n3. Mumtaz,\n Aged 22 Years,\n\n4. Issac,\n Aged 21 Years,\n\n5. Kairunnisa,\n Aged 17 Years,\n\n6. Saifunnisa,\n Aged 16 Years,\n\n(Appellant Nos.5 & 6 Are Minors\nAnd Represented By Their Next\nFriend Mother-Appellant No.1\nAs Guardian)\n\nAppellant No.1 Is The Wife And\n 2\n\n\n\n\nAppellant No.2 To 6 Are The\nChilderen Of K.M.Mohmmed And\nAll Are Residing At Morankala House,\nNelljady Village & Post,\nPuttur Taluk, D.K.\n ...Appellants\n\n(By Sri.Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, Adv.)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. D.Jagadish, Major,\n S/O Dore Swamy Naidu,\n No.625, 80, Pete Road,\n 2Nd Block, Dr.Rajkumar Road,\n Bangalore-10.\n\n2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,\n B.O.No.89, 11Th Cross,\n Sampige Road,\n Malleshwaram,\n Bangalore,\n Reptd. By Its Manager.\n\n3. Mohammed Basheer,\n Major,\n S/O Abdul Rahiman\n Badria Cross Road,\n Bunder, Mangalore, D.K.\n\n4. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,\n Rama Bhavan Complex,\n Kodialbail,\n Mangalore,\n Rep. By Its Manager.\n\n5. The Divisional Manager,\n National Insurance Co. Ltd.,\n Divisional Office,\n Bharath Building,\n P.M.Rao Road,\n 3\n\n\n\n\n Mangalore ...Respondents\n\n (By Sri.P.B.Raju, Adv. For R2;\n Sri.R.Rajagopalan, Adv. For R4;\n Sri.A.Ravi Shankar, Adv. For R5;\n Notice To R1 And R3 Held Sufficient\n V/O Dated 1.2.13)\n\n\n This Mfa Is Filed U/S.173(1) Of Mv Act Against\nThe Judgment And Award Dated 17.10.2008 Passed\nIn Mvc No.1657/1999 On The File Of The Member,\nMact, Puttur, D.K, Partly Allowing The Claim\nPetition For Compensation And Seeking\nEnchancement Of Compensation.\n\nM.F.A.609/2009\n\nBetween:\n\nThe Divisional Manager,\nNational Insurance Company Limited,\nDivisional Office,\nBharath Building,\nP.M.Rao Road,\nMangalore.\n\nRepresented By:\n\nThe Regional Manager,\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nRegional Office,\nShubharam Complex,\n144, M.G.Road,\nBangalore,\nBy Its Manager.\n ...Appellant\n\n(By Sri.A.Ravishankar, Adv.)\n\nAnd:\n 4\n\n\n\n\n1. Smt.Saramma,\n Aged About 45 Years,\n W/O Late K.M.Mohammed,\n2. Abubacker Siddique,\n Aged About 26 Years,\n S/O Late K.M.Mohammed.\n\n3. Mumtaz,\n Aged About 22 Years,\n D/O Late K.M.Mohammed.\n\n4. Issac,\n Aged About 21 Years,\n S/O Late K.M.Mohammed.\n\n5. Kairunnisa,\n Aged About 18 Years,\n D/O Late K.M.Mohammed.\n\n6. Saifunnisa,\n Aged About 17 Years,\n D/O Late K.M.Mohammed.\n\nMinor Represented By Her Natural\nGuardian Mother\nSmt.Saramma, Claimant No.1\n\n7. Khatizamma,\n Aged About 74 Years,\n W/O Late K.N.Sulaiman,\n Dead By Lr'S Of Respondents 1-6\n\n8. D.Jagadish,\n S/O Dore Swamy Naidu,\n Aged About 45 Years,\n No.625, 80, Pete Road,\n 2Nd Block, Dr.Rajkumar Road,\n Bangalore-10.\n\n9. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,\n B.O.No.89, 11Th Cross,\n 5\n\n\n\n\n Sampige Road,\n Malleshwaram,\n Bangalore,\n Reptd. By Its Manager.\n10. Mohammed Basheer,\n Aged About 48 Years,\n S/O Abdul Rahiman\n Badria Cross Road,\n Bunder, Mangalore.\n\n11. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,\n Rama Bhavan Complex,\n Kodialbail,\n Mangalore0560010.\n ...Respondents\n\n(By Sri.Pundikai Ishwar Bhat, Adv. For R1 - R6;\n Sri.P.B.Raju, Adv. For R9;\n Sri.R.Rajagopalan, Adv. For R11;\n R1 To R6 Are Treated As Lr'S Of R7;\n Service Of Notice To R8 And R10 Held\n Sufficient V/O Dated 1.2.13)\n\n\n This Mfa Is Filed U/S.173(1) Of Mv Act Against\nThe Judgment And Award Dated 17.10.2008 Passed\nIn Mvc No.1657/1999 On The File Of The Member,\nMact, Puttur, D.K, Awarding A Compensation Of\nRs.3,11,732/- With Interest At 6% P.A Fromj\n20.08.2005 Till Deposit.\n\n These MFAs Coming On For Final Hearing This\nDay, The Court Delivered The Following:\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 167,
"end": 180,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 360,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 398,
"end": 416,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 448,
"end": 454,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 486,
"end": 491,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 523,
"end": 533,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 565,
"end": 575,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 972,
"end": 993,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1015,
"end": 1025,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1158,
"end": 1188,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1318,
"end": 1334,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1444,
"end": 1472,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1579,
"end": 1757,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1809,
"end": 1817,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1843,
"end": 1856,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1882,
"end": 1896,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2285,
"end": 2401,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2612,
"end": 2625,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2680,
"end": 2687,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2828,
"end": 2834,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2896,
"end": 2901,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2963,
"end": 2973,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3035,
"end": 3045,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3184,
"end": 3194,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3293,
"end": 3303,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3445,
"end": 3475,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3634,
"end": 3650,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3764,
"end": 3792,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3923,
"end": 3943,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3972,
"end": 3980,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4004,
"end": 4017,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "ITXA523.13.doc\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Income Tax Appeal No. 523 Of 2013\n\n\n\n\n \n Commissioner of Income-Tax Ii, Thane, ]\n 6th floor, B Wing, Ashar I.T. Park Road, ]\n 16Z, Wagle Estate, Thane 401 604 ] ... Appellant\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n\n Continental Warehousing Corporation ]\n (Nhava Sheva) Ltd., D.No.1088, ]\n\n\n\n\n \n Khopta Village, Tal. Uran, Dist. Raigad, ] ... Respondent\n ig With\n\n Income Tax Appeal No. 1969 Of 2013\n \n Commissioner of Income-Tax. Central-IV, ]\n Room No.663, 6th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, ]\n M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ] ... Appellant\n \n\n\n Versus\n \n\n\n\n All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd., ]\n th\n 5 floor, Diamond Square, Cst Road, ]\n\n\n\n\n\n Kalina, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 098. ] ... Respondent\n\n\n Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellants in Itxa Nos. 523 of 2013.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. Arvind Pinto for the Appellants in Itxa No. 1969/2013.\n\n Mr. S.E. Dastur, senior counsel with Mr. B.V. Jhaveri and Mr. Madhur\n Agarwal for the Respondents in Itxa No. 1969/2013.\n\n\n\nSrp 1/61\n\n\n\n\n \n ITXA523.13.doc\n\n\n Mr. Nishit Gandhi i/b Mr. Vipul Joshi for the Respondents in Itxa\n No. 523 of 2013.\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram : S.C. Dharmadhikari &\n A.K. Menon, Jj.\n Tuesday, 21St April, 2015 Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 394,
"end": 588,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 758,
"end": 793,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1238,
"end": 1360,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1435,
"end": 1466,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1621,
"end": 1633,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1694,
"end": 1706,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1760,
"end": 1771,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1797,
"end": 1809,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1818,
"end": 1838,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2246,
"end": 2259,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2268,
"end": 2279,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2579,
"end": 2589,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Ravinder Singh\u00adIi, Metropolitan \n Magistrate (Ni) Act - 07\n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.\n\n\n Case No. : 4853/14\n Unique Case Id No: 02405R0189612011\n\n Sumit Katyal\n R/o D\u00ad1/65\n Janakpuri, New Delhi\u00ad110046 ........................... Complainant\n\n\n Vs.\n\n 1 Rajeev Kapoor\n R/o D\u00ad130, 6th Floor, Rohit Apartment\n Sector\u00ad10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075\n\n Also At: C/o Avdesh Kapoor/Sanjeev Kapoor\n C4E, Janakpuri, New Delhi 110058\n\n\n 2 Priya Kapoor\n R/o D\u00ad130, 6th Floor, Rohit Apartment\n Sector\u00ad10, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075.......................... Accused\n\n\n Date of Institution: 03.06.2011\n Plea of the accused persons: Pleaded Not Guilty\n Date of Reserving Judgment: 03/06/2014\n Date of Judgment: 31/07/2014\n Sentence/final Order: Accused No. 1 Convicted\n Accused No. 2 Acquitted \n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 158,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 239,
"end": 251,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 412,
"end": 425,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 636,
"end": 648,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 WPlodg1718-12\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1718 Of 2012\n\n\n\n\n \n Susme Builders Private Limited\n a company incorporated under the\n\n\n\n\n \n provisions of the Companies Act, 1956,\n and having its registered office at Unit No.F-1\n 1st floor, Shanti Nagar Industrial Estate Ltd.,\n Vakola, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400 055 ... Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n \n \n 1. Chief Executive Officer\n Slum Rehabilitation Authority\n having his office at Anant Kanekar Marg,\n Bandra East, Mumbai 400 050.\n \n \n\n\n\n 2. High Power Committee\n having its office at Anant Kanekar Marg,\n Bandra East, Mumbai 400 050.\n\n\n\n\n\n 3. Om Namo Sujalam Sufalam Co-operative\n Housing Society, a Society registered\n under the provisions of the Maharashtra\n Co-operative Societies Act, 1960,\n\n\n\n\n\n Having its registered office at Shivaji\n Nagar Shree Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj\n Marg, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz (E)\n Mumbai 400 055. ... Respondents 2 WPlodg1718-12 Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior advocate with Mr.Pradeep Sancheti, Senior advocate, Mr Aniruddha Joshi, Mr.Rohan Cama, Mr. H.A.Thakore i/by M/s Thakore Jariwala Asso., for petitioner Mr.Ravi Kadam, Senior advocate with Mr.G.D.Uttangale and Mr.B.V.Phadnis i/b Uttangale & Co., for respondents No.1 & 2. \n\n Mr.P.K.Samdani, Senior advocate with Snehal Shah, Mr.Naushad Engineer & Ms Dipti Panda i/by Narayan & Narayan, for respondent No.3. Mr.V.R.Dhond, Senior advocate i/b. Rakesh Agarwal, for the Intervenors. \n\n Coram : Mohit S. Shah, C.J. & N.M. Jamdar J. \n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 76,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 401,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 848,
"end": 1000,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1026,
"end": 1135,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 1152,
"end": 1214,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1587,
"end": 1598,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1624,
"end": 1640,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1662,
"end": 1677,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1682,
"end": 1692,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1698,
"end": 1709,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1761,
"end": 1771,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1797,
"end": 1810,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1818,
"end": 1829,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1883,
"end": 1894,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1933,
"end": 1949,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1955,
"end": 1966,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2015,
"end": 2024,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2047,
"end": 2061,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2095,
"end": 2108,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2117,
"end": 2128,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 1504 of 2004()\n\n\n1. Palraj @ Appukuttan, S/O.Thankayyan,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Rep. By The\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :11/06/2008\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 91,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 196,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 292,
"end": 306,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 384,
"end": 403,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 442,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n High\u00a0Court\u00a0Of\u00a0Madhya\u00a0Pradesh\u00a0\u00a0:\n Jabalpur.\n\n Misc. Appeal No.1634/2014\n\n Manish Shukla.\n\n Vs.\n M/s Procter & Gamble Home\n and others.\n\n\nPresent :\n\nHon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi. J.\n\n\n\n Shri Kishore Shrivastava, learned Senior counsel\nassisted by Shri Shekhar Sharma Advocate and Shri Ashish\nShroti, learned counsel for the appellant.\n Shri Abhijeet A. Awasthy, learned counsel for\nrespondents.\n\n\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 154,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 237,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 322,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 344,
"end": 363,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 405,
"end": 419,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 451,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 499,
"end": 518,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Illa Rawat : Addl. Sessions Judge \n (North\u00adWest)\u00ad01, Rohini : Delhi\n\n\n\n(Sessions Case No. 93/13)\nUnique Id case No. 02404R0179302013\n\n\n\nState Vs. Naresh\nFir No. : 209/13\nU/s : 354\u00adA/354\u00adD/365/511 Ipc \n & 12 Pocso Act\nP.S. : Vijay Vihar \n\n\n\nState Vs. Naresh \n s/o Sh. Mahender Singh \n r/o E\u00ad134, Vijay Vihar, \n Phase\u00adII, Delhi. \n\n\n \nDate of institution of case\u00ad 15.07.2012\nDate on which, judgment has been reserved\u00ad 19.04.2014 \nDate of pronouncement of judgment - 21.04.2014\n\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 35,
"end": 45,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 126,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 200,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 221,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 384,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 419,
"end": 425,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \nDated: 31.01.2012\nCoram:\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice K.N.Basha\nW.P.No.21297 of 2009\n\n1.Mrs.S.Manjula\n\n2.Mast.S.Gunasekar (Minor)\n rep. By Mother and Natural\n Guardian Mrs.S.Manjula,\n\n3.Mr.N.Kanniyappan\n\n4.Desammal\t\t\t\t\t\t... \tPetitioners\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Chief Secretary Govt. of Tamil Nadu,\n Secretariat,\n Fort. St.George,\n Chennai.\n\n2.The Chairman,\n Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,\n Annasalai, Chennai-2.\n\n3.The District Collector,\n Thiruvallur District,\n Thiruvallur.\n\n4.The Executive Engineer (O&M)\n Tamilnadu Electricity Board,\n Pallipattu Division, Pallipattu,\n Tiruvallur District.\t\t\t\t\t... \tRespondents\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nPrayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) for the death of K.Suresh, who died due to electrocution on 10.07.2009 at Kakkalur Village, Pallipattu Taluk, Tiruvallur District. \n\n\tFor Petitioner \t : \tMr.N.Elayaraja\n\t\n\tFor Respondents :\tMs.V.M.Velumani,\n\t\t\t\t \tSpl. Government Pleader for R1 and R3\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tMr.M.Varunkumar for R2 & R4\t\n\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 104,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 133,
"end": 142,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 162,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 235,
"end": 248,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 250,
"end": 260,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 295,
"end": 379,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 387,
"end": 454,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 462,
"end": 521,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 530,
"end": 645,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1040,
"end": 1051,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1077,
"end": 1089,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1149,
"end": 1161,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honourable Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao \nCivil Miscelleneous Appeal No.2876 Of 2002 \n\ndated:12-07-2013 \n\nK. Sareswara Rao...Appellant \n\n\nkakaraparthi Anjali Devi and others.... Respondents\n\nCounsel for the Appellant : Sri K Ananda Rao\n\nCounsel for the respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri T.S.Rayalu\nCounsel for the respondent No 3. Kota Subba Rao \n\n\n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n\n2005 Acj 1323= Air 2005 Sc 2337 \n2012 Acj 1667 \n2000 (6) Alt 585 \n2007 Acj 1153 \n2008 (1) Ald 161 \n2003 Acj 1550 \n2011 (5) Ald 693 \n2009 (4) Alt 760 \n2004 (3) Ald 400 \n2011 Acj 463 \n\nHon'Ble Sri Justice P. Naveen Rao \nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2876 Of 2002 \nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 125,
"end": 141,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 181,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 260,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 315,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 349,
"end": 363,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 621,
"end": 634,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri M. P. Singh: Senior Civil Judge : Rent \n Controller: Karkardooma Courts (East), Delhi\n\nSuit No. 291/11\nUnique Case Id No. 02402C288882011\n\nSh. Raj Bhushan Gupta,\nS/o Sh. Ram Kishore Gupta,\nR/o H. No. 8/86, Gali Jain Mandir,\nChhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi\u00ad32 ........... Plaintiff\n\n Versus\n\nSh. Nathu Ram,\ns/o Late Chander Bhan,\nR/o House No.211, Gali Ganga Ram,\nChhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi\u00ad32\nAlso at:\n92, Gali Jain Mandir,\nChhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi\u00ad32 ......... Defendant\n\nSuit For Declaration And Recovery Of Arrears Of Rent\n\n Case filed on \u00ad 21.09.2011\n Arguments heard on \u00ad 22.02.2014\n Judgment pronounced on \u00ad 13.03.2014\n\n Judgment \n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 110,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 185,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 408,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hon'Ble Sri Justice K.G. Shankar \n\nMa Cma Nos.60 of 2011 and Batch \n\n05.10.2012 \n\nMa Cma No.60 of 2011: \n\nThe National Insurance Co. Ltd.,rep.by its Divisional Manager, D.O.Ii,\n Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam \n\nVempada Ramu and another \n\nCounsel for the Appellant: K. Subba Rao\n\nCounsel for the Respondents: S.N.K. Mahanthi Head Note: \n?Cases referred:\n1. 2008 Acj 268 \n2. 2008 Acj 2144 \n3. 2009 Acj 925 \n4. 2009 Acj 2349 \n5. 2008 (1) Ald 81 (Sc)\n6. 2012 (4) Ald 482\n7. 2012 (4) Ald 539\n8. 2010 Acj 1601 \n9. L.C.Acr 2011 (8) S.C. 111 \n10. Air 2004 Sc 1630 (1) \n11. 2011 Acj 917 \n12. 2006 (2) T.A.C. 483 (Sc)\n13. (2004) 3 Scc 297 Ma Cma No.62 of 2011: \nBetween: \nThe National Insurance Co. Ltd.,rep.by its Divisional Manager, D.O.Ii, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam. ... Appellant/ R-2 And Veeramallu Kumari, and 3 others.... Respondents Ma Cma No.63 of 2011: \nBetween: \nThe National Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nrep.by its Divisional Manager, D.O.Ii,\nDwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam. ... Appellant/ \n R-2\n And \n\nGantyada Devi and 3 others ... Respondents\n\nMa Cma No.67 of 2011: \nBetween: \nThe National Insurance Co. Ltd.,rep.by its Divisional Manager, D.O.Ii, Dwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam. ... Appellant/ R-2 And Meesala Laxmi and another ... Respondents Ma Cma No.68 of 2011: \nBetween: \nThe National Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nrep.by its Divisional Manager, D.O.Ii,\nDwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam. ... Appellant/ \n R-2\n And \n\nBonela Pydithalli\nand another ... Respondents\n\nMa Cma No.203 of 2011: \n\nBetween: \n\nThe National Insurance Co. Ltd.,\nrep.by its Divisional Manager, D.O.Ii,\nDwaraka Nagar, Visakhapatnam. ... Appellant/ \n R-2\n\n And \n\nGantyada Krishna, \nand 4 others... Respondents\n\n\nand 203 of 2011)\n\nCommon Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 121,
"end": 148,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 222,
"end": 234,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 291,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 339,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 692,
"end": 719,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 899,
"end": 926,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1119,
"end": 1132,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "* In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n+ W.P. (C) 1872/2013\n\n% Judgment delivered on: 22.01.2015\n\nIndia Trade Promotion Organization ... Petitioner\n\n versus\n\nDirector General Of Income\nTax (Exemptions) & Others ... Respondents\n\nAdvocates who appeared in this case:-\nFor the Petitioner : Mr M.S. Syali, Senior Advocate with Mr Mayank Nagi,\n Ms Husnal Syali and Mr Harkunal Singh\nFor the Respondents : Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Joginder\n Sukhija and Mr Shobit Saxena.\n\n\n\nCoram:\nHon'Ble Mr Justice Badar Durrez Ahmed\nHon'Ble Mr Justice Vibhu Bakhru\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 14,
"end": 46,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 185,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 279,
"end": 322,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 447,
"end": 457,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 483,
"end": 494,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 521,
"end": 533,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 541,
"end": 555,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 581,
"end": 597,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 627,
"end": 665,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 673,
"end": 686,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 717,
"end": 735,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 755,
"end": 767,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.499 of 2013\n======================================================\nLalit Kumar Prasad Singh, Son Of late Ram Naresh Prasad Singh, resident of 22, Jagat Blaram Apartment, Rose Bud School Lane, Boring Road, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. State Bank Of India, through its Chairman, Central Office, State Bank Of India, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai\n2. Chief General Manager, State Bank Of India, Local Head Office, Patna\n3. General Manager, Network - Iii, State Bank Of India, Patna\n4. Deputy General Manager and Circle Development Officer, State Bank Of India, Local Head Office, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.570 of 2013 ====================================================== Anirudh Akhauri, S/O late Indu Bhushan Akhauri, R/O A/2, Sbi Officers Complex, Opposite Telephone Exchange, Rajendra Nagar, P.S.-Kadam Kuan, Distt-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. State Bank Of India , through its Chairman, Central Office, State Bank Of India, State Bank Bhavan, Madame Cama Road, Mumbai\n2. Chief General Manager, State Bank Of India, Local Head Office, Patna\n3. Deputy General Manager and Circle Development Officer, State Bank Of India, Local Head Office, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :\n(In Cwjc No.499 of 2013) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D.Sanjay, Advocate Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, Advocate 2 / 15 (In Cwjc No.570 of 2013) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava For the Respondent/s : Mr. Tara Kant Jha, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.D.Sanjay, Advocate Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, Advocate ====================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Birendra Prasad Verma C.A.V. Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 155,
"end": 179,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 332,
"end": 351,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 459,
"end": 527,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 531,
"end": 589,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 593,
"end": 693,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 876,
"end": 891,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1062,
"end": 1081,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1190,
"end": 1258,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1262,
"end": 1362,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1506,
"end": 1524,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1562,
"end": 1572,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1587,
"end": 1603,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1673,
"end": 1691,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1719,
"end": 1732,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1751,
"end": 1761,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1776,
"end": 1792,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1888,
"end": 1909,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Addl. District\n Judge Central-09, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi\n\nCs N0. 162/13.\nUid No. 02401C0449002012.\n\n Smt. Poonam Saxena\n Wife of Shri G. N. Saxena\n R/o. H. No. 3045, Kucha Raja Sohan Lal\n Bazar Sita Ram\n Delhi-110006.\n\n ........... Plaintiff\n Versus\n Shri Kala Ram\n Son of late Shri Barkat Ram\n R/o. 11206, 3rd Floor\n Gaushala Road, Karol Bagh\n New Delhi-110005.\n ......... Defendant\n\nDate of institution of suit : 21.09.2012.\nDate of reserving for judgment : 24.04.2014.\nDate of judgment : 30.04.2014.\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 37,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 39,
"end": 105,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 176,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 444,
"end": 452,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "//1//\n\n In The Court Of Satish Kumar Arora, Arc-1 (Central)\n Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.\n E-251/09/99\nSh. Ganga Prashad Sharma\nS/o Sh. Nathu Ram Sharma\n(since deceased)\nRepresented through LRs :-\n(i) Krishna Kumari Sharma\n Wd/o Late Sh. Ganga Prashad Sharma\n (expired on 13.03.2013)\n(ii) Anil Kr. Sharma\n S/o Late Sh. Ganga Prashad Sharma\n R/o 3258, Lal Darwaza, Bazar Sita Ram,\n Delhi-06.\n(iii) Lalit Kr. Sharma\n S/o Late Sh. Ganga Prashad Sharma\n R/o 214-B, First Floor, Prakash Mohalla,\n East of Kailash, New Delhi-65.\n(iv) Rekha Sharma\n W/o Sh. Mohinder Sharma\n D/o Late Sh. Ganga Prashad Sharma\n R/o 116-Block 'A', 2nd Channel,\n 3rd Floor, Jwala Heri Market,\n Near Dussehra Park, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.\n(v) Rachna Mishra,\n W/o Sh. Yogendra Mishra,\n D/o Late Sh. Ganga Prashad Sharma\n R/o A-4, Arya Nagar Group Housing Society,\n Plot No. 91, Patparganj, Delhi.\n(vi) Deepali Sharma\n W/o Sh. Somesh Sharma,\n D/o Late Sh. Ganga Prashad Sharma\n R/o We-75, Mohan Garden,\n Uttam Nagar, Delhi-59. ...Petitioners\n\nE-251/09/99 Ganga Prashad (since deceased through LRs) Vs.\n Ram Kishan (since deceased through LRs) & Anr. Page 1 of 25\n //2//\n\n\n\n Versus\n1. Sh. Ram Kishan Dass s/o Sh. Roshan Lal\n (since deceased)\n Represented through LRs :-\n(i) Sh. Prem Chand\n S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan Dass\n At : M/s Anupam Traders, 3103,\n Gali Taksaliyan, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-06.\n(ii) Smt. Veena Gupta\n Wd/o Late Sh. Sushil (pre deceased son)\n R/o 3265, Lal Darwaza, Bazar Sita Ram,\n Delhi-06.\n(iii) Leeza\n(iv) Kumari Pryagi\n(v) Kumari Charu\n(vi) Master Ayush\n All r/o 3265, Lal Darwaza, Bazar Sita Ram,\n Delhi-06.\n (Respondent no. iii to vi as above are minors\n and represented through their mother and\n natural guardian, respondent no. ii Smt. Veena Gupta)\n(vii) Sh. Sanjeev\n S/o Late Sh. Ram Kishan Dass\n R/o 12-B, Lig Flats,\n Near Madipur Bus Stop,\n Rohtak Road, New Delhi.\n2. Sh. Sanjeev s/o Sh. Ram Kishan Dass\n R/o 12-B, Lig Flats,\n Near Madipur Bus Stop,\n Rohtak Road, Delhi. ...Respondents\n Petition u/s 14 (1) (a), (b) & (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act\n1. Date of institution of the case : 03.12.1999\n\nE-251/09/99 Ganga Prashad (since deceased through LRs) Vs.\n Ram Kishan (since deceased through LRs) & Anr. Page 2 of 25\n //3//\n\n2. Date of Judgment reserved : 30.11.2013\n3. Date of Judgment pronounced : 17.12.2013\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 44,
"end": 98,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 137,
"end": 157,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1191,
"end": 1204,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1249,
"end": 1259,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1416,
"end": 1431,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2516,
"end": 2529,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2574,
"end": 2584,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "S.B.Civil Second Appeal No. 23/1997\n Ahmed Farooq & ors. vs. Harish Chandra & Ors.\n Judgment dt: 1/10/2012\n\n 1/30\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At\n Jodhpur\n Judgment\n\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 70,
"end": 82,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 108,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 245,
"end": 324,
"label": "COURT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Puneet Pahwa \n Metropolitan Magistrate \u00ad 01 (N.I. Act)\n Patiala House Courts : New Delhi\n\n\nM/s Sunbeam Hi\u00adTech Medicare,\nThrough Its Manager and Authorised Representative \nMr. S. Mitra \nHaving its office at \nB\u00ad236, Chittranjan Park\nNew Delhi. .... Complainant\n\n Vs.\n\n1. M/s Vardhman Appliances Private Ltd. \n Through its Director Mr. Mahipal Jain Regd Office at K\u00ad43, Green Park (Main) New Delhi\u00ad110016. \n\n Also at Plot No. 128, Sector \u00ad6 Imt Manesar, Gurgaon\u00ad122050\n\n2. Sh. Mahipal Jain Director of M/s Vardhman Appliances Private Ltd. K\u00ad43, Green Park (Main) New Delhi - 110 016 Also At Plot No. 128, Sector\u00ad6, Cc No. 2495/1/09, 3199/1 & 3200/1 Imt Manesar Gurgaon - 122050 ... Accused Case Number. : 2495/1, 3199/1 & 3200/1 Date of Institution of Present Case. : 28.07.2009, 16.09.2009 & 11.08.2009 Offence Complained Of. : U/s 138 Ni Act Plea of the Accused. : Not Guilty Arguments Heard On. : 19.07.2014 Final Order. : Convicted Date of Judgment. : 20.08.2014\n\n - :: Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 140,
"end": 164,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 398,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 567,
"end": 579,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(Crl.).No. 265 of 2008(S)\n\n\n1. Elizebath George, Aged 80 Years,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala, Represented By The\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The District Magistrate And\n\n3. The Superintendent Of Central Prison,\n\n4. The District Superintendent Of\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.M.G.Karthikeyan\n\n For Respondent :Government Pleader\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R.Raman\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair\n\n Dated :07/10/2008\n\n O R D E R\nWP.(Crl.)Nos.265,\n266 & 267/2008 -1-\n\n P.R.Raman &\n T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Jj.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n W.P.(Crl.) Nos.265, 266 and 267 of 2008-S\n - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 91,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 180,
"end": 195,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 268,
"end": 287,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 325,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 365,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 422,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 501,
"end": 510,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 535,
"end": 556,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 689,
"end": 698,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 724,
"end": 746,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1220/2005\n\n Babu Lal Singh & another\n\n Vs.\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1227/2005\n\n Laxan Dhari Singh & another\n\n Vs.\n\n State of Madhya Pradesh\n\n\nFor the appellants : Shri S.P.Mishra, Advocate.\nFor the State : Shri S.K.Kashyap, Govt. Advocate.\n\n\nPresent : Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ajit Singh\n Hon'Ble Mr.Justice N.K.Gupta, Jj.\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 38,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 119,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 183,
"end": 206,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 288,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 375,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 416,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 456,
"end": 467,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 517,
"end": 527,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 557,
"end": 566,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judiciature At Madras\n\nDated: 02.07.2008 \n\nC O R A M\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice G.Rajasuria\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nA.S.No.1009 of 1990 \n&\nC.M.P.Nos.2569 and 2570 of 1993\n\n1.Jayammal\n2.Sundararajan(died)\n3.Kumudavalli\n4.Vijaya\n5.Lalitha\n6.Balaji\n7.Jayaprakash\n8.Jagan\n9.Rajalakshmi\n10.Radha\t\t\t\t\t .. Appellants\n \n\n\nVs.\n\n1.V.Kumar\n2.Rani\n3.V.Jamuna\n4.Kalaiselvi\n5.Sundaramurthy\t\t\t\t . . Respondents\n \n\n\tThe First Appeal is filed against the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.57 of 1985 dated 23.12,1989 on the file of the subordinate Judge, Chengleput.\n\n\tFor Appellants : Mr.G.S.Selvatharasu\n Mrs.L.Fatima Fabiola\n\t\n\tFor Respondents : Mr.I.Narayanaswami\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 42,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 112,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 178,
"end": 188,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 208,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 210,
"end": 223,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 224,
"end": 232,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 242,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 243,
"end": 251,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 265,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 273,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 274,
"end": 287,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 288,
"end": 296,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 351,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 358,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 369,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 370,
"end": 382,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 383,
"end": 398,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 621,
"end": 637,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 665,
"end": 681,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 706,
"end": 721,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "State v. Ratni Devi & Sandeep Tanwar\n\n\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Pawan Kumar Jain\n Additional Sessions Judge-01 ( Central): Delhi\n\nSc No. 23/13\nId No. : 02401R0392632011\n\n\n Fir No. : 121/11\n Police Station : Patel Nagar\n Under Section : 302/304B/498A/34 Ipc\n\n\n\n State\n\n Versus\n\n\n Ratni Devi\n W/o Sh. Mahender Singh\n R/o T-541, Mandir Marg,\n Baljeet Nagar,\n Delhi.\n\n .........Accused No. 1.\n\n\n Sandeep Tanwar\n S/o Sh. Mahender Singh\n R/o T-541, Mandir Marg,\n Baljeet Nagar,\n Delhi.\n\n .........Accused No. 2.\n\n\n\n Date of Institution : 26.08.2011\n Date of committal to Sessions : 02.09.2011\n Date of judgment reserved : 29.08.2014\n Date of judgment : 16.09.2014\n\nSc No. 23/13 Page 1 of 44\n State v. Ratni Devi & Sandeep Tanwar\n\n\nPresent: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the\n State.\n Sh. L.D. Mual, Advocate, counsel for the both the accused\n persons.\n\n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 5,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 9,
"end": 19,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 22,
"end": 36,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 83,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 133,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 380,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 445,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 674,
"end": 688,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1296,
"end": 1301,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1305,
"end": 1315,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1318,
"end": 1332,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1354,
"end": 1365,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Reserved on: 16th May 2011\n Decision on: 2nd June 2011\n\n W. P. (C) 7289/2010 & Cm Appl 14427/2010\n\n\n Kishan Freight Forwarders ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate.\n\n With\n\n W. P. (C) 7290/2010 & Cm Appl 14429/2010\n\n Kishan Freight Forwarders ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate.\n\n With\n\n W. P. (C) 7291/2010 & Cm Appl 14431/2010\n\n Kishan Freight Forwarders ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate.\n\n With\n\n W. P. (C) 1201/2011 & Cm 2538/2011\n\n P. N. Tiwari ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n\n\nW.P. (C) 7289/2010 & batch Page 1 of 14\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. R. N. Singh with\n Mr. A. N. Singh, Advocates.\n\n With\n\n W. P. (C) 1923/2011 & Cm Appl 4105/2011\n\n Aurangzeb Chaudhary ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. R. N. Singh with\n Mr. A. N. Singh, Advocates.\n\n With\n\n\n W. P. (C) 1925/2011 & Cm Appl 4110/2011\n\n Aurangzeb Chaudhary ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. R. N. Singh with\n Mr. A. N. Singh, Advocates.\n\n With\n\n W. P. (C) 2041/2011 & Cm Appl 4360/2011\n\n\n Kishan Freight Forwarders ..... Petitioner\n Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. R. N. Singh with\n Mr. A. N. Singh, Advocates.\n\n And\n\n W. P. (C) 2042/2011 & Cm Appl 4362/2011\n\n Kishan Freight Forwarders ..... Petitioner\nW.P. (C) 7289/2010 & batch Page 2 of 14\n Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n Union Of India & Ors ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate.\n Mr. R. N. Singh with\n Mr. A. N. Singh, Advocates.\n\n\n Coram: Justice S. Muralidhar\n\n 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n allowed to see the judgment? No\n 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 296,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 381,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 449,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 533,
"end": 546,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 671,
"end": 696,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 769,
"end": 781,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 834,
"end": 848,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 932,
"end": 945,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1070,
"end": 1095,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1168,
"end": 1180,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1233,
"end": 1247,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1331,
"end": 1344,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1463,
"end": 1475,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1584,
"end": 1596,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1739,
"end": 1753,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1840,
"end": 1851,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1895,
"end": 1906,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2031,
"end": 2050,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2124,
"end": 2136,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2189,
"end": 2203,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2290,
"end": 2301,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2345,
"end": 2356,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2482,
"end": 2501,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2575,
"end": 2587,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2640,
"end": 2654,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2741,
"end": 2752,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2796,
"end": 2807,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2926,
"end": 2951,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3024,
"end": 3036,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3090,
"end": 3104,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3191,
"end": 3202,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3246,
"end": 3257,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3383,
"end": 3408,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3579,
"end": 3591,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3645,
"end": 3659,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3747,
"end": 3760,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3811,
"end": 3822,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3867,
"end": 3878,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3917,
"end": 3930,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\nOrder Sheet Serial No........\n G.A.2233 of 2009\n W.P. 1628 of 2004\n G.A.1061 of 2006\n G.A.1554 of 2009\n G.A.2651 of 2006\n In The High Court At Calcutta\n Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction\n Original Side\n\n In the matter of :\n\n Allied Resins & Chemicals Ltd. & Anr.\n Vs\n Deputy Secretary, Government Of West\n Bengal, Department Of Excise & Ors.\n\nBefore:\nThe Hon'ble Justice\nIndira Banerjee\nDate: 16.03.2010\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 350,
"end": 372,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 557,
"end": 587,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 661,
"end": 749,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 786,
"end": 801,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMajor E. G. Barsay\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Bombay\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore\n (Scch-8)\n Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., Ll.B.,\n Xii Additional Small Causes Judge\n and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.\n\n Dated this the 07th day of September 2015\n\n M.V.C. Nos.2094/2014 to 2096/2014\n\nPetitioner in Mvc Sri Bharath C.V.,\n2094/2014 S/o Venkateshaiah,\n Aged 21 years,\n Residing at No.200,\n 1st Main road, 6th Cross,\n Amba Bhavani Road,\n Kamakshipalya,\n Bangalore - 560 079.\n (Sri B.H. Chikkanna, Advocate)\n\nPetitioner in Mvc Sri K.N. Kumar,\n2095/2014 S/o Narayanaswamy,\n Aged 19 years,\n Residing at No.8,\n C/o Eranna, Near service\n station, Doddagollarahatti,\n Magadi Main Road,\n Bangalore - 560 091.\n\n And also at\n Kuravanka Village,\n Channarayanapattna Taluk,\n Hassan District.\n (Sri B.H. Chikkanna, Advocate)\n\nPetitioner in Mvc Sri Purushotham V.,\n2096/2014 S/o Venkatesh,\n Aged 19 years,\n 2 (Scch-8) M.V.C.2094/2014 to\n 2096/2014\n\n\n\n Residing at No.8,\n C/o Eranna, Near service\n station, Doddagollarahatti,\n Magadi Main Road,\n Bangalore - 560 091.\n\n And also at\n Yadavanahlli Village,\n Bikkasale Post, Koppa Hobli,\n Mandya Taluk, Mandya District.\n (Sri B.H. Chikkanna, Advocate)\n\n V/s.\n\nRespondents in 1. Sri Somashekar S.,all the cases S/o Shivanna Gowda, Major in age, Resident at No.126, 3rd Stage, 3rd Block, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore - 560 079. \n\n (Rc Owner of Hgv lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-41-A-\n 8748) (Exparte)\n\n 2. The Regional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., No.5/111 & 6/112, 1st Floor, Unnati Arcade, 1st Block, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore - 560 010. \n\n (Insurer of Hgv lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-41-A-8748) I/P No.140153233400852. \n\n Valid from 28-09-2013 to 27-09-2014. \n\n (Sri H.C. Betsur, Advocate) 3 (Scch-8) M.V.C.2094/2014 to 2096/2014 Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 104,
"end": 119,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 358,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 644,
"end": 658,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 693,
"end": 703,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1150,
"end": 1164,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1199,
"end": 1213,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1772,
"end": 1786,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1846,
"end": 1863,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2068,
"end": 2229,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2358,
"end": 2369,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 2135 of 1999\n\n\n\nPetitioner:\nRakesh Wadhawan & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nM/S. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 70,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 102,
"end": 133,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 4237 of 2008(D)\n\n\n1. Chirayinkeezhu A.Babu, Advocate,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Delimitation Commission,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh (Retd),\n\n3. Mr.B.B.Tandon, Member,\n\n4. Mr.N.Mohandas, Member,\n\n5. Mr.Shangara Ram, Secretary,\n\n6. The Election Commission Of India,\n\n7. The Kerala State Election Commissioner,\n\n8. The Chief Electoral Officer,\n\n9. The Union Of India,\n\n10. State Of Kerala,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.T.P.Kelu Nambiar (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Murali Purushothaman, Sc,Ele.Commn.\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.R.Ramachandran Nair\n\n Dated :01/03/2010\n\n O R D E R\n T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.\n - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n W.P.(C) No. 4237 of 2008-D\n - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n Dated this the 1st day of March, 2010.\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 94,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 205,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 266,
"end": 278,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 304,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 331,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 348,
"end": 360,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 381,
"end": 409,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 419,
"end": 453,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 463,
"end": 486,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 510,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 517,
"end": 532,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 572,
"end": 588,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 633,
"end": 653,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 694,
"end": 715,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 770,
"end": 792,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMessrs.\t R. C. Mitter & Sons\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West Bengal, Calcutta\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 40,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 112,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Criminal Appeal No.756-DB of 2006 1\nCriminal Revision No.2631 of 2006\n\n\n\n In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n Date of decision:November 09, 2011\n\n Criminal Appeal No.756-DB of 2006\n\n\nMahavir and others ......Appellants\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nState of Haryana .......Respondent\n\n\n Criminal Revision No.2631 of 2006\n\n\nIshwar Singh ......petitioner\n\n\n Versus\n\n\nMahavir and others .......Respondents\n\n\n\nCoram: Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh\n Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Sabina\n\n\nPresent: Mr.Vinod Ghai, Advocate,\n for the appellants.\n\n Mr.Sandeep Vermani, Addl.A.G.Haryana.\n\n Mr.Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate,\n for the complainant.\n\n ****\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 123,
"end": 169,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 322,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 428,
"end": 444,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 573,
"end": 585,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 684,
"end": 691,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 785,
"end": 797,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 826,
"end": 832,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 852,
"end": 862,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 926,
"end": 941,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 979,
"end": 994,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Vinod Kumar Meena, Civil Judge\u00ad\n 02,New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New \n Delhi\n\nSh. Satender Sharma vs. Yudhishter Sharma\n\nCase Id No. : 02403R0057012011\n\nCc No. : 57/1/12\n\n\nDate of Institution of the Complaint :23.07.2011\n\n\nName and address of Complainant : Sh. Satender Sharma\n s/o Late Sh. S. R. Sharma\n r/o299C,Pocket C, Mayur Vihar\n Ph\u00ad2, New Delhi\u00ad91\nName, parentage and address of \nthe accused : Sh. Yudhister Sharma\n S/o Late Sh. J. M. Sharma\n r/o 208, Simant Vihar,\n Kaushambhi, Ghaziabad.\nOffence Complained of : U/s 138 of Negotiable \n Instruments Act, 1881\n\nOffence Proved : No\nPlea of the Accused in his : Complainant has misused the \n examination. impugned cheques\n\nDate of reservation of Order : 12.05.2014\nFinal Order : Acquitted\nDate of Order : 20.05.2014\nPolice Station : Barakhamba Road\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 40,
"end": 136,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 157,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 162,
"end": 179,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1) Cr.A.Nos. 1348/01 & 946/02\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh At Jabalpur\n\n Division Bench:Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena\n Hon'Ble Shri Justice M.A.Siddiqui\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1348/2001\n\nAppellant: Ramesh Ahirwar, aged 19 years, S/o\n Kashiram Ahirwar, R/o Village Bhainsa,\n Police Station Cantt. District Sagar(M.P.).\n\n Versus\n\n\nRespondent: State of Madhya Pradesh\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Appellant : Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate. \n\nFor the Respondent/State : Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate. \n\n Criminal Appeal No. 946/2002 Appellant: State of Madhya Pradesh through S.H.O., Police Station Cantt. Sagar. \n\n Versus Respondent: 1. Smt. Ramdulari W/o Kashiram Ahirwar, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Bhainsa, P.S. Cantt. District Sagar\n\n 2. Ramesh Ahirwar, aged 19 years, S/o Kashiram Ahirwar, R/o Village Bhainsa, Police Station Cantt. District Sagar(M.P.). \n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Appellant : Shri B.P.Pandey, Dy. Govt. Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate Date of hearing : 17/03/2011 Date of judgment: 30/03/2011 (J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 166,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 226,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 343,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 628,
"end": 651,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 777,
"end": 785,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 813,
"end": 827,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 873,
"end": 883,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 948,
"end": 971,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1047,
"end": 1056,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1153,
"end": 1167,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1390,
"end": 1400,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1447,
"end": 1455,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1483,
"end": 1497,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nVishnu Prasad Sharma And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 35,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 84,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nNavnitlal C. Javeri\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nK. K. Sen, Appellate Assistant Commissioner Ofincome-Tax,'\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 62,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Principal Seat At Jabalpur\n Division Bench\n\n Criminal Reference No.1/2010\n\n In Refeence\n Received from 4th Additional Sessions\n Judge, District Bhopal, M.P.\n\n Versus\n\n Mohammad Shafiq @ Munna @ Shafi,\n s/o Mohammad Yameen, Aged 45\n years, r/o near Ahle Hadirat Maszid,\n New Kabad Khana, District Bhopal, M.P.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Appellant: Shri J.K. Jain, Dy. Advocate General\nFor the Respondent: Shri S.C. Datt, Sr.Advocate, with Shri Siddharth\n Datt, Advocate.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Criminal Appeal No.157/2010\n\n Mohammad Shafiq @ Munna @ Shafi,\n s/o Mohammad Yameen, Aged 45\n years, r/o near Ahle Hadirat Maszid,\n New Kabad Khana, District Bhopal, M.P.\n\n Versus\n\n The State of Madhya Pradesh, through\n Police Station Hanumanganj, Bhopal,\n M.P.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nFor the Appellant: Shri S.C. Datt, Sr.Advocate, with Shri Siddharth\n Datt, Advocate.\nFor the Respondent: Shri J.K. Jain, Dy. Advocate General\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n *****\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPresent: Honourable Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena\n Honourable Shri Justice G.S. Solanki\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nDate of hearing: 24/06/2010\nDate of Judgment: 05/07/2010\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 27,
"end": 153,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 444,
"end": 475,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 790,
"end": 799,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 860,
"end": 869,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 894,
"end": 941,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1131,
"end": 1162,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1422,
"end": 1445,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1679,
"end": 1688,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1713,
"end": 1760,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1810,
"end": 1819,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2119,
"end": 2133,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2174,
"end": 2186,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 185 of 2005()\n\n\n1. Suseelan, Convict No.8565,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Grashious Kuriakose\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.Balakrishnan Nair\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :18/08/2008\n\n O R D E R\n K.Balakrishnan Nair & M.C.Hari Rani Jj.\n -----------------------------------------------------\n Crl.Appeal No.185 Of 2005\n -----------------------------------------------------\n Dated This The 18th Day Of August, 2008\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 79,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 185,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 288,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 366,
"end": 385,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 411,
"end": 424,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 486,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 489,
"end": 502,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nIncome Tax Officer, I Ward, Dist, Vi, Calcutta & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nLakhmani Mewal Das\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 58,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 103,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Hyderabad-Deccan\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMessrs.\t Vazir Sultan & Sons\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 59,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 107,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2998 of 2013\n===================================================\nSunil Kumar Yadav S/O Sri Rambachan Yadav R/O Village- Rouza Pokhar, P.S.- Chapra (Town), District- Saran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. The Union Of India Through Secretary Home Department, New Delhi\n2. The Union Of India, Central Industrial Security Force,Through Its Director, New Delhi\n3. The Regional Director Staff Selection Commission, 1st Floor, E Wing, Kendriya Sadan Koramangola Bangalore-560034, Karnataka .... .... Respondent/s =================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Petitioner/s : Mr. Javed Aslam : Mr. Prem Shela Pandey For the U.O.I. : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, Sr. Advocate, A.S.G. \n\n : Mr. Anshuman Singh, C.G.C. \n\n================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 167,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 307,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 374,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 449,
"end": 568,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 684,
"end": 695,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 702,
"end": 719,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 741,
"end": 752,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 784,
"end": 798,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 890,
"end": 904,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Sanjiv Jain\n Additional Sessions Judge \u00ad Special Fast Track \n Court : Saket Courts: New Delhi.\n\n\nUnique Case Id No.02406R0257572013\nSc No. : 234/13\nFir No. : 243/13\nU/s. : 384/34 Ipc, 376(D) r/w section 341/34 Ipc and \n 67A It Act r/w section 34 Ipc \nPs : Fatehpur Beri \n\n\nState (Govt. of Nct of Delhi)\n ................... Complainant\n Versus\n\n\n1. Sonwati \nW/o Sh. Bijender\nR/o 264, Jatav Mohalla, Asola,\nFatehpur Beri, New Delhi \n2. Mahesh\nS/o Sh. Murari Lal\nR/o 266, Jatav Mohalla, Asola,\nFatehpur Beri, New Delhi \n3. Bijender @ Vijender\nS/o Kirpal\nR/o o 264, Jatav Mohalla, Asola,\nFatehpur Beri, New Delhi \n .........................Accused persons\n\n\nDate of Institution : 01.10.2013\nJudgment reserved for orders on : 23.05.2015\n\nFir No. : 243/13\nState Vs. Sonwati and ors.\nPs : Fatehpur Beri, New Delhi. Page No. 1 of 19\n Date of pronouncement : 23.05.2015\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 122,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 338,
"end": 343,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 477,
"end": 484,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 563,
"end": 569,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 650,
"end": 669,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 962,
"end": 967,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 972,
"end": 979,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 3255 of 1984\n\nPetitioner:\nMafatalal Industries Ltd. Etc. Etc.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India Etc. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 86,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 124,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n Cm (M) No. 1518 of 2009\n\n Reserved on: 13th May 2010\n Decision on: 12th July 2010\n\n Sanjay Mehra & Ors. ..... Petitioners\n Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani with\n Mr.Sanjay Dua, Advocates.\n\n\n versus\n\n\n Sunil Malhotra & Anr. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Deepak Gupta and\n Mr. Gaurav Shanker, Advocates.\n\n\n Coram: Justice S. Muralidhar\n\n 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be\n allowed to see the judgment? No\n 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 39,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 263,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 360,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 388,
"end": 398,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 450,
"end": 464,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 539,
"end": 551,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 579,
"end": 593,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 630,
"end": 643,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh. Jagdish Narayan Vs. Sh. Shamser Singh & Ors.\n\n In The Court Of Ms Surya Malik Grover\n Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Rent Controller (South)\n Saket Courts, New Delhi\n\n\nCs No. 360/11\n\nUnique Id No. 02406C0473892010\n\n\nIn The Matter Of:\n\nShri Jagdish Narayan\nS/o Late Shri Ram Prasad,\nR/o D-142A, Krishna Park,\nDevli Road, Khanpur,\nNew Delhi-110062. ....Plaintiff\n\n Versus\n\n 1. Shri Shamser Singh\n S/o Not Known,\n R/o D-141A, Krishna Park,\n Devli Road, Khanpur,\n New Delhi-110062.\n\n 2. Reliance Infocomm Limited\n Through its Director,\n Vijaya Bulding\n 15th Floor, 17, Barakhamba Road,\n Connaught Place,\n New Delhi-110001.\n\n 3. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi\n through its Commissioner,\n Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,\n Delhi-110006. ....Defendants\n\n\nCs No. 360/11 Page 1 of 20\n Sh. Jagdish Narayan Vs. Sh. Shamser Singh & Ors.\n\nDate Of Institution : 24.02.2009\nDate Of Reserving The Judgment : 16.04.2015\nDate Of Decision : 20.04.2015\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 19,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 28,
"end": 41,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 96,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 188,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 278,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 476,
"end": 496,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 601,
"end": 626,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 769,
"end": 799,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1008,
"end": 1023,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1032,
"end": 1045,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 17/02/2004\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.S.Sirpurkar\nand\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice F.M.Ibrahim Kalifulla\n\nCriminal Appeal No.1224 of 2003\nand Criminal Appeal Nos., 1225 & 1226 of 2003\n\nCriminal Appeal No.1224 of 2003\n\n1. Madurai Ganesan\n\n2. Alagusundaram\n\n3. Ganesamoorthy .. Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe State of Tamil Nadu\nrep. by Deputy Superintendent\nof Police,\n'Q' Branch C.I.D.,\nKalaimagal Nagar,\nMadurai - 625 017. .. Respondent\n\nCriminal Appeal No.1225 of 2003\n\n1. Veera. Ilavarasan\n\n2. Boominathan\n\n3. Sevanthiappan .. Appellants\n\n\n\n Vs.\n\n\nThe State of Tamil Nadu\nrep. by Deputy Superintendent\nof Police,\n'Q' Branch C.I.D.,\nKalaimagal Nagar,\nMadurai - 625 017. .. Respondent\n\nCriminal Appeal No.1226 of 2003\n\n1. P.S.Maniam\n\n2. S.Nagarajan .. Appellants\n\n Vs.\n\nThe State of Tamil Nadu\nrep. by Deputy Superintendent\nof Police,\n'Q' Branch C.I.D.,\nKalaimagal Nagar,\nMadurai - 625 017. .. Respondent\n\n\n Appeals filed against the orders made in Crl.M.P.Nos.23, 24 &\n25 of 2003 in Special C.C.No.1 of 2003 dated 15.7.2003.\n\n!For Appellants .. Mr.K.S.Dinakaran\n\n^For Respondent .. Mr.I.Subramanian\n Public Prosecutor\n assisted by\n Mr.S.Jayakumar\n Addl.Public Prosecutor\n\n:J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 108,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 160,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 292,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 310,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 315,
"end": 328,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 385,
"end": 404,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 582,
"end": 599,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 604,
"end": 615,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 620,
"end": 633,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 740,
"end": 759,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 953,
"end": 963,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 968,
"end": 979,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1101,
"end": 1120,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1438,
"end": 1451,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1476,
"end": 1489,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1571,
"end": 1582,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAbdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 38,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey, Additional District Judge\u00ad2 (Ne), Kkd Courts, Delhi \n\n In The Court Of Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey \n Additional District Judge\u00ad02 (Ne)\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\n Cs No. 78/14\n Unique Id No. 02402C0052552013\n\n\n In The Matter Of :\u00ad\n\n Mrs. Ramesh Kumari Mehta \n W/o Sh. Raj Kumar Mehta\n R/o 57\u00adB, Purani Anarkali, \n Krishna Nagar, Delhi\u00ad110051 ....Plaintiff \n \n Versus\n\n (1) M/s Pasha Properties Pvt. Ltd. \n Regd. Office at 113\u00adA, \n Dilshad Garden, \n Delhi\u00ad110095\n Through its Managing Director \n Mr. Javed Akhtar Pasha \n\n (2) Mr. Javed Akhtar Pasha \n 113\u00adA, Dilshad Garden, Delhi\u00ad 110095. \n\n (3) Mr. G. C. Tyagi \n S/o Late Sh. S. S. Tyagi, \n R/o Flat No. 4, First Floor, Backside Mig Flat, \n Plot No. C\u00ad1/93, Dlf Dilshad Extn\u00ad2, \n Bhopura, Sahibabad, \n District\u00ad Ghaziabad, U. P. ......Defendants \n\n\n Cs No. 78/14 1/15\nRamesh Kumari Mehta V/s Pasha Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. \n Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey, Additional District Judge\u00ad2 (Ne), Kkd Courts, Delhi \n\n\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 4,
"end": 22,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 24,
"end": 75,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 119,
"end": 137,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 454,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 726,
"end": 752,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 983,
"end": 1001,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1085,
"end": 1096,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1488,
"end": 1507,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1512,
"end": 1538,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1558,
"end": 1576,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nWrit Petition (civil) 306 of 2004\n\nPetitioner:\nMridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion of India & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 69,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 112,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice T. Sunil Chowdary \n\nMacma No.706 Of 2010 \n\n16-04-2015 \n\nNew India Assurance Company Limited...Appellant \n\nSmt. Ummannagari Akkamma & Others...Respondents \n\nCounsel for Appellants: Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy \n \n^Counsel for R.1 to R.4 & R.6: Smt. N. Sasikala \n Counsel for Respondent No.5: None \n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred\n\n (2001) 5 Scc 175 \n2 (2004) 5 Scc 385 \n3 (2009) 13 Scc 710 \n4 (2012) 2 Scc 356 \n5 2008 Acj 594 \n6 2005 (4) Ald 725 \n7 2014 Acj 526 \n8 2014 Acj 1230 \n9 2013 Acj 2870 \n10 2014 Acj 1859 \n11 2014 Acj 2638 \n12 2009 Acj 1298 (Sc) \n\nThe Honble Sri Justice T. Sunil Chowdary \nM.A.C.M.A. No.706 of 2010 \nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 127,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 148,
"end": 167,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 246,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 345,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 685,
"end": 702,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe State Of Bombay And Another\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe United Motors (India) Ltd. And Others.Union\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 93,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\t\t\t\t\t\nDated : 16.10.2012\n\nCoram :\n\nThe Honourable Mrs.JUSTICE R.Banumathi\nand\nThe Honourable Mr.JUSTICE R.Subbiah\n\nCivil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1102 of 2007 and 1263 of 2007\n\nC.M.A.No.1102 of 2007\n---------------------\n1.Komeravel Gounder\n2.Jayammal\n3.Mohana\n4.Minor Arunkumar\n5.Minor Mohan Kumar Minors are represented by next friend Mohana ... Appellants. \n\n vs.\nBajaj Allianz General Insurance Company,\nrep. by its Branch Manager,\nCe Plaza,\nAirport Road, Yerwada,\nPune, Maharashtra State.\t\t\t\t\t... Respondent.\n\n\n\nC.M.A.No.1263 of 2007\n---------------------\n\t\t\t\t\t\nM/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company,\nrep. by its Branch Manager,\nCe Plaza,\nAirport Road, Erwada,\nPune.\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Appellant\n\n\tvs.\n\n\n1.Komeravel Gounder\n2.Jayammal\n3.Mohana\n4.Minor Arunkumar\n5.Minor Mohan Kumar\n Minors are represented by next friend\n Mohana\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents.\n\n\t\n Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order made in M.C.O.P. No.278 of 2003 dated 31.1.2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub-Court), Gobichettypalayam. \n\n For Appellants in Cma 1102/2007 and : Mr.S.Parthasarathy Respondents in Cma 1263/2007 For Respondent in Cma 1102/2007 and : Mr.K.S.Narasimhan Appellant in Cma 1263/2007 Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 112,
"end": 123,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 163,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 290,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 291,
"end": 301,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 310,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 319,
"end": 328,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 348,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 417,
"end": 456,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 625,
"end": 664,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 764,
"end": 783,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 784,
"end": 794,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 795,
"end": 803,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 812,
"end": 821,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 830,
"end": 841,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1201,
"end": 1216,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1287,
"end": 1301,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMarri Chandra Shekhar Rao\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nDean, Seth G.S. Medical College And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 37,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 96,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\nDated: 09 .01 .2014\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice P.R.Shivakumar\nC.M.A.No.581 of 2011\n&\nCross Objection No.116 of 2011\n&\nM.P.Nos.1 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2013\n\n\nThe National Insurance Company Limited\nNo.751, Anna Salai, Chennai - 2\t\t\t\t...Appellant\n\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\tVs.\n\n1.P.Geetha Prasad\n2.S.Tharakeshwari\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n3. Sri Yasodha Krishna Brick Field\nNo.27, Lakshmi Talkies Road\nShenoy Nagar\n Chennai \u0016 600 030\t\t\t\t\t\t...Respondents\n\n\tCivil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 18.06.2009 made in M.C.O.P.No.2046 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vi Court of Small Causes, Chennai.\n\n\t\tFor Appellant\t:Mr.S.Arunkumar\n\t\n\t\tFor Respondents\t:Mr.J.Mahalingam\n\t\t\t\t\t\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 114,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 216,
"end": 250,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 329,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 347,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 389,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 743,
"end": 754,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 779,
"end": 791,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nPunjab Land Development Andreclamation Corporation Ltd.,Chan\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nPresiding Officer, Labour Court,Chandigarh Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 67,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 134,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Manoj Kumar : Additional \n Sessions Judge\u00ad4 (South District), New Delhi\n \nSessions Case No. 6/14 (Original no. 10/13)\nUnique Id No.: 02406R0080382013\n\nFir No.510/12 \nPolice Station : Malviya Nagar \n\nIn the matter of:\n\n\nState\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n1. Wakila Begum,\n W/o Sh. Asghar Ali,\n 2. Mohsin,\n S/o Sh. Asghar Ali,\n both residents of \n House No.26, Hauz Rani, \n Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. ............ Accused\n\n\nDate of Institution : 27.5.2013. \nDate of Reserving judgment: 27.2.2014. \nDate of pronouncement :18.3.2014.\n\n\nSessions Case No. 6/14 Page no. 1 of 32\n For State : Mr. A.T. Ansari, Additional Public \n Prosecutor.\nFor Defence : Mr. Abdul Sattar, Advocate. \n\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 96,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 280,
"end": 285,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 336,
"end": 348,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 378,
"end": 384,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 798,
"end": 809,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 906,
"end": 918,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nT.S.P.L.P. Chidamebaram Chettiar (Dead) Throughl. Rs.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 98,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nV. Bhagat\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nD. Bhagat\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 21,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 50,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "{1}\n crwp 641.14.odt\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature Of Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Bench At Aurangabad\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Writ Petition No. 641 Of 2014\n\n\n Amjad Khan s/o. Aziz Khan Pathan\n Age 30 years, Occ. Agriculture,\n\n\n\n\n \n R/o. Demani Wahegaon , A/P. Karmad,\n Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad.\n\n .. Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n \n 1] The State of Maharashtra\n Through the Secretary\n \n Department of Home,\n Mantralaya, Mumbai.\n\n 2] The Sub Divisional Police Officer,\n Aurangabad Rural, N-12 Hudco,\n \n\n Aurangabad.\n \n\n\n\n 3] The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,\n Sub-Division, beside Collector Officer,\n Aurangabad. .. Respondents\n\n Mr. C.V. Dharurkar, Advocate for the petitioner\n\n\n\n\n\n Mrs. M.S. Patni, App for respondent/s.\n\n\n Coram : S.S. Shinde & A.M. Badar, Jj.\n Date Of Reserving Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 120,
"end": 287,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 414,
"end": 424,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 778,
"end": 798,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 910,
"end": 997,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1017,
"end": 1102,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 1162,
"end": 1176,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1220,
"end": 1230,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1302,
"end": 1313,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1316,
"end": 1326,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe Tata Iron & Steel Co., Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Bihar\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 43,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Criminal Appeal (Fb) No.149 of 2015\n Arising Out of PS.Case No. -299 Year- 2013 Thana -Kharagpur District- Munger\n======================================================\nBahadur Kora, son of Late Chutter Kora, resident of Village- Naya Bhagel, Police Station- Kharagpur, District- Munger .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent ====================================================== with Criminal Appeal (Fb) No.150 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -40 Year- 2014 Thana -Motipur District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Pravesh Kumar Mishra @ Pravesh Mishra, Son of late Tarkeshwar Mishra, resident of village+post-Kasma, Police Station- Kasma, District- Aurangabad. \n\n .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent ====================================================== with Criminal Appeal (Fb) No.162 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -109 Year- 2014 Thana -Chakai District- Jamui ====================================================== Lakhan Yadav, Son of Jagdish Yadav, Resident of Village Lalpur, P.S. Kauwakol, District Nawadah. \n\n .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent ====================================================== with Criminal Appeal (Fb) No.187 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -47 Year- 2014 Thana -Sono District- Jamui ====================================================== Umesh Yadav @ Dabloo Yadav, Son of Late Yaddu Yadav, Resident of Village-Thamman, P.S.-Sono, District-Jamui. \n\n .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent ====================================================== with Patna High Court Cr. App (Fb) No.149 of 2015 dt.27-03-2015 Criminal Appeal (Fb) No.185 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -555 Year- 2014 Thana -Barachatti District- Gaya ====================================================== Birendra Sharma, Son of Naresh Sharma, Resident of Village - Tira, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad. \n\n .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar. \n\n .... .... Respondent ====================================================== with Criminal Appeal (Fb) No.189 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -269 Year- 2014 Thana -Rampur District- Gaya ====================================================== Rajiv Kumar, son of Ramdas Sharma, resident of village Arkdivariya, P.S. Tekari, District Gaya. \n\n .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar. \n\n .... .... Respondent ====================================================== with Criminal Appeal (Fb) No.192 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -34 Year- 2014 Thana -Hathauri District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Shankar Prasad, son of Bhardur Bhaghat @ Bhardul Bhagat, resident of village- Bara Bishunpur, P.S.- Rajepur, District- East Champaran .... .... Appellant Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :\n (In Cr. App (Db) No.149 of 2015) For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent : Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma (App) (In Cr. App (Db) No.150 of 2015) For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Prasad Singh, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. D.K.Sinha (App) Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, App (In Cr. App (Db) No.162 of 2015) For the Appellant : Mr. Prakash Mahto, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. A.Sharma(App) (In Cr. App (Db) No.187 of 2015) Patna High Court Cr. App (Fb) No.149 of 2015 dt.27-03-2015 For the Appellant : Mr. Umesh Prasad, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. D.K.Sinha(App) (In Cr. App (Db) No.185 of 2015) For the Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. \n\n Mr. Bela Singh, Adv. \n\n For the Respondent : Mr. Mayanand Jha(App) (In Cr. App (Db) No.189 of 2015) For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. \n\n Mr. Imteyaz Ahmad, Adv. \n\n Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Adv. \n\n For the Respondent : Mr. A.Sharma(APP) (In Cr. App (Db) No.192 of 2015) For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Adv. \n\n Mr. Bela Singh, Adv. \n\n For the Respondent : Mr. Mayanand Jha(APP) =========================================================== Coram: Honourable The Chief Justice and Honourable Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi and Honourable Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 245,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 382,
"end": 396,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 648,
"end": 685,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 829,
"end": 843,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1089,
"end": 1101,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1220,
"end": 1234,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1477,
"end": 1503,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1620,
"end": 1634,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1942,
"end": 1957,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2083,
"end": 2097,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2262,
"end": 2290,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2346,
"end": 2357,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2476,
"end": 2490,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2747,
"end": 2761,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2912,
"end": 2926,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3074,
"end": 3092,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3125,
"end": 3142,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3206,
"end": 3224,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3256,
"end": 3265,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3276,
"end": 3293,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3356,
"end": 3369,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3401,
"end": 3413,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3531,
"end": 3543,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3575,
"end": 3588,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3647,
"end": 3659,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3673,
"end": 3683,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3718,
"end": 3734,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3793,
"end": 3810,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3824,
"end": 3837,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3851,
"end": 3862,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3897,
"end": 3909,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3968,
"end": 3981,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3995,
"end": 4005,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4040,
"end": 4056,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4181,
"end": 4200,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 4228,
"end": 4240,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 2592 of 2005\n\nPetitioner:\nAmit Kumar Shaw & Anr.\n\nRespondent:\nFarida Khatoon & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 67,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 102,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nBolani Ores Ltd. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Orissa Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 28,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Balwant Rai Bansal, \n Additional District Judge\u00ad02 (South\u00adEast), \n Saket Courts, New Delhi\n \n\nTm No. 7/14\n\nM/s Nature's Essence Pvt. Ltd. \n\n ..... Plaintiff\nVs.\n\n\nRam Kumar Singh & Ors. \n ..... Defendants\n\n\nO R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 143,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 190,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 300,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1619 Of 2008\n @ S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5265 of 2007\n\n\n\nManoj Sharma ..Appellant\n\n\nVs.\n\n\nState & Ors ...Respondents\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 26,
"end": 48,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 197,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 253,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Rajesh Malik, ACJ\u00adcum\u00adCCJ\u00adcum \n Arc (North), Rohini Court, Delhi\n\n\nE. No. 468/06/03\nUnique Id No.: 02404C0075382006 \n\nIn the matter of :\n\n\n1. Sh. Tulsi Dass \nS/o Sh. Shyam Sunder \nR/o Gh\u00ad13/886, Paschim Vihar,\nNew Delhi.\n ........Petitioner\n Versus\n\n\n1. Ashok Kumar Kainth (Deceased)\n2. Smt. Chander Kanta Kainth\nW/o Late Sh. Ashok Kumar Kainth\n3. Sh. Jatin Kainth\nS/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Kainth\n4. Sh. Ritin Kainth\nS/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Kainth\n\nAll Resident of Flat no. A2/A4, \nJhule Lal Sindhu Nagar co\u00adoperative Society,\nRoad no. 44, Pitampura,\nNew Delhi.\n .... Respondent\n\n\n\nE. No. 468/06/03 Tulsi Dass v Ashok Kumar Kainth 1 of 21\n \n\nDate of institution : 31.03.2003 \nDate of reserving the order : 24.07.2014 \nDate of pronouncement of the order : 30.07.2014\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 102,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 194,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 425,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 445,
"end": 465,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 505,
"end": 517,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 552,
"end": 564,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 825,
"end": 835,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 839,
"end": 857,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 3906 of 2009()\n\n\n1. U.Nalini Madhavan,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The State Of Kerala, Represented By\n ... Respondent\n\n2. K.G.Premsankar, S/O.Govindan,\n\n3. K.Abdul Gafoor,\n\n4. P.Jayaraj, S/O.Sundaran Nair,\n\n5. R.V.Kunhiraman,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Babu S. Nair\n\n For Respondent :Sri.M.V.S.Namboothiry,Sc, C.B.I.\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K.Mohanan\n\n Dated :16/09/2010\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 78,
"end": 95,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 188,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 267,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 287,
"end": 301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 307,
"end": 316,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 355,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 395,
"end": 407,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 446,
"end": 463,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 500,
"end": 511,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Daya Prakash, Asj-02/Ftc, New\n Delhi District Patiala House Courts, Delhi\n\n\nId No. 02403C0589292006\nSuit No. 22/12\n\n\n1. Mrs. Anita\n W/o Sh. Kallu Singh\n D/o Late Sh. Jagga Singh\n\n2. Mrs. Sarita\n W/o Sh. Sunil Singh\n D/o Late Sh. Jagga Singh\n\n Both r/o. 320-A, Village Dera Fatehpur,\n Ps: Mehrauli, New Delhi.\n ....Petitioners\n Versus\n\n\n1. Sh. Ravinder Singh,\n S/o Sh. Maharaj Singh\n R/o H. No. 1057, Puran Enclave,\n Old Faridabad, Haryana.\n\n2. The United India Insurance Company Ltd.\n Kanchanjanga Building, Connaught Place,\n New Delhi.\n\n3. Smt. Lakshmiri Devi\n W/o Late Sh. Jagga Singh\n\n4. Sh. Mahavir Singh\n\nSuit No. 22/2012 1/21 \n S/o Late Sh. Jagga Singh\n\n5. Sh. Sahabir Singh\n S/o Late Sh. Jagga Singh\n\n6. Sh. Sanjay Singh\n S/o Late Sh. Jagga Singh\n\n7. Sh. Bijender Singh\n S/o Late Sh. Jagga Singh\n\n8. Km. Usha, D/o. Late Sh. Jagga Singh\n (Respondents no.7 and 8 being minors through\n their mother and natural guardian respondent no.3)\n Respondents no.3 to 8 are R/o. Village Jaunedpur\n Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.)\n\n ......Respondents\n\n\nDate of institution of the case : 07.11.2006\nDate received by transfer to this Court : 12.01.2012\nDate when the case reserved for judgment : 20.02.2014\nDate of announcement of judgment : 15.03.2014\n\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 32,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 34,
"end": 100,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 156,
"end": 161,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 240,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 491,
"end": 505,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 618,
"end": 653,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 732,
"end": 746,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 791,
"end": 804,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 913,
"end": 926,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 969,
"end": 981,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1024,
"end": 1038,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1081,
"end": 1085,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n R\n\nIn The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 19Th Day Of March, 2013\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Aravind Kumar\n\n M.F.A.No.135/2009\n C/W\n M.F.A.No.134/2009 (Mv)\n\nM.F.A.No.135/2009\nBetween:\nNew India Assurance Co. Ltd.,\nNo.47, Gopal Complex,\nIi Floor, Bazaar Street,\nYeshwanthapur,\nBangalore-560 002.\n\nBy its Divisional Manager,\nDivisional Office No.VIII. ... Appellant\n(By Smt.Harini Shivananda, Advocate)\nAnd:\n1. Sri.Channabasavana Gowda,\n S/o Thimmana gowda,\n 33 years, R/at No.2612,\n \"E\" Block, Sahakarnagar Nagar,\n Bangalore-92.\n2. Mr. Shaik Baba Jan,\n S/o Syed Mastan, Major,\n No.45, Doddabettahalli Layout,\n Vidyaranayapura,\n Bangalore-560 097.\n 2\n\n\n\n3. Sri.B.K.Gopal Krishna,\n Major, No.665,\n Bandappa Compound,\n Bandappa Street,\n Yeshwanthapura,\n Bangalore. .. Respondents\n\n(By Sri.R.Chandrashekar, Advocate for M/s Lawyers Net\n for R-1; Notice to R-2 held sufficient, R-3 served)\n\n Mfa filed U/s 173(1) of Mv Act against the\njudgment and award dated 15.09.2008 passed in Mvc\nNo.3371/2007 on the file of Ix Additional Judge, Court of\nSmall Causes, Member, Mact, Bangalore, awarding a\ncompensation of Rs. 12,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a.\nfrom the date of petition till realisation.\n\nM.F.A.No.134/2009\n\nBetween:\n\nNew India Assurance Co. Ltd.,\nNo.47, Gopal Complex,\nIi Floor, Bazaar Street,\nYeshwanthapur,\nBangalore-560 002.\n\nBy its Divisional Manager,\nDivisional Office No.VIII. ... Appellant\n\n(By Smt.Harini Shivananda, Advocate)\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Sri.Sharanabasavana Gowda,\n S/o Mallikarjuna gowda,\n 3\n\n\n 19 years, R/at No.2612,\n \"E\" Block, Sahakarnagar Nagar,\n Bangalore-92.\n\n2. Mr. Shaik Baba Jan,\n S/o Syed Mastan, Major,\n No.45, Doddabettahalli Layout,\n Vidyaranayapura,\n Bangalore-560 097.\n\n3. Sri.B.K.Gopal Krishna,\n Aged about 48 years, No.665,\n Bandappa Compound,\n Bandappa Street,\n Yeshwanthapura,\n Bangalore. .. Respondents\n\n(By Sri.R.Chandrashekar, Advocate for M/s Lawyers Net\n for R-1; Notice to R-2 & R-3 held sufficient)\n\n Mfa filed U/s 173(1) of Mv Act against the\njudgment and award dated 15.09.2008 passed in Mvc\nNo.3370/2007 on the file of Ix Additional Judge, Court of\nSmall Causes, Member, Mact-7, Bangalore, awarding a\ncompensation of Rs. 3,02,400/- with interest @ 8% p.a.\nfrom the date of petition till realisation.\n\n These Appeals are coming on for hearing this day,\nthe court delivered the following:-\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 67,
"end": 103,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 228,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 362,
"end": 390,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 564,
"end": 581,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 609,
"end": 629,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 759,
"end": 773,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 941,
"end": 958,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1125,
"end": 1140,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1563,
"end": 1591,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1776,
"end": 1793,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1823,
"end": 1844,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2010,
"end": 2024,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2152,
"end": 2169,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2346,
"end": 2361,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWp(C) No. 5250 of 2006(Y)\n\n\n1. K.K.Ramachandran Master,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Kerala Lok Ayuktha,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. The Kerala Government Medical Officers\n\n3. P.Radhakrishnan, Formerly Aditional\n\n4. The State Of Kerala, Represented By\n\n5. The Principal Secretary To Government,\n\n6. The Director Of Medical Education,\n\n7. The Director Of Health Services,\n\n8. N.Viswambharan, Beena Cottage,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.T.P.Kelu Nambiar (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Sri.T.K.Ananda Padmanabhan\n\nThe Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.V.K.Bali\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Ramachandran\n\n Dated :15/09/2006\n\n O R D E R\n V.K.Bali,C.J. & M.Ramachandran,J.\n -------------------------------------------\n W.P.(C).Nos.5250 of 2006-Y,\n 6485 of 2006-V & 11418 of 2006-H\n -------------------------------------------\n\n\n Dated, this the 15th day of September, 2006\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 96,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 174,
"end": 192,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 246,
"end": 280,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 285,
"end": 300,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 329,
"end": 344,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 402,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 412,
"end": 441,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 478,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 484,
"end": 498,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 553,
"end": 569,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 614,
"end": 636,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 671,
"end": 679,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 704,
"end": 718,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 775,
"end": 783,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 791,
"end": 805,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Gorakh Nath Pandey \n Additional District Judge\u00ad02, (Ne)\n Karkardooma Courts, Delhi\n\n\n Rca No. 47/14\n Case I.D. Number : 02402C0280382009\n In the matter of:\n\n (1) Malkhan Singh\n S/o Late Sh. Kanwal Singh\n\n (2) Fateh Singh\n S/o Late Sh. Nathu \n\n Both R/o Village Chauhan Patti,\n Sabhapur, Shahdra, \n Delhi\u00ad94.\n\n (3) Surender Tomar\n S/o Late Sh. Hira Singh\n R/o 79, New Chauhanpur,\n Karawal Nagar, Delhi\u00ad94. ................. Appellants\n\n Versus\n\n (1) Sh. Shyam Sunder Goyal\n S/o Sh. Bhagwan Dass\n (Deceased through following LRs) \n (i) Smt. Kamlesh Kumari \n W/o Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Goyal. \n (ii) Sh. Pramod Goyal @ Sanju Goyal \n S/o Late Sh. Shyam Sunder Goyal \n\n\n\n Rca No. 47/14 page 1 of 22\nMalkhan Singh V/s Shyam Sunder \n Both R/o C\u00ad9/261, Yamuna Vihar, \n Delhi\u00ad53. \n (2) Suresh\n S/o Late Sh. Jhhuttar\n R/o 73\u00ad74, Village\u00ad New Chauhanpur,\n Delhi\u00ad94.\n (3) Tehsildar( Seelampur)\n S. D. M., Court Complex,\n Seelampur, Delhi\u00ad53.\n\n (4) Halqa Patwari\n S. D. M., Court Complex,\n Seelampur, Delhi\u00ad53. .............. Respondents. Date of Institution of Appeal : 22.09.2009 Received in this court: 19.02.2014 Date on which Reserved for Judgment : 11.04.2014 Date of Judgment/Order : 11.04.2014 J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 66,
"end": 154,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 334,
"end": 347,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 409,
"end": 420,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 590,
"end": 604,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 838,
"end": 856,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 968,
"end": 982,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1057,
"end": 1083,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1228,
"end": 1241,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1246,
"end": 1258,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1363,
"end": 1369,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1514,
"end": 1534,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1638,
"end": 1651,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\n\nDated: 30/04/2003\n\n\nCoram\n\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice A.S.Venkatachalamoorthy\nand\nThe Honourable Mrs.Justice R.Banumathi\n\n\nA.S.No.375 of 1989\n\n\nK.Natarajan ... Appellant\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n\nP.K.Rajasekaran ... Respondent\n\n\n This appeal is filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure\nagainst the decree and judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Karur in\nO.S.190 of 1986 dated 4.10.1988.\n\n\n!For Appellant : Mr.S.Parthasarathy\n\n\n^For Respondent : Mr.R.Gandhi, Sr.Counsel\n for Mr.M.Kandasamy\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 121,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 164,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 199,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 262,
"end": 277,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 561,
"end": 576,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 609,
"end": 617,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 661,
"end": 672,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Madras\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nN. K. Nataraja Mudaliar\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 70,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nT.A. Abdul Rahman\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Kerala And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 64,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nRadhey Shyam Gupta\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nU.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 30,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 93,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n lgc\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No.685 Of 2001\n\n\n\n\n \n Britannia Industries Limited, ]\n\n\n\n\n \n being a Company registered ]\n under the provisions of the ]\n Indian Companies Act, 1913, ]\n having its office at 5/1A ]\n\n\n\n\n \n Hungerford, Kolkota-17 and ]\n having its Branch offices ]\n place of business, inter alia\n ig ]\n at Ray Road (E), Mazgaon, ]\n Mumbai 400 010 ]... Petitioner\n \n versus\n\n 1. Union of India ]\n The Government Pleader, ]\n \n\n\n Income Tax Building, ]\n Bombay ]\n \n\n\n\n ]\n 2. State of Maharashtra ]\n The Government Pleader, ]\n High Court, Bombay. ]\n\n\n\n\n\n ]\n 3. The Controller of Legal ]\n Metrology, State of ]\n Maharashtra, having its ]\n office at 148, New ]\n\n\n\n\n\n Tilaknagar Station(W) ]\n Mumbai 400 089 ]\n ]\n 4. Controller of Legal ]\n Metrology Maharashtra ]\n State, Administrative ]\n barracks No.7, Free Press ]\n Journal Marg, Nariman ]\n Point, Bombay 400 021. ]... Respondents.\n\n\n\n\n \n 2\n\n Mr.F.Pooniwalla a/w Mr.Mohit Arora i/by Desai &\n Diwanji for the Petitioner.\n Mr.Y S Bhate a/w Mr.N.R.Prajapati for Respondent No.1\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.S.K.Nair, A Panel Counsel for the\n State/Respondents Nos.2 to 4.\n\n\n\n\n \n Coram : P.B.Majmudar &\n R.M.Savant, Jj.\n Judgment reserved on : 5th May 2009 Judgment pronounced on: 3rd July 2009 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 29,
"end": 63,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 305,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 835,
"end": 849,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1043,
"end": 1063,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1202,
"end": 1405,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1465,
"end": 1676,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1795,
"end": 1807,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1815,
"end": 1826,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1879,
"end": 1888,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1896,
"end": 1909,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2015,
"end": 2023,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2202,
"end": 2214,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2266,
"end": 2276,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nWrit Petition (civil) 290 of 1997\n\nPetitioner:\nPreeti Srivastava (Dr.)& Anr.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 58,
"end": 75,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 124,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 75 of 2003()\n\n\n1. K.Gopal Mohan, Assistant Manager,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. S.Govindan Nair, Inspector Of Police,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.M.Ramaswamy Pillai\n\n For Respondent :Sri.S.Sreekumar, Sc For Cbi\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.S.Gopinathan\n\n Dated :25/03/2011\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 83,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 191,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 296,
"end": 314,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 353,
"end": 364,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 402,
"end": 416,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of U.P.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nKrishna Gopal & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 58,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nS. G. Mercantile Corpn. (P) Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe C.I.T., Calcutta\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 46,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 86,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated: 07/08/2013\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.Rajeswaran\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice T.Mathivanan\n\nCriminal Appeal (Md) No.402 of 2009\nand\nCriminal Appeal (Md) No. 403 of 2009\n\n1.Sekar\n2.Ravi\t ... Appellants in Crl.A.(MD) No.402 of 2009\n\n3.Murugan\n4.Saravanan\n5.Pitchai\n6.Latha\t ... Appellants in Crl.A.(MD) No.403 of 2009\n\n\nVs\n\nThe State\nrep.by the Inspector of Police\nSanarpatti Police Station\nDindigul District\n\t ... Respondent in both Criminal Appeals Prayer (in both appeals) Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment dated 17.11.2009 and made in S.C.No.81 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul. \n\n!For Appellants ... Mr.N.Natarajan, Senior Counsel\n(Crl.A.(MD) No.402 of 2009)\n\nFor Appellants ... Mr.K.Vellaisamy\n(Crl.A.(MD) No.403 of 2009)\n\n^For Respondent ... Mr.R.Ramachandran\n\t\t\t Addl. Public Prosecutor\n\n\n:Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 110,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 153,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 240,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 247,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 308,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 320,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 330,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 338,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 399,
"end": 404,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 846,
"end": 857,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 939,
"end": 951,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1017,
"end": 1031,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 6963 2000\n\n\nPetitioner:\nState Of Punjab\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nVk Khanna & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 64,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 84,
"end": 93,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1) Cr.A.No.2253/2007\n Cr.A.No.2330/2007\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh: Jabalpur\n\n Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Saksena\n Hon'ble Shri Justice S.C.Sinho\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.2253/2007\n\n 1. Devendra Singh, son of Jagannath\n Singh Yadav, aged 36 years, r/o\n Rajendra Nagar, Gali No.5, Satna,\n District Satna, M.P.\n 2. Ramkaran, son of Ramrudra Yadav,\n aged 26 years, resident of village\n Pahra, Police Station Karvi, District\n Chitrakoot, at present resident of\n Atarra, Laxmi Guest House, District\n Banda (U.P.)\n .......Appellants\n\n -Versus-\n State of Madhya Pradesh Through\n Police Station City Kotwali, District\n Satna, M.P.\n .......Respondent\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n For the appellants: Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with\n Shri Puspendra Dubey, Advocate.\n For the respondent: Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.2330/2007\n\n Upendra Khare S/o Shri Madan Mohan\n Khare, aged 32 years, R/o Gali No.2,\n Jawahar Nagar, Satna (M.P.)\n .......Appellant\n -Versus-\n State of Madhya Pradesh Through\n Police Station City Kotwali, District\n Satna, M.P.\n .......Respondent\n\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n For the appellant: Shri S.K.Pathak with Shri Abhishek\n Soni, Advocates.\n For the respondent: Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n (2) Cr.A.No.2253/2007\n Cr.A.No.2330/2007\n\n Date of hearing: 03/05/2012\n Date of Judgment : 21/06/2012\n\n **********\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 178,
"end": 216,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 264,
"end": 278,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 325,
"end": 334,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 411,
"end": 425,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 606,
"end": 614,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1047,
"end": 1070,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1417,
"end": 1425,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1499,
"end": 1514,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1577,
"end": 1588,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1782,
"end": 1795,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2077,
"end": 2100,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2448,
"end": 2458,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2469,
"end": 2477,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2592,
"end": 2603,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMinu B. Mehta And Another\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nBalkrishna Ramchandra Nayan And Another\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 25,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 57,
"end": 84,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 1092-1093 of 1998\n\nPetitioner:\nState Of Maharashtra\n\nRespondent:\nSuresh\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 56,
"end": 76,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 90,
"end": 96,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "High Court Of Judicature Madhya Pradesh,\n Jabaplur\n\n Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta,J\n\n Criminal Appeal No.1138 Of 1996\n\n Deepak & others.\n Vs.\n State of Madhya Pradesh.\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri S.C.Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri P. Dubey, Advocate for\nthe appellants.\n\nShri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the\nrespondent/State.\n-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 0,
"end": 67,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 119,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 200,
"end": 206,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 284,
"end": 307,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 407,
"end": 415,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 440,
"end": 448,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 492,
"end": 503,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Xix Addl. City Civil &\nSessions Judge At Bangalore City: (Cch.18)\n\n Dated this 10th day of September, 2015.\n\n Present\n Smt.K.B.Geetha, M.A., Ll.B.,\n Xix Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,\n Bangalore City.\n\n O.S.No.2795/2008\n\nPlaintiff : Sri Chinnaiah @ Chinnaswamy,\n s/o Sri Chinnakarpan,\n aged about 60 years,\n r/at No.165, 69th Cross, 5th Block,\n Rajajinagar, Bangalore.\n\n (By Sri D.S.Jayaraj,Advocate)\n\n -Vs-\nDefendant : Sri.N.S.Suresh Babu,\n s/o late N.L.Satyanarayana Shetty,\n aged about 45 years,\n r/at No.9,\n West Circle Road,\n V.V.Puram, Bangalore-04.\n\n ( By Sri.VSR, Advocate)\n\n\nDate of Institution of the suit : 15/4/2008\n\nNature of the Suit : Specific Performance\n 2 O.S.No.2795/2008\n\n\n\n\nDate of commencement of recording\nof evidence : 28/1/2011\n\nDate on which the Judgment was\npronounced : 10/9/2015\n\n\n Year/s Month/s Day/s\n\nTotal Duration : 07 04 25\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 75,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 197,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 360,
"end": 383,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 598,
"end": 609,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 672,
"end": 687,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 936,
"end": 939,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Anjani Mahajan, Civil Judge\u00ad10 \n (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi\n Suit No. 1395/06\nUnique Id No. 02401C0935632006\nMemo Of Parties\n\n\n1. Parmeshwari Devi (Deceased)\nThrough LRs\n(a). N.R. Gulati (Husband)\nS/o Sh. Loku Ram,\nR/o 1885, Parkwood Circle, Peterborough Ontario Province, \nCanada\n(b). Brij Bhushan Gulati (Son)\nS/o Sh. N.R. Gulati\nR/o 315, Hywood Road, \nPeterborough Ontario Province, Canada\n(c). Lalit Asija (Daughter)\nW/o Late Sh. Prem Kumar Asija,\nR/o 1682, Ravenwood Drive, Peterborough, Ontario Province,\nCanada\n(d). Poonam Chawla (Daughter) (as per details mentioned in the \nW/o Sh. Bharat Bhushan Chawla, application of the LRs U/o 22 R 3 Cpc)\nR/o 1885, Parkwood Circle, Peterborough, Ontario Province \nCanada\n2. Lalit Asija\nW/o Late Sh. Prem Kumar Asija,\nR/o 1682, Ravenwood Drive, \nPeterborough, Ontario Province, \nCanada,\n ...........Plaintiffs\n\nSuit No.1395/06 Smt. Parmeshwari Devi & Anr. Vs. R.S. Public Secondary School & Anr. 1/20\n Versus\n\n\n1. R.S. Public Secondary School,\nThrough its Chair Person/President\nRitu Mahindru,\nRz\u00adD/66, Nihal Vihar, Delhi\n2. Navneet Kumar Aggarwal,\nS/o Sh. R.P. Aggarwal, \nR/o H\u00ad234, Ashok Vihar Phase\u00adI,\nDelhi \u00ad 110052\n ..........Defendants\n\nDate of institution of the Suit: 06.10.2006\nDate on which judgment was reserved: 24.07.2014\nDate of pronouncement of Judgment: 11.08.2014\n\n\n Suit For Possession, Declaration, Mandatory And \n Permanent Injunction\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 34,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 36,
"end": 104,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 211,
"end": 227,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 806,
"end": 817,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1035,
"end": 1051,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1063,
"end": 1091,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1173,
"end": 1202,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1285,
"end": 1307,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 2254 of 2005\n\nPetitioner:\nHindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.\t\t\t\t\n\nRespondent:\nDarius Shapur Chenai & Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 83,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 101,
"end": 121,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 29/04/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice N.Dhinakar\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.Ashok Kumar\n\nCriminal Appeal No.561 of 2000\n\n\nShanmughavadivel @ Kannan .. Appellant\n\n-vs-\n\nState, by Inspector of Police,\nColachel Police Station,\nKanyakumari District.\n(Crime No.195 of 1996). .. Respondent\n\n Appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,\nKanyakumari District at Nagercoil, made in S.C.No.41 of 1998 dated 14.6.1999.\n\n!For Appellant : Mr.Srinivas\n\n^For Respondent : Mr.M.K.Subramanian\n Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 136,
"end": 149,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 184,
"end": 209,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 251,
"end": 256,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 580,
"end": 588,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 620,
"end": 635,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of The Ix Addl. Small Causes And Addl.\n Mact., Bangalore, (Scch-7)\n\n Dated this, the 11th day of June, 2015.\n\nPresent : Smt.Indira Mailswamy Chettiyar,\n B.Com.,LL.B. (Spl.), L.L.M.,\n Ix Addl. Small Causes Judge & Xxxiv Acmm,\n Court of Small Causes,\n Member, Mact-7, Bangalore.\n\n M.V.C.No.2290/2014\n C/w. M.V.C.No.2291/2014 and 2292/2014\n\nPavan Kumar, N., ..... Petitioner In\nS/o Nagaraju. N., M.V.C.No.2290/2014\nAged 22 years.\n\nPresently residing at: .\n\nNo.263/14, Pwd Quarters,\nNear Government Primary School,\nYelahanka New Town\nBangalore-560 064.\n\n(By Sri.R. Shivakumar, Adv.,)\n\n\nSharath Kumar. S., .....Petitioner In\n M.V.C.No.2291/2014\nS/o Shankar. M.,\n\nPresently residing at:\n\nNo.263/8, Pwd Qrts,\nNear Shankar Nagh Park,\nYelahanka New Town,\nBangalore-560 064.\n\n(By Sri.R. Shivakumar, Adv.,)\n 2 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w\n M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (Scch-7)\n\n1. Rama Reddy. K., .....Petitioners In\nS/o Late Chikkanarayana Reddy, M.V.C.No.2292/2014\nAged 47 years.\n\n2.Smt.Parvathamma,\nW/o Ramareddy. K.,\nAged 41 years.\n\nResiding at No. 101, 3rd Cross,\nSomeshwara Nagar,\nYelahanka Upanagar And New Town,\nBangalore-560 064.\n\n V/s\n\n1.The Branch Manager, .... RESPONDENTSNational Insurance Company Limited, In All The Three 1st Floor, Swathi 32 C, 2nd Main, Cases Amarjyothi Layout, Sanjayanagar, Bengaluru-560 094. \n\n(Policy No.60390031136165002986 Valid from 28.02.201 to 27.02.2015)\n\n2. Mr.Narasimha Murthy S.N., S/o S. Narayanappa, No.1529, Sanjeevini Nagar, Sahakar Nagar Post, Bengaluru-560 092. \n\n(R-1 By Sri. Suneel S. Narayan, Adv.,) (Exparte) Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 91,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 161,
"end": 187,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 460,
"end": 471,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 736,
"end": 749,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 760,
"end": 777,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1008,
"end": 1021,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1179,
"end": 1193,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1317,
"end": 1334,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1522,
"end": 1719,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1798,
"end": 1814,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1922,
"end": 1939,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Ajn\n 1\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No.558 Of 2005\n\n\n\n\n \n Ravindra Subhana Dadake, Jai )\n Santoshimata Nagar, Himalaya )\n Society, Narayan Nagar, Ghatkopar, )\n Mumbai - 400 084 (through Jail). ) .... Appellant\n (Orig. Accused)\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus \n State of Maharashtra (At the instance )\n \n of Ghatkopar Police Station). ) .... Respondent\n (Orig. Complainant)\n\n Mr. Abhaykumar Apte, advocate appointed for the appellant.\n \n\n\n Ms. P.H. Kantharia, A.P.P. for the State.\n \n\n\n\n Coram : Smt. Ranjana Desai &\n Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Jj.\n Date On Which The Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 61,
"end": 95,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 387,
"end": 410,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 723,
"end": 743,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 931,
"end": 946,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1008,
"end": 1022,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1095,
"end": 1108,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1150,
"end": 1166,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appeal From Original Decree No.760 Of 1989\n ---\n Against the Judgment and decree dated 20.7.1989 passed\n by Sri Asarfi Sah, the learned Subordinate Judge-IX,Chapra,\n in Title Suit No.177 of 1985.\n ---\n\n Rakesh Kumar & others--------Defendants-Appellants.\n Versus\n Ashok Kumar Sharma & another-------Plaintiffs-Respondents.\n ---\n\n For the appellants:Sri Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi,Sr.Advocate.\n\n For the respondents:Sri Jyotindra Pratap Singh, Advocate.\n\n Present\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 215,
"end": 225,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 406,
"end": 418,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 537,
"end": 555,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 701,
"end": 723,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 784,
"end": 806,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 920,
"end": 936,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSom Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 62,
"end": 76,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 20076 of 2009(R)\n\n\n1. Saumya Ann Thomas, Ac-18, Artiee Comfort\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Union Oof India, Represented By\n ... Respondent\n\n2. Praveen Thomas, Thazhethil St. Marys\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.P.B.Sahasranaman\n\n For Respondent :Sri.Pratheesh.P\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :25/02/2010\n\n O R D E R\n R. Basant &\n M.C. Hari Rani, Jj.\n -------------------------------------------------\n W.P.(C) No. 20076 of 2009-R\n -------------------------------------------------\n Dated this the 25th day of February, 2010\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 91,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 206,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 271,
"end": 285,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 346,
"end": 362,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 401,
"end": 412,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 438,
"end": 446,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 472,
"end": 485,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 544,
"end": 553,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 591,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal D.No. 32945 Of 2007\n\n\nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax .... Appellant\n\n Versus\n\nState Bank of India & Ors. .... Respondents\n\n With\n Civil Appeal Nos. 326-329 of 2008\n\n And\n Civil Appeal No. D-1537 of 2008\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 37,
"end": 59,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 163,
"end": 193,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 277,
"end": 296,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 78 of 1992\n\nPetitioner:\nAbdul Rashid Ibrahim MANSURl\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Gujarat\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 49,
"end": 69,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 91,
"end": 107,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nHeavy Engineering Mazdoor Union\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Bihar & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 37,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 67,
"end": 81,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated: 02/11/2012\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice R.Sudhakar\n\nW.P.(MD)No.11295 of 2012\nW.P.(MD)No. 9362, 9853, 9946, 9947, 9964, 9965, 9966, 10018, 10217,\n10303, 10566, 10744, 10794, 11117, 11467, 11574, 11641, 11702, 12069, and\n14016 of 2012\nand\nall connected Miscellaneous Petitions\n\nW.P(MD)No.11295 of 2012:\n\nApesh Construction Limited,\nF-60, Malhotra Building, 2nd Floor,\nConnaught Place,\nNew Delhi - 110 001.\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\t \t \t\nVs.\n\n1.The Corporation of Madurai,\n through its Commissioner,\n Arignar Anna Maligai,\n Madurai - 625 002.\n\n2.Madurai Local planning Authority,\n represented by its\n Member Secretary,\n Corporation Building Complex, Iii Floor,\n Arignar Anna Maligai,\n Madurai - 625 002.\t\t\t\t\t... Respondents Writ Petition No.11295 of 2012 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of Notice dated 30.07.2012 of the second respondent under Section 57(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent not to interfere with the petitioner's construction in accordance with the Planning Permit No.Ki.Ma.Po1/03635/09 and Building Plan Approval No.EEI/252/09 dated 23.07.2009 of the first respondent. \n\nW.P.No.11295 of 2012:-\n!For Petitioner ... Mr.P.S.Raman, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Siddharthan ^For Respondents... Mr.K.Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General - Iii, assisted by Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Special Govt.Pleader for R.2 Mr.G.R.Swaminathan for R.1 * * * * * :Common Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 108,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 389,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 531,
"end": 553,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 632,
"end": 666,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1420,
"end": 1429,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1453,
"end": 1466,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1490,
"end": 1505,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1557,
"end": 1575,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1609,
"end": 1624,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "*1*\n\n kps\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction \n\n\n\n\n \n Sales Tax Appeal No.2 Of 2009\n (Vat Appeal No.2/2009)\n\n\n\n\n \n M/s R.K.Rim Pvt.Ltd. ..Appellant\n -Versus-\n The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Mumbai\n\n\n\n\n \n and another. ..Respondents\n ...........\n Mr.V.A.Patkar with Mr.M.M.Vaidya, for the Appellant.\n Mr.V.A.Sonpal, \"A\" Panel Counsel for the Respondents/Revenue.\n\n\n\n\n \n ..........\n Coram : V.C.Daga & K.K.Tated, Jj.\n \n {Closed for orders : 16th April, 2010\n Pronounced on : 06th May, 2010}\n \n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 31,
"end": 65,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 378,
"end": 394,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 470,
"end": 503,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 702,
"end": 712,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 721,
"end": 731,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 759,
"end": 769,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 977,
"end": 985,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 988,
"end": 997,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAnant Mills Co.\t Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Gujarat & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 69,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 1313 Of 2008\n (Arising out of Slp [C] No.18330/2006)\n\n\n\n\nK.Manjusree ... Appellant\n\nVs.\n\nState of A.P. & Anr. .... Respondents\n\nWith Wp [C] Nos.51/2007 and 97/2007 &\nSlp [C] No.[CC Nos.7188-89/2007]\n\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 29,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 202,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 269,
"end": 282,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 1508 of 2003\n\nPetitioner:\nMahindra And Mahindra Ltd. \t\t\n\nRespondent:\nN.B. Narawade \t\t\t\t \n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 52,
"end": 78,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 95,
"end": 108,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Wa-305-2007\n (Purushottam Lal Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh)\n\n\n15-10-2015\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Principal\n Seat At Jabalpur\n Writ Appeal No.305/2007\n Purushottam Lal and others\n Vs.\n State of M.P. & Others\nPresent: Hon\u00e2\u0080\u0099ble Shri Rajendra Menon, J. &\nHon'ble Shri C. V. Sirpurkar, J.\n______________________________________________________\nShri Vivek Tankha, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Varun K.\nChopra, Shri Akshay Sapre, for the appellants.\nShri Swapnil Ganguly, learned Govt. Adv., for the respondents\nState.\nKu. Anjali Banerjee, learned counsel for M.P. Housing Board.\n_________________________________________________\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 22,
"end": 37,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 45,
"end": 68,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 87,
"end": 156,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 215,
"end": 230,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 294,
"end": 307,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 355,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 375,
"end": 390,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 467,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 502,
"end": 511,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 524,
"end": 536,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 563,
"end": 578,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 631,
"end": 646,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 1129 of 2004\n\nPetitioner:\nKalyan Chandra Sarkar \t \n\nRespondent:\nRajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. \n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 72,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 140,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 10Th Day Of June 2013\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice B.V.Pinto\n\n Crl.A.No.538/2006\n\n\nBetween:\n\n1. Srinivasa Reddy,\n S/o Thimma Reddy,\n Aged about 27 years\n\n2. Smt.Munirathnamma\n w/o Thimma Reddy,\n Aged about 48 years\n\n3. Smt.Lakshmamma\n W/o Radhakrishna Reddy,\n Aged about 30 years\n\n4. Nagaraju S/oThimma Reddy,\n Aged about 34 years\n\n5. Varadaraju\n s/o Thimma Reddy,\n Aged about 31 years\n\nAll are residing at\nVishweshwara extension,\nTahlirase, Anekal Town,\nBangalore District.\n(appellant No.1 to 5\nAre in judicial custody) ... Appellants\n\n[By Sri.C.H.Hanumantharaja & Sri.R.P.Chandrashekar,\nAdvs.]\n 2\n\nAnd:\n\nState of Karnataka by\nPolice Inspector,\nAnti Dowry Cell, Cod,\nAnekal Police Station,\nBangalore Rural District. ... Respondent\n[By Sri.G.M.Srinivasa Reddy, Government Pleader]\n\n This Crl.A. is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C.\nagainst the judgment dated 3.3.2006 passed by the\nP.O., Ftc-Iii, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in\nS.C.No.16/05, convicting the appellants / accused for\nthe offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 304-B\nof Ipc etc.\n\n This appeal coming on for final hearing this day,\nthe Court delivered the following:\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 15,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 175,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 231,
"end": 246,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 309,
"end": 322,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 384,
"end": 394,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 458,
"end": 466,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 517,
"end": 527,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 746,
"end": 764,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 771,
"end": 788,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 835,
"end": 853,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 979,
"end": 998,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated:7.01.2009\n\nCoram:\n\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice M.Venugopal\n\nC.R.P.(PD).No.3324 of 2008 and\nM.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2008\nN.Lakshmana Doss\t\t... Petitioner\nVs.\n\n1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu\n Department of registration,\n Fort St. George, Chennai-08.\n\n2.The Inspector General of Registration,\n Department of registration,\n Fort St. George, Chennai-08.\n\n3.The District Registrar of Societies,\n Madurai North, Madurai.\n\n4.The Returning Officer,\n Madurai District Tiny and small Scale Industries \n Associations (Maditssia),\n No.1-A-44, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Madurai-20.\n\n5.The Secretary,\n Madurai District Tiny and small Scale Industries \n Associations (Maditssia),\n No.1-A-44, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Madurai-20.\n\n6.A.K.B.Nawas Babu\t\t... Respondents\n\nPrayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.13528 of 2008 in O.S.No.5602 of 2008 on the file of the Xii Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai dated 18.08.2008.\n\n\tFor Petitioner\t\t: Mr.Silambannan for\n \t\t\t\t M/s.D.Saravanan\n\t\n\tFor Rr 1,2 & 3\t\t: Mrs.P.Shanthi Rakkappan, G.A.\n\tFor Rr 4 & 5\t\t: Mr.S.Parthasarathy, S.C.\n\t\t\t\t\t For Mr.M.Ravishankar\n\tFor Rr 6\t\t\t: Mr.V.Lakshmi Narayanan for\n\t\t\t\t\t M/s.S.Congious Elango\n\n\nOrder\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 176,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 204,
"end": 301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 310,
"end": 405,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 471,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 479,
"end": 622,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 631,
"end": 767,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 770,
"end": 788,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1062,
"end": 1073,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1132,
"end": 1151,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1178,
"end": 1193,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1214,
"end": 1227,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1245,
"end": 1264,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nUnion Of India & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nGodfrey Philips India Ltd. Etc. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 88,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore\n\n Before Division Bench: Justice P.K. Jaiswal\n Justice Alok Verma\n\n Cr.A. No.717/2011\n Shakir\n vs\n The State of Madhya Pradesh\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPresence :\n\nFor appellant : Shri Ashish Sharma, Advocate\n\nFor respondent : Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy.\n A.G. for the respondent/State.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Cr.A. No.601/2011\n Shahadat\n vs\n The State of Madhya Pradesh\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nPresence :\n\nFor appellant : Shri Gaurav Shrivastava, Advocate\n\nFor respondent : Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Dy.\n A.G. for the respondent/State.\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 54,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 109,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 161,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 252,
"end": 258,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 324,
"end": 347,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 506,
"end": 519,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 580,
"end": 592,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 867,
"end": 875,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 941,
"end": 964,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1123,
"end": 1141,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1202,
"end": 1214,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nUnion Of India\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nRam Charan & Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 56,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 1315 of 2005\n\nPetitioner:\nNallapati Sivaiah\n\nRespondent:\nSub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, A.P.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 51,
"end": 68,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 118,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated : 02..12..2006\n\nC O R A M\n\n\nThe Honourable Mrs. Justice Prabha Sridevan\n\n\n\nWrit Petition Nos.23581 to 23584 of 2006\n\n\n\nSelvi J. Jayalalitha \t\t\t\t.. Petitioner in \n\t\t\t\t\t\tW.P. No.23581 of 2006\n\nV.K. Sasikala\t\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner in \n\t\t\t\t\t\tW.P. No.23582 of 2006\n\nM/s. Sasi Enterprises,\n14, Parsn Manere,\n602, Anna Salai,\nChennai-6, rep. by its\t\t\t\t.. Petitioner in W.P. Nos.\nPartner V.K. Sasikala.\t\t\t\t23583 and 23584 of 2006\n\n\n\n\t\t\t\t Versus\n\n\n1. The Union of India,\n Rep. by its Secretary,\n Finance Department, \n North Block, \n New Delhi-110 001.\n\n2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, \n Central Circle Ii(2),\n Chennai-34.\n\n3. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,\n Central Circle Ii(2), \t\t\t.. Respondents in \n Chennai-34.\t\t\t\t\tall the Writ Petitions\n\n- - - - -\nPrayer : \tWrit Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to issue writs of declaration to declare that Section 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is ultra vires, illegal, unreasonable and unconstitutional, repugnant to the Constitution of India. \t\n- - - - -\n\n For Petitioners : Mr. Guru Krishnakumar and\n\t\t\t Mr. Subramanium Prasad for \n\t\t\t Mr. N. Jothi, Assisted by \n\t\t\t Mr. L.G. Shanmugha Sundaram,\n\t\t \t Mr. A. Kandasamy and\n\t\t\t Mr. V. Karthikeyan.\n\t\t\n For Respondents \t: Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, \n\t\t \tAdditional Solicitor General of India, \n\t\t \tAssisted by Mr. K. Ramasamy, \n\t\t \tSenior Public Prosecutor for I.T. Cases, \n\t\t \tMr. S. Rajappa and\n\t\t\t Mr. P. Wilson, Asst. Solicitor General of India.\t \n\n- - - - -\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 105,
"end": 120,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 188,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 241,
"end": 254,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 312,
"end": 328,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 496,
"end": 510,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 613,
"end": 683,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 692,
"end": 750,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1153,
"end": 1170,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1192,
"end": 1210,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1233,
"end": 1241,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1273,
"end": 1296,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1315,
"end": 1327,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1349,
"end": 1363,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1404,
"end": 1421,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1506,
"end": 1517,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1592,
"end": 1602,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1622,
"end": 1631,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (civil) 8161-8162 of 2003\nAppeal (civil) 8163-8164 of 2003\n\nPetitioner:\nUnion of India and Anr.\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRespondent:\nAzadi Bachao Andolan and Anr.\t\t\t\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 91,
"end": 106,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 134,
"end": 154,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated:- 12.10.2006\n\nCoram:-\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice P.Sathasivam\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice S.Manikumar\n\n\nCrl.O.P. No.21432 of 2002\n\n\nManjula\t\t\t\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\n\tvs.\n\nM/s.Colgate Palmolive (India)\nLimited, represented by\nits authorised signatory\nT.Harikumar.\t\t\t\t\t\t... Respondent\n\n\n\tCriminal Original Petition filed to call for the records relating to Cc No.1130 of 2002, on the file of the Viii Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, and quash the same.\n\n\t\n\tFor Petitioner\t\t: Mr.K.Kannan\n\n\tFor Respondent\t\t: Mr.M.L.Joseph,\n\t\t\t\t for M/s.Surana & Surana\n\n\tMr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor, to assist the Court.\n- - - - -\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 111,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 154,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 185,
"end": 192,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 242,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 541,
"end": 549,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 573,
"end": 583,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 620,
"end": 639,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nDr. Ram Manohar Lohia\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Bihar And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 53,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Pvr 1/17 apl23-13-wp3739-11grp.sxw\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Writ Petition No.3739 Of 2011\n\n\n\n\n \n Shyambahadur Purshottam Sharma. ...Petitioner\n vs.\n 1.Shri.Sudhakar Narshu Poojary.\n 2.State of Maharashtra ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n \n With\n\n Criminal Writ Petition No.3740 Of 2011\n\n Shyambahadur Purshottam Sharma. ...Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n \n vs.\n 1.Shri.Sudhakar Narshu Poojary.\n \n 2.State of Maharashtra ...Respondents\n With\n \n Criminal Writ Petition No.3741 Of 2011\n\n Shyambahadur Purshottam Sharma. ...Petitioner\n vs.\n \n\n 1.Shri.Bhupen Tokarshi Gala\n 2.State of Maharashtra ...Respondents\n \n\n\n\n With\n\n Criminal Writ Petition No.3742 Of 2011\n\n\n\n\n\n Shyambahadur Purshottam Sharma. ...Petitioner\n vs.\n 1.Shri.Bhupen Tokarshi Gala\n 2.State of Maharashtra ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n With\n\n Criminal Application u/Sec.482 No.23 Of 2013\n and\n Criminal Application u/Sec.482 No.24 Of 2013\n\n Deepak Sevantilal Javeri ...Applicant\n vs.\n 1.M/s.Alpha Exports\n 2.The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents\n ---\n\n\n\n \n Pvr 2/17 apl23-13-wp3739-11grp.sxw\n\n Mr.Niranjan Mundargi @ Mr.H.H.Nagi i/b. M/s.H.H.Nagi & Associates, for\n Petitioner in W.P.nos.3739 of 2011 to 3742 of 2011.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.Ashish Mehta @ Mr.Mehul A.Rathod, for the Applicant in Apl nos.23 of 2013\n and 24 of 2013.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.Jatin P.Shah, for Respondent no.1 in W.P.nos.3739 of 2011 to 3742 of 2011.\n\n Mr.Hemant Jain - in person- Representative of Respondent no.1-M/s.Alpha\n Exports present in Court in Apl nos.23/2013 & 24/2013.\n\n\n\n\n \n Mr.A.R.Patil, App for State-Respondent no.2.\n\n Mr.Murtaza Najmi, Amicus Curie.\n\n\n\n\n \n ---\n ig Coram : K.U.Chandiwal, J.\n\n Reserved On : 22nd August, 2013.\n \n Pronounced On : 23rd August, 2013\n ---\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 93,
"end": 127,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 401,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 461,
"end": 484,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 490,
"end": 512,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 707,
"end": 737,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 842,
"end": 865,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 900,
"end": 922,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1093,
"end": 1123,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1197,
"end": 1217,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1222,
"end": 1244,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1405,
"end": 1435,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1495,
"end": 1515,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1520,
"end": 1542,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1794,
"end": 1818,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1882,
"end": 1895,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1906,
"end": 1926,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2148,
"end": 2165,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2171,
"end": 2179,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2366,
"end": 2378,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2384,
"end": 2398,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2530,
"end": 2542,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2613,
"end": 2624,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2810,
"end": 2819,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2860,
"end": 2873,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3046,
"end": 3059,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nS. L. Goswami\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Madhya Pradesh\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 70,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Fir No. 124/06\n State Vs. Sunil Kumar \n U/s. 279/304A Ipc & 185 Mv Act\n Ps: Keshav Puram\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Viplav Dabas Mm\u00ad4(North West) Rohini \n Courts Delhi\n\n Fir No. 124/06\n State Vs. Sunil Kumar \n U/s. 279/304A Ipc & 185 Mv Act\n Ps: Keshav Puram \n\n\nCase Id No. 02404R0381922006 \n\nDate of Institution of case : 21.12.2006\nDate of Judgment : 31.10.2014\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 88,
"end": 93,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 109,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 349,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 350,
"end": 436,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 582,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 587,
"end": 598,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao \n\nM.A.C.M.A No.3149 of 2009 \n\n28-04-2014 \n\nUnited India Insurance Co. Ltd..... Appellant\n \nY.Padmaja Vani and others.. Respondents \n\nCounsel for Appellant : Sri V. Sambasiva Rao \n\nCounsel for Respondent No.3: Sri Posani Venkateswarlu \n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n1)2001 (1) Alt 495\n2)2014(1) Ald 111 (Sc) \n3)2011 (6) Alt 321 = Laws (Aph) 2010-7-52 \n4)Laws (Sc) 2013-8-57 \n5)(2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 456 \n6) Air 2012 Sc 86 \n\nThe Honble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao \n\nM.A.C.M.A. No.3149 of 2009 \n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 127,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 152,
"end": 166,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 226,
"end": 242,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 278,
"end": 298,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 533,
"end": 552,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated : 22-08-2008\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice P.K. Misra\nAnd\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice K. Mohan Ram\n\nO.S.A.NOs.377 & 378 Of 2001\n\nM/s. Perfect Automotive Components,\n216, Hans Bhawan,\nBahadur Shah Zafar Marg,\nNew Delhi 110 002.\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant in \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t OSA.No.377 of 2001\n\nM/s. Pricol Lubricants (India)\n\tPvt. Ltd.,\n216, Hans Bhawan,\nBahadur Shah Zafar Marg,\nNew Delhi 110 002.\t\t\t\t\t.. Appellant in\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t OSA.No.378 of 2001\n\n\t\t\t\t\tVs.\n\nM/s. Premier Instruments & Controls Ltd.,\nNo.6, Church Lane, Ritherdon Road,\nVepery, Madras 7.\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondent in both OSAs Appeals filed under Order 36 Rule 1 of the O.S. Rules and Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common judgment dated 3.2.2000 passed in C.S.Nos.534 & 535 of 1993 passed by the learned single Judge.\n\t\tFor Appellant in\t\t: M/s.V. Nataraj\n\t\tboth OSAs\t\t\t B. Giridhar Rao\n\n\t\tFor Respondent in\n\t\tboth OSAs\t\t\t: Mrs. Gladys Daniel\n- - -\n\nCommon Judgment\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 109,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 141,
"end": 153,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 189,
"end": 218,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 377,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 509,
"end": 544,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 897,
"end": 912,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 956,
"end": 969,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n\n\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n Criminal Appeal No.2094 Of 2011\n\n (Arising out of Slp (Crl.) No.9919 of 2010)\n\n\n\n\nShiji @ Pappu and Ors. ...Appellants\n\n\n\n Versus\n\n\n\nRadhika and Anr. ...Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 42,
"end": 64,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 244,
"end": 257,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 346,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Second Appeal No.33 of 2007\n\n Against the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2006 passed by the\n learned Additional District Judge - 7th Patna in Title Appeal No. 60\n of 2006 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and\n decree dated 3.5.2006 passed by Sub Judge-3rd, Patna in Title Suit\n No. 69 of 2006.\n ===========================================================\n Dilip Gupta & Anr.\n .... .... Plaintiffs-Appellants-Appellants\n\n Versus\n Debashish Palit & Ors.\n .... .... Defendants-Defendants-Respondents\n ===========================================================\n Appearance :\n For the Appellants : Mr. J.S. Arora, Advocate.\n Mr. Bhuwaneshwar Prasad, Advocate.\n\n For respondent No.1. : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Advocate.\n Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate.\n Mr. R. K. Sinha No.2, Advocate.\n Mr. Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate.\n\n For respondent Nos. 10, 11 & 12 : Mr. Siddheshwari Prasad Sinha, Sr. Advocate.\n Mr. Srinandan Prasad Singh, Advocate.\n Mr. Krishan Kumar Sinha, Advocate with him.\n\n ===========================================================\n Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Mungeshwar Sahoo\n Cav Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 511,
"end": 522,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 690,
"end": 705,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 938,
"end": 948,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1002,
"end": 1021,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1087,
"end": 1102,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1167,
"end": 1178,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1243,
"end": 1254,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1324,
"end": 1342,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1409,
"end": 1434,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1504,
"end": 1526,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1592,
"end": 1611,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1743,
"end": 1759,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSutlej Cotton Mills Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nCommr. Of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 36,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 99,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": ":1:\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 27Th Day Of June 2012\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice K.N.Keshavanarayana\n\n MFA.No.11358 Of 2008 (Mv) C/w\n MFA.No.1397 Of 2009 (Mv)\n\n\nIn MFA.No.11358/08\n\nBetween:\n\nBajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,\nNo.105-A to 107-A, Cears Plaza,\n136, Residency Road,\nBangalore-560 025.\nRepresented by its Senior Legal Executive\nSmt.Geetha Raj, R.O.\nBangalore. ... Appellant\n\n[By Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate]\n\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Sri.B.R.Basavaraj,\n S/o Rudrappa Banakar,\n Aged about 35 years,\n Ayurvedic Doctor, (B.H.M.S.)\n Residing at Kundur Village,\n Honnali Taluk.\n\n2. Sri.Shivappa.B.,\n S/o Bharamappa,\n Aged about 43 years,\n Residing at Bisleri Village,\n Davangere Taluk.\n :2:\n3. Sri.H.Mallikarjuna,\n S/o G.Halappa,\n Aged about 38 years,\n Residing at Lokikere Village,\n Near Vijaya Bank,\n Davangere Taluk.\n (Owner of M.C) ....Respondents\n\n[By Sri.V.Mahesha, Advocate for R-1;\nRespondent Nos. 2 and 3 are served but unrepresented]\n\n This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under\nSection 173 (1) of Mv Act, against the judgment and\naward dated 25.10.2008 passed in Mvc No.189/2006\n(Old No.641/2006) on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn)\nand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Harihar, awarding\na compensation of Rs.2,01,000/- with interest at 6%\np.a. from the date of petition till payment.\n\n\nIn MFA.No.1397/09\n\nBetween:\n\nB.R.Basavaraj,\nS/o Rudrappa Banakar,\nAged about 34 years,\nAyurvedic Doctor, (B.H.M.S.)\nResiding at Kundur Village,\nHonnali Taluk,\nDavanagere. ....Appellant\n\n[By Sri.V.Mahesha for Sri.A.Hanumanthappa,\nAdvocates]\n :3:\nAnd:\n\n1. Shivappa.B.,\n S/o Bharamappa,\n Driver of Motor Bike\n Bearing No.KA-17/V-632,\n Hero Honda Splendor,\n Residing at Bisleri Village,\n Davangere.\n\n2. H.Mallikarjuna,\n S/o Halappa,\n Aged Major,\n Residing at Lokikere Village,\n Near Vijaya Bank,\n Davangere Taluk.\n (Owner of the vehicle Bearing\n No.KA-17/V-632, Hero Honda Splendor)\n\n3. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,\n No.105-A, I Floor, Cears Plaza,\n 136, Residency Road,\n Bangalore. ...Respondents\n\n[By Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar, Advocate for R-3;\nRespondent No. 2 is served and unrepresented;\nNotice to R-1 is dispensed with vide order dated 6.3.2012]\n\n This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under\nSection 173 (1) of Mv Act, against the judgment and\naward dated 25.10.2008 passed in Mvc No.189/2006\n(Old No.641/2006) on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn)\nand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Harihar, partly\nallowing the claim petition for compensation and\nseeking enhancement of compensation.\n\n These Appeals coming for hearing on this day, the\ncourt delivered the following:\n :4:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 52,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 183,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 302,
"end": 337,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 540,
"end": 554,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 585,
"end": 598,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 762,
"end": 773,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 927,
"end": 941,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1135,
"end": 1144,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1611,
"end": 1624,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1805,
"end": 1814,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1823,
"end": 1838,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1898,
"end": 1909,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2083,
"end": 2097,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2313,
"end": 2352,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2482,
"end": 2496,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Vineeta Goyal, Additional District Judge \u00ad \n 01, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District, New Delhi\n\n\nRca No. 39/13\nUnique Id no. 02403C0116362013\n\n\nDr. A.S. Beniwal \nC/o Beniwal Clinic\nRz\u00ad35/F, Dada Chhatariwala Marg,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110045. ......... Appellant\n Versus\nFamily Planning Assn. Of India\nThrough it's National President,\nBajaj Bhawan, Nariman Point,\nMumbai\u00ad40021.\nAlso at\nFpai Bhawan, Sector Iv,\nR.K. Puram,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110022 .......Respondent\n\n Petition presented On : 30.07.2013\n Arguments Heard On : 27.10.2014\n Judgment Pronounced On : 05.11.2014\n\n\nAppearance : Sh. Ajay Chaudhary, counsel for the Appellant.\n Sh. Asit Tiwari, counsel for the Respondent.\n\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 125,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 179,
"end": 191,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 422,
"end": 452,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 963,
"end": 977,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1051,
"end": 1062,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe State Of Bombay And\t Another\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nF.N. Balsara\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 31,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 76,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-:1:-\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Manu Vedwan, Ld. Metropolitan \n Magistrate : Special Court - 05 (Ni Act) : Dwarka : Delhi\n\n\nSeniors Builders Ltd Vs. Shourya Towers Pvt Ltd & another\n Complaint Case No. 97/14\n P.S. : R. K. Puram\n U/s. : 138 N.I.Act\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 33,
"end": 44,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 46,
"end": 126,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 149,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 154,
"end": 176,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n Reportable\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Civil Appeal No. 5733 Of 2008\n (Arising out of Slp [C] No.12056 of 2007)\n\n\n\nNational Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant\n\nVs.\n\nM/s. Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondents\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 109,
"end": 131,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 320,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 393,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Ravinder Singh\u00adIi\n Metropolitan Magistrate\n Dwarka Courts, New Delhi\n\nCase No. : 5051/14\nUnique Case Id No. : 02405R0107502011\n\nOm Parkash Bhardwaj\nS/o Sh. Daya Kishan\nR/o Wz\u00ad199E, Raj Nagar,\nPart\u00adII, Near Gupta Hardware,\nPalam Colony,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110045. .................................................Complainant\n\n Versus\n\nGeeta Rani\nW/o Sh. Ashok Kumar\nR/o Rz\u00ad239D\u00ad208A, Old Gurdwara \nDda Park Road, Raj Nagar Part\u00adII,\nPalam Colony, \nNewDelhi\u00ad110045. \n\nAlso at: \nGeeta Rani\nW/o Ct. Ashok Kumar\nBelt No. 3382/Dap, Pis No. 28031624,\nFirst Batallian, Dcp Recruitment Cell,\nNew Police Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.\n\nAlso at:\nC/o Sh. Ramesh\nS/o Sh. Tek Chand\nVillage Chhoti Goond (Khark Boon),\nTeshsil & Distt. Bhiwani, Haryana.\n\nAlso at:\nC/o Sh. Anil Singh Namberdar\nS/o Sh. Viza Singh\nVillage Kanti, Teshsil Narnaul,\nDistt. Mahendergarh, Haryana........................................Accused\n\n\nDate of Institution: 23.02.2011\nPlea of the accused: Pleaded Not Guilty\nDate of Reserving Judgment: 19/07/2014\nSentence or final Order: Convicted\nDate of Judgment: 23/08/2014\n\n\n Cc No. 5051/14 Om Parkash Bhardwaj Vs. Geeta Rani Page No. 13/13\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 135,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 195,
"end": 214,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 447,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1472,
"end": 1491,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1496,
"end": 1506,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated: 20/07/2011\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma\n\nWrit Petition(MD)No.5859 of 2008\nand\nM.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009\n\nM/s. Vicnivaas Agency,\n289-D, Sivanthakulam Road,\nTuticorin - 628 003,\nRepresented by its Partner\nShri. T.P.S.Ponkumaran \t\t...... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1. Shri N. K. Raghupathi I.A.S.,\n Now working as Additional Secretary &\n Financial Adviser,\n Department of Consumer Affairs,\n Food & Public Distribution,\n Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi - 110 001\n Residing at C-Ii/80, Bapa Nagar,\n New Delhi - 110 001.\n\n\n2. The Union of India,\n Represented by its Secretary to\n the Government,\n Department of Shipping (Ports Wing),\n Ministry of Shipping,\n Road Transport and Highways,\n Parivahan Bhawan,\n 1, Parliament Street,\n New Delhi - 110 001.\n\n\n3. V O C Port Trust,\n formerly Tuticorin Port Trust,\n represented by its Chairman,\n Tuticorin. \t\t\t...... Respondents\n\n\t\tWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for issuance of a Writ of Declaration, (a) declaring that the actions of\nthe first respondent caused against the petitioner viz., demolishing their\nproperty and suspension of stevedoring license are unlawful, ultra vires, mala\nfide, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust, perverse and vindictive, and therefore\nviolative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and unconstitutional; (b) declaring that the\nactions of the first respondent caused against the petitioner are in\ncontravention to the All India Service (Conduct) Rules 1968; (c) directing the\nfirst respondent to pay Rs.3 crores with interest from this date to the\npetitioner firm for causing monetary loss, harassment, mental agony, and\nhardship; (d) directing the second respondent to take appropriate steps with the\nconcerned Government Departments for payment of the above amount to the\npetitioner from the first respondent's account committing misuse of office and\nabuse of power and for infringing the fundamental rights of the petitioner.\n\n!For Petitioner\t... Mr. N. Dilip Kumar\n^For Respondents... Mr. V. T. Gopalan\n\t\t Senior Counsel for\n\t\t Mr. R. Sathish Kumar for R-1\n\t\t Mr. K. K. Senthilvelan for R-2\n\t\t Assistant Solicitor General of India\n\t\t Mr. S. Yashwanth for R-3\n- - - - - - - -\n:Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 100,
"end": 115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 197,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 347,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 606,
"end": 620,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 864,
"end": 880,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2076,
"end": 2090,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2116,
"end": 2129,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2166,
"end": 2182,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2202,
"end": 2220,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2284,
"end": 2296,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(C).No. 1016 of 2010(B)\n\n\n1. Mary Ulahannan, Proprietor,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Union Of India,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State Of Kerala,\n\n3. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,\n\n4. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,\n\n5. Bharath Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,\n\n6. District Collector, Ernakulam.\n\n7. Tahsildar, Muvattupuzha.\n\n8. Executive Engineer,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Alias M.Cherian\n\n For Respondent :Sri.T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan,Asst.S.G Of Indi\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon\n\n Dated :23/05/2011\n\n O R D E R\n (Cr.)\n\n\n\n P.R. Ramachandra Menon J.\n\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\n W.P (C) Nos. 1016, 1017, 1564, 3349,\n\n 3360, 3371, 5895, 7362, 25211,\n\n 25590 27176, 27236, 30337, 30650,\n\n 30651, 33944, 37417, 38283 of 2010,\n\n 652, 656, 1254, 2159, 2427, 3373,\n\n 3471, 4071, 4863, 5034, 6257,\n\n 7159, 7197 of 2011\n\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n Dated, this the 23rd day of May, 2011\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 73,
"end": 87,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 187,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 252,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 294,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 300,
"end": 327,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 333,
"end": 367,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 403,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 408,
"end": 432,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 437,
"end": 455,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 495,
"end": 510,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 549,
"end": 567,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 610,
"end": 631,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 727,
"end": 749,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nPandurang Dhoni Chougule\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMaruti Hari Jadhav\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 36,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 56,
"end": 74,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Barkha Gupta : Judge : Mact : \n (North West District) Delhi\nMact No. : 112/08\nUnique Id No. : 02404C0196292008\n\n Amita Sharma w/o Sh. Sanjay Sharma,\n R/o Wa\u00ad19/20, Shakarpur, Delhi\u00ad92. .....(Petitioner)\n\n Versus\n 1. Sh.Virender Singh ... (he was the driver cum owner \n of the offending vehicle/R1 who had \n expired during trial and \n following persons are impleaded \n as his LRs).\n a) Sumitra W/o Sh. Ishwar Singh\n b) Mrs. Urmila W/o Late Virender Singh\n c) Ms. Preeti D/o Late Virender Singh\n d) Ms. Sushmita D/o Late Virender Singh\n e) Master Tushant S/o Late Virender Singh\n All R/o Village Jakhoda, Tehsil Bahadurgarh,\n Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana.\n (Respondent Nos. C to E are minors, who are being represented by their mother and natural guardian Mrs. Urmila)\n\n 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. \n\n Regd. Oriental House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi\u00ad110002. .......(Insurer/Respondent No.2) Mact No.112/08 Amita Sharma v. Sumitra 1 of 28 Other details:\u00ad Date Of Institution : 30.01.2008 Date Of Reserving Order : 27.08.2014 Date Of Pronouncement :30.08.2014 Award/Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 36,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 158,
"end": 170,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 331,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1110,
"end": 1141,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan At \nJaipur Bench Jaipur\n\n1.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2772/2012\n\tAmbuja Cements Ltd. \tV/s\tRaj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n2.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2850/2007\n\tRaj.Textile Mills Asso. \tV/s\tRaj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n3.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5128/2007\n\tM/s Shree Cement Ltd. \tV/s\tState of Rajasthan & ors.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\n4.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5270/2007\n\tM/s Dcm Shriram . \tV/s\tState of Rajasthan & ors.\n\tConsolidated Ltd.\t\nReportable\n5.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5151/2008\n\tM/s Binani Cement Ltd. V/s\tUnion of India & ors.\n\t\t\t\t\n\n6.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11285/2008\n\tM/s J.K.Lakshmi Cement V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\tLtd.\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n7.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11288/2008\n\tM/s Aditya Cement\t V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n8.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7616/2009\n\tM/s Manglam Cement Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n9.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7622/2009\n\tM/s Lucid Colloids Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n10.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9781/2009\n\tM/s Shriram Rayons Kota V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n11.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9783/2009\n\tAmbuja Cements Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n12.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10219/2009\n\tGrasim Industries Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n13.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11072/2009\n\tHindustan Copper Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n14.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11073/2009\n\tJ.K.Tyre & Industries Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n15.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14510/2009\n\tChambal Fertilisers and V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\tChemicals Ltd.\t\t\tCommission\n\n16.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14575/2009\n\tGrasim Industries Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n17.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4589/2011\n\tThe Raj.Textile Mills Asso. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n18.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6517/2011\n\tM/s J.K.Lakshmi Cement V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\tLtd.\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n19.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6518/2011\n\tHindustan Cooper Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n20.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6519/2011\n\tUltra Tech Cement Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n21.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6520/2011\n\tChambal Fertilisers and V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\tChemicals Ltd.\t\t Commission\n\n22.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6521/2011\n\tM/s Lucid Colloids Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n23.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6877/2011\n\tJ.K.Tyre & Industries Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n24.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7343/2011\n\tUltratech Cement Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n25.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7344/2011\n\tUltra Tech Cement Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n26.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10911/2011\n\tM/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n27.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10912/2011\n\tM/s Shriram Rayons Kota V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\n28.\tD.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10913/2011\n\tM/s Manglam Cement Ltd. V/s Raj.Electricity Regulatory\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCommission\n\nDate when the order was\nreserved\t\t\t\t\t:- \t\t \t21.8.2012\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t \nDate of pronouncement of\norder\t\t\t\t\t\t:-\t \t 31.8.2012\n\nPresent\n\nHon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Arun Mishra \nHon'ble Mr.Justice Narendra Kumar Jain-I\n\nMr.P.N.Bhandari\t\t\t\t\t)\nMr.Kamlakar Sharma, Sr.Counsel with\t)\nMs.Alankrita Sharma\t\t\t\t)\nMr.Sudhir Gupta,Sr.Counsel with \t\t)-for the petitioners.\nMr.Sachin Mehta\t\t\t\t\t)\n\n\nMr.Virendra Lodha, Sr.Counsel with\t\t)\nMr.Ankit Jain\t\t\t\t\t)\nMr.Bipin Gupta\t\t\t\t\t)\nMr.Pradeep Kalwania\t\t\t\t)-for the respondents.\n\nOrder\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 69,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 113,
"end": 132,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 164,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 248,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 297,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 345,
"end": 362,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 386,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 448,
"end": 459,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 485,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 570,
"end": 588,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 593,
"end": 607,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 669,
"end": 687,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 693,
"end": 725,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 789,
"end": 802,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 809,
"end": 852,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 900,
"end": 919,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 924,
"end": 967,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1015,
"end": 1034,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1039,
"end": 1082,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1131,
"end": 1150,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1155,
"end": 1198,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1243,
"end": 1262,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1267,
"end": 1310,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1356,
"end": 1379,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1384,
"end": 1427,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1472,
"end": 1494,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1499,
"end": 1542,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1588,
"end": 1615,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1620,
"end": 1663,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1709,
"end": 1728,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1739,
"end": 1765,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1840,
"end": 1863,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1868,
"end": 1911,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1959,
"end": 1981,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1987,
"end": 2030,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2079,
"end": 2097,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2103,
"end": 2150,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2195,
"end": 2216,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2221,
"end": 2264,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2309,
"end": 2331,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2336,
"end": 2379,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2424,
"end": 2443,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2453,
"end": 2479,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2562,
"end": 2581,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2586,
"end": 2629,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2674,
"end": 2700,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2705,
"end": 2748,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2793,
"end": 2815,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2820,
"end": 2863,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2908,
"end": 2931,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2936,
"end": 2979,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3028,
"end": 3047,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3052,
"end": 3095,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3145,
"end": 3164,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3170,
"end": 3213,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3263,
"end": 3282,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3287,
"end": 3330,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3496,
"end": 3507,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3528,
"end": 3547,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 3554,
"end": 3566,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3576,
"end": 3591,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3614,
"end": 3630,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3639,
"end": 3651,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3696,
"end": 3708,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3720,
"end": 3734,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3758,
"end": 3768,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3778,
"end": 3789,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3799,
"end": 3815,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl A No. 282 of 1999()\n\n\n\n1. Gemini\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n1. Chandran\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.C.J.Joy\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.Hema\n\n Dated :14/07/2006\n\n O R D E R\n K.Hema, J.\n\n --------------------------------------------------\n\n Crl. A. No. 282 Of 1999-B\n\n --------------------------------------------------\n\n Dated this the 14th day of July, 2006\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 78,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 149,
"end": 157,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 240,
"end": 247,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 326,
"end": 332,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 405,
"end": 411,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nWorkmen Of M/S Hindustan Lever Ltd. & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nManagement Of M/S Hindusian Lever Ltd.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 47,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 74,
"end": 112,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7321 of 2015\n===========================================================\nRakesh Kumar Sah Son of Gajendra Prasad Sah, resident of village- Roshana Bazar, Post Office + Police Station- Pranpur, District- Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi\n2. The Secretary, Department of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi\n3. The Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Corporate Office, lot No. 3079/3, Sadia Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi- 110049 through its Chairman\n4. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Corporate Office, lot No. 3079/3, Sadia Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi- 110049\n5. The Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, G-9, Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051\n6. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division), Bihar State Office, Loknayak Jaiprakash Bhawan (5th Floor), Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna- 800001\n7. The Senior Divisional Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Marketing Division), Begusarai Divisional Office, P.O. Barauni Oil Refinery, District- Begusarai (Bihar) 851114\n8. The Manager (Refinery Coordination) Barauni Marketing Terminal, Indian Oil Corporation Limited (Marketing Division), Begusarai, Bihar- 854114\n9. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Katihar\n10. The District Magistrate Katihar\n11. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Katihar\n12. The Circle Officer, Pranpur, District- Katihar\n13. Sri Satish Prasad, son of not known the then Circle Officer, Pranpur, District-\n Katihar\n14. Sri Binod Kumar Gupta, son of Rameshwar Lal Gupta, of Village- Mahadeopur, P.O.- Mahadeopur, P.S.- Pranpur, District- Katihar\n15. Sri Jeewan Lal Agarwal, Son of Biseshwar Lal Agrawal, resident of village-\n Mahadeopur, P.O. Mahadeopur, P.S.- Pranpur, District- Katihar .... .... Respondent/s with =========================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9456 of 2015 =========================================================== Jiwan Lal Agrawal Son of Sri Biseshwar Lal Agrawal, resident of Village + P.O.-\nMahadevpur, P.S.- Pranpur, District- Katihar. \n\n .... .... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Corporate Office, Lot No. 3079/3 Sadia Nagar, J.B. Tito Marg, New Delhi-110049 through its Chairman. \n\n2. The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Corporate Office, Lot No. 3079/3, New Delhi-110049. \n\n3. The Director (Marketing), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Patna High Court Cwjc No.7321 of 2015 dt.18-09-2017 2 Aliyavar Jung Marg, Bandar (East), Mumbai- 400051. \n\n 4. The General Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division), Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jaiprakash Bhawan, 5th Floor, Dak Bunglow Chowk, Patna-800001. \n\n 5. The Chief Manager (R.S.), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bihar State Office, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan 5th, Floor, Dak Banglow Chowk, Patna. \n\n 6. The Senior Divisional Sales Manager, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(Marketing Division), Begusarai Divisional office, P.O.- Barauni Oil Refinary, District- Begusarai (Bihar). \n\n 7. The Manager (Reginary Coordination), Barauni Marketing Terminal, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(Marketing Division), Begusarai (Bihar). \n\n 8. The Circle Officer, Bihar, Patna. \n\n 9. Binod Kumar Gupta Son of not known, resident of Village + P.O. Mahadevpur, P.S.- Pranpur, District- Katihar. \n\n 10. Rakesh Kumar Sah Son of Gajendra Prasad Sah, resident of Roshana Bazar, P.O. + P.S.- Pranpur, District- Katihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :\n (In Cwjc No.7321 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Adv. \n\n Mr. Piyush Saurav, Adv. \n\n For the Iocl : Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, Sr. Adv.\n Mr. Sanat Kr. Misha, Adv.\n For the Resp. No.14 : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Jha, Adv.\n Mr. Jibendra Mishra, Adv.\n For the Resp. No.15 : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Adv.\n Mr. Mukesh Kr. Jha, Adv.\n Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Adv.\n For the State : Mr. S.S. Prasad- Sc8\n Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ac to Sc-8\n (In Cwjc No.9456 of 2015)\n For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Adv. \n\n Mr. Mukesh Kr. Jha, Adv. \n\n Mr. Bhola Prasad, Adv. \n\n For Ioc : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Adv.\n Mr. Amlesh Kumar Verma, Adv.\n For the Resp. No. 9 : Mr. Dhirendra Kr. Jha, Adv.\n For the State : Mr. Binay Kumar, Ac to Sc-10\n =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 164,
"end": 180,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 353,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 449,
"end": 524,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 532,
"end": 562,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 673,
"end": 795,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 803,
"end": 912,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 920,
"end": 1082,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1090,
"end": 1267,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1275,
"end": 1412,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1420,
"end": 1434,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1484,
"end": 1511,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1520,
"end": 1558,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1567,
"end": 1609,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1618,
"end": 1631,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1711,
"end": 1728,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1841,
"end": 1859,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2169,
"end": 2186,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2331,
"end": 2358,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2469,
"end": 2559,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2569,
"end": 2659,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2758,
"end": 2917,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2928,
"end": 3063,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3075,
"end": 3241,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3253,
"end": 3379,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3392,
"end": 3420,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3428,
"end": 3445,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 3544,
"end": 3560,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 3806,
"end": 3826,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3840,
"end": 3853,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3902,
"end": 3916,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 3968,
"end": 3983,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4031,
"end": 4048,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4096,
"end": 4111,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4159,
"end": 4171,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4219,
"end": 4233,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4281,
"end": 4297,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4345,
"end": 4357,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4404,
"end": 4416,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4494,
"end": 4510,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4528,
"end": 4542,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4556,
"end": 4568,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4618,
"end": 4634,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4682,
"end": 4700,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4748,
"end": 4765,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4813,
"end": 4824,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 4929,
"end": 4943,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "W.P.1342/15 1\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh\n Bench At Gwalior\n Justice Sujoy Paul.\n Writ Petition No.1342/15\n\n Jai Prakash Agrawal\n Vs.\n Anand Agrawal & Ors.\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\nShri D.D.Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.\nShri K.S.Tomar, Senior Advocate with Shri J.S.Kaurav, Advocate\nfor respondents No. 1 to 3.\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 64,
"end": 137,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 180,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 282,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 352,
"end": 365,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 466,
"end": 476,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 512,
"end": 521,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 549,
"end": 559,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nShyam Sunder Agarwal & Co.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 38,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 58,
"end": 72,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n R\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 7th Day Of December 2012\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar\n\n M.F.A.No.7665 Of 2008 (Mv)\n C/W\n M.F.A No.491 Of 2009(Mv)\n\nMfa.No.7665 Of 2008\n\nBetween:\n\nBangalore Metropolitan\nTransport Corporation\nCentral Office\nK.H. Double Road\nShanthinagar\nBangalore\nBy Its Managing Director ...Appellant\n\n(By Sri: D. Vijayakumar, Adv., )\n\nAnd:\n\n 1. Sri. B.N. Nagesh\n S/O. Sri. Narasimha Shastry\n Aged About 52 Years\n\n 2. Smt. Kamala\n W/O. Sri B.N. Nagesh\n Aged About 47 Years\n 2\nBoth Are R/O. No.18/450\nNeera Ganthi Street\nAnanthapura Old Town\nKoteshwara Rao\nAndhrapradesh .....Respondents\n\n(By Sri: R. Chandrashekar, Adv., For M/S Lawyers\nNet, For R1 & 2)\n --------\n\n This Mfa Is Filed Under Section 173(1) Of M.V.\nAct Against The Judgment And Award Dated\n28.3.2008 Passed In Mvc No.4185/2006 On The File Of\nThe Vi Addl. Judge, Court Of Small Causes,\nMember, Mact, Metropolitan Area, Bangalroe\n(Scch.No.2), Awarding A Compensation Of\nRs.9,15,000/- With Interest At 7% P.A. From The Date\nOf Petition Till Deposit.\n\nM.F.A.No.491 Of 2009\n\nBetween:\n\n 1. B.N. Nagesh\n S/O. Narasimha Shastry\n Aged About 53 Years\n\n 2. Kamala\n W/O. B.N. Nagesh\n Aged About 48 Years\n\nBoth Are R/O. No.18/450\nNeera Ganthi Street\nAnanthapura Old Town\nKoteshwara Rao\nAndhrapradesh ......Appellants\n 3\n(By Sri: R. Chandrashekar, Adv., Form/S. Lawyers\nNet,)\n\n\nAnd:-\n\nThe Managing Director\nB.M.T.C\nK.H. Road\nShanthinagar\nBangalore-560 027. .....Respondent\n\n(By Sri: D. Vijaykumar, Adv.,)\n --------\n\n This Mfa Is Filed Under Section 173(1) Of M.V.\nAct Against The Judgment And Award Dated\n28.3.2008 Passed In Mvc No.4185/2006 On The File Of\nThe Vi Addl. Scj & Member, Mact, Bangalore Parly\nAllowing The Claim Petition For Compensation And\nSeeking Enhancement Of Compensation.\n\n These MFAs Coming On For Admission This Day,\nThe Court Delivered The Following:\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 65,
"end": 101,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 227,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 415,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 533,
"end": 547,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 574,
"end": 585,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 655,
"end": 661,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 882,
"end": 898,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1373,
"end": 1384,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1444,
"end": 1450,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1579,
"end": 1592,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1670,
"end": 1686,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1729,
"end": 1796,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1840,
"end": 1853,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nConsumer Education & Research Centre And Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India & Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 48,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 93,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nTilokchand Motichand & Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nH.B. Munshi & Anr.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 32,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 59,
"end": 70,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMotor General Traders & Anr. Etc. Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Etc. Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 33,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 70,
"end": 93,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nAppeal (crl.) 336 of 1996\n\nPetitioner:\nUday\n\nRespondent:\nState of Karnataka\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 50,
"end": 54,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 68,
"end": 86,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCRL.A.No. 1338 of 2010()\n\n\n1. Sasikumar, Aged 42 Years,\n ... Petitioner\n2. Gopi, Aged 48 Years, S/O.Krishnan,\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.V.Sethunath\n\n For Respondent : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K.Mohanan\n\n Dated :04/08/2011\n\n O R D E R\n V.K.Mohanan, J.\n ----------------------------------------\n Crl.A.Nos. 1338 & 2198 of 2010\n ----------------------------------------\n Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 81,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 139,
"end": 143,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 212,
"end": 227,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 311,
"end": 322,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 397,
"end": 408,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 468,
"end": 479,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSatyadhyan Ghosal And Others\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSm. Deorajin Debi And Another.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Appeal 991 Of 2008.doc\n\n\n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Appeal No.991 Of 2008\n\n\n\n\n \n Yashwant Hiraman Thakare ... Appellant\n v/s\n The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n \n ----------------------------------\n Mrs. Sonia Miskin, advocate appointed for Appellant.\n \n Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, App for State.\n ----------------------------------\n \n Coram: V.K.Tahilramani &\n B.P. Colabawalla, Jj.\n Reserved On : 7th May, 2015 Pronounced On : 8th May, 2015 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 78,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 374,
"end": 398,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 459,
"end": 479,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 625,
"end": 637,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 709,
"end": 722,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 851,
"end": 866,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 904,
"end": 920,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nBail Appl..No. 4229 of 2008()\n\n\n1. Santhosh Madhavan @ Amrutha Chaithanya\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. Circle Inspector Of Police\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State Of Kerala, Rep. By Its\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.S.Gopakumaran Nair (Sr.)\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K.Hema\n\n Dated :21/07/2008\n\n O R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 77,
"end": 115,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 188,
"end": 214,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 263,
"end": 278,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 348,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 433,
"end": 439,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nShankarsan Dash\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 47,
"end": 61,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Brijesh Kumar Garg; \n Special Judge:Cbi\u00ad01: Central: Delhi\n\n\nCriminal Appeal No. 1/2014\nCase Id No. 02401R0178422014\n\n\n1. Prem Dutta\n2. Smt. Santosh Dutta \n W/o Sh. Prem Dutta\n Both r/o Gf 13 B/1, Malka Ganj,\n Delhi\u00ad110 007\n .......Appellants\n Vs. \n\n\n1. Monika Dutta,\n W/o Sh. Punit Dutta,\n R/o Ff 13 B/1, Malka Ganj,\n New Delhi ........Respondent\n\n\n Date of filing : 19.04.2014\n Date of order: 23.07.2014\n\n\nO R D E R\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 50,
"end": 86,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 150,
"end": 160,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 169,
"end": 182,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 373,
"end": 385,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\n\nDated: 08.04.2011\n\nCoram:\nThe Hon'ble Mr.Justice T.S.Sivagnanam\n\nW.P.Nos. 7609 of 2001 and 26466 of 2001\n\n\nW.P.No.26466 of 2001\n\nR.Ramakrishnan\t\t\t\t\t\u0005 Petitioner\n\nVs.\n\n1.The Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property,\n New Delhi rep. by its Registrar,\n 4th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan,\n Khan Market, New Delhi.\n\n2.The Competent Authority,\n Smugglers, Foreign Exchange\n Manipulators (Forfeiture of\n Properties) Act, 1976 and\n Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act,\n 69/1, G.N.Chetty Street,\n Chennai \u0016 600017.\t\t\t\t\u0005 RespondentsW.P.No.7609 of 2001 Mohammed Thaha Umma (Deceased)\t\n\n1.S.S.A. Hayarunisha\n2.S.S.A. Sheik Kamal\n3.S.S.A. Aminath Fathima\n4.S.S.A. Ayshath Zulaiha\n5.S.S.A. Seyed Anifa\n6.S.S.A. Husain Jalal\n7.S.S.A. Kathija Rilwana\n8.S.S.A. Basheer \u0005 Petitioners P1 to P8 substituted as LRs in the place of the deceased petitioner vide court order dated 24.03.2011 in W.P.M.P.No.104/11. \n\nVs. \n\n1.Competent Authoirty, Smugglers, Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Properties) Act, Chennai.\n2.Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property,\n New Delhi.\t\t\t\t\t\t\u0005 Respondents\n\nPrayer in W.P.No.26466 of 2001:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the first respondent dated 01.10.2001 in F.P.A.No.70/MDS/98 and the order of the second respondent dated 28.09.1998 in F.No.OCA/MDS/2846/94 and quash the same. \n\nPrayer in W.P.No.7609 of 2001:- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the second respondent the Appellate Tribunal for forfeited Property, New Delhi in the order dated 31.01.2001 made in FPA.No.66/MDS/95 confirming the findings of the Competent Authority, Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, Chennai in Oca/Mds/348-352/76 dated 02.02.2000 and quash the same. \n\n For Petitioner :Mr.Rahul Balaji for M/s.Sathish Parasaran\n\t\t in W.P.No.26466 of 2001\n \t Mr.B.Kumar Senior counsel for R.Loganathan \n in W.P.7609/01 \nFor Respondents:Mr.M.L.Ramesh Senior Standing counsel for Rr1-2\nMr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisti Senior Standing counsel for Rr1-2\n\nC O M M O N O R D E R",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 110,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 176,
"end": 190,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 220,
"end": 261,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 365,
"end": 570,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 641,
"end": 661,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 662,
"end": 682,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 683,
"end": 707,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 708,
"end": 732,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 733,
"end": 753,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 754,
"end": 775,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 776,
"end": 800,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 801,
"end": 817,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 964,
"end": 1067,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1069,
"end": 1112,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2015,
"end": 2027,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2102,
"end": 2109,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2179,
"end": 2189,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2227,
"end": 2248,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nMrs. Rekha Chaturvedi\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUniversity Of Rajasthan And Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 18,
"end": 34,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 77,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras\nDated: 25.07.2014\nCoram\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice V.Dhanapalan\nand\nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice G.Chockalingam\n\nC.M.A.No.3215 of 2013\nand M.P.No.1 of 2013\n\nThe New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,\nMotor Third Party Claims Office,\nNo.45, Moore Street,\nChennai-600 001.\t\t... Appellant / 2nd Respondent\n-vs-\n\n1.\tR.Kala\n2.\tMinor R.Sudhan\n3.\tMinor R.Edhan\n4.\tVellaithai\n5.\tM.Muthu\t... Respondents / Petitioners\n6.\tP.Ramesh Kumar\t\t\t... Respondent / 1st Respondent\n\nPrayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act against the Decree and the judgment passed in M.C.O.P.No.4505 of 2006 dated 03.02.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Small Causes Court, Chennai.\n\t\tFor Appellant\t:\tMr.R.Neethi Perumal\n\n\t\tFor R1 to R5\t:\tMr.F.Terry Chellaraja\n\t\tFor R6\t\t:\tGiven Up\n*****\nJ U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 89,
"end": 101,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 129,
"end": 143,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 193,
"end": 221,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 335,
"end": 341,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 351,
"end": 359,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 376,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 380,
"end": 390,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 394,
"end": 401,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 449,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 757,
"end": 773,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 795,
"end": 813,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "20\n*In The High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi\n\n + MAC.APP.No.422/2009\n\n Date of Decision: 23rd February, 2010\n%\n\n Sobat Singh ..... Appellant\n Through: Mr. Kishan Nautiyal, Advocate.\n\n versus\n\n Ramesh Chandra Gupta & Anr. ..... Respondents\n Through: Mr. Atul Nanda, Ms. Rameeza,\n Mr.Sumeer and Ms. Sugandha,\n Advocates for Bajaj Allianz General\n Insurance Co. Ltd. with Mr. Sanjay\n Gupta, Manager.\n Mr. Atul Nanda, Ms. Rameeza,\n Mr.Sumeer and Ms. Sugandha,\n Advocates for Icici Lombard General\n Insurance Co. Ltd. with Mr.Gaurab\n Gaba, Manager.\n Ms. Manjusha Wadhwa and Ms. Harsh\n Lata, Advocates for Oriental Insurance\n Company Limited.\n Ms. Anjali Bansal, Advocate for Tata\n Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Bharti\n Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. and\n Future Generali India Insurance Co.\n Ltd.\n Mr. Sunil Kapoor and Mr. Anuraj\n Sharma, Advocates for Hdfc Ergo\n General Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Mr. S.L. Gupta, Advocate for National\n Insurance Company with Mr. Santosh\n K. Sood, Manager, Dro-I and Mr. N.\n Wadhwan, Asst. Manager, Dro-Ii.\n Ms. Adarsh Sabharwal, Adv. for\n Raheja Qbe General Insurance Co.\n Ltd.\n Ms. Shantha Devi Raman with Mr.\n Amit Maihen, Advocates for Iffco\n Tokyo General Insurance Co. Ltd.\n Mr.Pankaj Seth, Advocate for Reliance\n General Insurance Co. Ltd., Universal\n Sompo General Insurance co. Ltd. and\n Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance\n Co.Ltd.\n Mr. Kanwal Choudahary, Adv. for R-2.\nMAC.APP.No.422/2009 Page 1 of 21\n Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate for United\n Insurance Company with Mr. Harish\n Choudhary, Deputy Manager and Mr.\n Sanjeev Negi, Admn. Officer.\n Mr. O.P. Mannie, Amicus Curiae.\n Ms. Suman Bagga, Advocate for\n Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance\n Co. Ltd.\n\nCoram :-\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha\n\n1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may Yes\n be allowed to see the Judgment?\n\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be Yes\n reported in the Digest?\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 43,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 170,
"end": 181,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 273,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 322,
"end": 342,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 400,
"end": 410,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 416,
"end": 423,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 451,
"end": 457,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 466,
"end": 474,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 659,
"end": 669,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 675,
"end": 682,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 710,
"end": 716,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 725,
"end": 733,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 916,
"end": 931,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 940,
"end": 973,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1075,
"end": 1088,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1342,
"end": 1354,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1363,
"end": 1399,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1502,
"end": 1512,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1734,
"end": 1750,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1872,
"end": 1890,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1923,
"end": 1934,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2038,
"end": 2049,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2309,
"end": 2326,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2447,
"end": 2460,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2699,
"end": 2710,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2760,
"end": 2771,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2922,
"end": 2932,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. R. B Singh\n Additional District Judge \u00ad01 (West): Delhi\nRca No. 25/12 Id No. 02401C0156802012\n\n1. Sh. Surinder Narang\n S/o Sh. J. C Narang\n\n2. Smt. Janak Narang\n W/o Sh. Surinder Narang,\n\n Both residents of :\n A\u00ad72, Yojna Vihar, \n Delhi - 110092. ..... Appellants\n Versus\nSmt. Madhu Rani\nW/o Sh. J. C Narang,\nA\u00ad72, Yojna Vihar, \nDelhi - 110092. ....Respondent\n\nDate of Institution : 07.04.2012\nDate of arguments heard : 19.12.2014\nDate of Decision : 23.12.2014\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 30,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 32,
"end": 75,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 187,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 228,
"end": 240,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 481,
"end": 491,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao And The Honble Mrs. Justice Anis \n\nWrit Petition No.16943 of 2015 \n\n26-10-2015 \n\nHameeda Begum W/o Sri Hamza Bin Omer @ Zaffer Pehalwan R/o H.No.18-7-418/4, \nRahmath Nagar Yakuthpura, Hyderabad . Petitoner \n\nState of Telangana Rep. by its Secretary Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad \nand 5 others Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ch. Siddhartha Sarma Counsel for the Respondents :G.P for Home, State of Telangana Head Note: \n? Citations:\n1. Air 1966 Sc 740 \n2. (1969) 2 Scr 635 = (Air) 1970 Sc 852 \n3. (1970) 3 Scc 746 \n4. (1972) 3 Scc 831 \n5. Air 1972 Sc 1749 \n6. Air 1975 Sc 1215 \n7. 1982 (2) Scc 403 The Honble Sri Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao And The Honble Mrs. Justice Anis Writ Petition No.16943 of 2015 Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 43,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 72,
"end": 76,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 147,
"end": 160,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 301,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 423,
"end": 443,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 731,
"end": 751,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 780,
"end": 784,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Reportable\n\n\n\n\n In The Supreme Court Of India\n\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1750 Of 2008\n\n\n\n\n Hardeep Singh\n \u2026Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n State of Punjab & Ors.\n \u2026Respondents\n\n With\n\n Criminal Appeal No. 1751 of 2008\n\n Manjit Pal Singh\n \u2026Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n State of Punjab & Anr.\n \u2026Respondents\n\n With\n\n Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9184 of 2008\n\n Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria & Anr.\n \u2026Appellants\n\n\n\n\n Versus\n\n State of Gujarat & Ors.\n \u2026Respondents\n\n With\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7209 of 2010\n\n Rajendra Sharma & Anr.\n \u2026Appellants\n\n\n\n\n Versus\n\n State of M.P. & Anr.\n \u2026Respondents\n\n With\n\n Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5724 of 2009\n\n\n\n\n Ravinder Kumar & Anr.\n \u2026Appellants\n\n Versus\n\n State of Haryana & Ors.\n \u2026Respondents\n\n With\n\n Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5975 of 2009\n\n\n\n\n Tej Pal & Anr.\n \u2026Appellants\n\n Versus\n\n State of Haryana & Ors.\n \u2026Respondents\n\n With\n\n Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9040 of 2010\n\n Juned Pahalwan\n \u2026Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n State of U.P.& Anr.\n \u2026Respondents\n\n With\n\n Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5331 of 2009\n\n Rajesh @ Sanjai\n \u2026Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n State of U.P. & Anr.\n \u2026Respondents\n\n With\n\n Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9157 of 2009\n\n Ramdhan Mali & Anr.\n \u2026Appellants\n\n Versus\n\n State of Rajasthan & Anr.\n \u2026Respondents\n\n With\n\n Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 4503-4504 of 2012\n\n Tej Singh\n \u2026Appellant\n\n Versus\n\n State of U.P.\n \u2026Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n J U D G M E N T\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 46,
"end": 68,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 205,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 273,
"end": 288,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 417,
"end": 433,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 505,
"end": 520,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 659,
"end": 686,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 765,
"end": 781,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 928,
"end": 943,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1022,
"end": 1035,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1178,
"end": 1192,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1269,
"end": 1285,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1429,
"end": 1436,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1512,
"end": 1528,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1668,
"end": 1682,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1750,
"end": 1763,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1898,
"end": 1913,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1981,
"end": 1994,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2128,
"end": 2140,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2216,
"end": 2234,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2376,
"end": 2385,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 2453,
"end": 2466,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSmt. Rashmi Kumar\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMahesh Kumar Bhada\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 17,
"end": 29,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 49,
"end": 67,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nState Of Uttar Pradesh\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nSinghara Singh And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 34,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 68,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore\n (Scch-8)\n Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., Ll.B.,\n Xii Additional Small Causes Judge\n and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.\n\n Dated this the 14th day of September 2015\n\n M.V.C. Nos.217/2015 to 219/2015\n\nPetitioner in Mvc Sri V. Pushparaj,\n217/2015 S/o M. Vargees,\n Aged about 42 years,\n Residing at No.18,\n 7th Main, 1st Cross,\n Bharathi Layout, S.G. Palya,\n Bangalore - 560 029.\n (Sri G.N. Subramani, Advocate)\n\nPetitioner in Mvc Sri Gopal Krishna P.,\n218/2015 S/o P. Ramanujam,\n Aged about 46 years,\n Residing at No.3155,\n 2nd Cross, Gayathrinagar,\n Bangalore - 560 021.\n (Sri G.N. Subramani, Advocate)\n\nPetitioner in Mvc Sri Devananda H.M.,\n219/2015 S/o H.V. Maligachary,\n Aged about 40 years,\n Residing at No.83,\n Ramanjaneya Layout,\n 3rd Main, Marathalli,\n Bangalore.\n (Sri G.N. Subramani, Advocate)\n\n V/s.\n 2 (Scch-8) M.V.C.217/2015 to\n 219/2015\n\n\n\nRespondents in 1. Sri M. Karunakran,all the cases S/o Muthuswamy,\n No.101, Puthukottimedu\n Street, Dharapuram,\n Erode District,\n T. District: Erode,\n Tamil Nadu.\n\n (Rc Owner of lorry bearing\n Reg. No.TDQ-2589)\n (Exparte)\n\n 2. The New India Assurance Co.\n Ltd., Regional Office,\n No.9/2, Mahalakshmi\n Chambers, M.G. Road,\n Bangalore - 560 001.\n\n (Policy\n No.720803311302000008329\n Valid from 29-03-2014 to\n 28-03-2015)\n (Sri B. Anjaneyalu, Advocate)\n\n\n Common Judgment\n\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 84,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 103,
"end": 118,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 337,
"end": 357,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 617,
"end": 631,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 666,
"end": 682,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 904,
"end": 918,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 953,
"end": 967,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1215,
"end": 1229,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1410,
"end": 1423,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1832,
"end": 1884,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 2233,
"end": 2246,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nSate Of Punjab And Ors.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nChaman Lal Goyal\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 26,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 55,
"end": 71,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nTahsildar Singh And Another\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Uttar Pradesh\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 27,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 63,
"end": 85,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "-1-\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n\n\n\n \n Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Appeal No. 272 Of 2008\n In\n Notice Of Motion No. 1303 Of 2008\n\n\n\n\n \n In\n Suit No. 855 Of 2001\n\n\n\n\n \n Saga Department Stores Limited )\n a Company duly incorporated under the \n ig )\n Companies Act, 1956 and having its )\n registered office at B-5, Jangpura, )\n Main Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 014 )\n \n and its Mumbai office at 257, S.V. Road )\n Bandra (West), Mumbai 400 050 ).. Appellants\n\n Versus\n \n\n\n Falak Home Developers Pvt. Limited )\n \n\n\n\n a Company duly incorporated under the )\n Companies Act, 1956 and having its )\n registered office at 18, Ramko Apartment )\n\n\n\n\n\n 18th Road, Khar (West), Mumbai 400 052 ).. Respondents\n\n\n Mr. Janak Dwarkadas a/w Mr Rahul Narichania i/b M/s B.Amin\n & Co. for the Appellants.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mr. Zubair Dada i/b S. Mahomedbhai & Co. for the Respondents.\n\n\n Coram: Swatanter Kumar, C.J. And\n . Kanade, J.\n V.M Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 24,
"end": 58,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 568,
"end": 598,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1126,
"end": 1160,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1454,
"end": 1469,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1477,
"end": 1493,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1552,
"end": 1563,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1653,
"end": 1668,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1734,
"end": 1740,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nAdvocate General, State Of Bihar\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nMadhya Pradesh Khair Industries Ltd.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 44,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 64,
"end": 100,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 WP-1767-07.sxw\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction\nMhi\n\n\n\n\n \n Criminal Writ Petition No. 1767 Of 2007\n\n\n\n\n \n Shri Sharan P Khanna )\n Age 55 years of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant )\n\n\n\n\n \n havig office at 105, Dalamal Tower, )\n Plot No.211, Free Press Journal Marg, )\n Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ).. Petitioner\n (Orig.complainant)\n\n\n\n\n \n Versus\n\n 1.\n \n Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. )\n a Company incorporated under the )\n Companies Act, 1956 having its )\n \n registered office at Jeevan Bharti )\n Tower -Ii, Connaught Circus )\n New Delhi 110 001 and Mumbai )\n regional Business Centre Office )\n \n\n\n at Nse Plaza Bandra Kurla Complex,)\n Bandra (E) Mumbai 400 051. )\n \n\n\n\n 2. State of Maharahtra )\n Through Public Prosecutor )..Respondents\n \n\n\n\n\n Shri P.D.Prasad Rao, Advocate, for the petitioner.\n Shri S.P. Bharti, Advocate, for the respondent No.1.\n Ms. S.V.Gajare, App, for the respondent No.2.\n\n\n\n\n\n Coram: J.H.Bhatia,J.\n Date : 29th July, 2010.\n\n Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 48,
"end": 82,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 369,
"end": 384,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 902,
"end": 936,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1402,
"end": 1421,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1528,
"end": 1542,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1585,
"end": 1596,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1643,
"end": 1653,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1747,
"end": 1757,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 31/05/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'Ble Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan \n\nC.M.A.No.535 of 1998 \n\nSahabudeen .. Claimant/Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. V.Haridass\n2. R. Selvaraj\n3. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,\n Main Road, Mettupalayam 641 301... Respondents\n\n\n Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act to set aside\nthe judgment and decree dated 25.03.97 passed in Mcop No.5/95 on the file of\nthe I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and\npass the award of Rs.3,50,000/- instead of Rs.1,00 ,000/- towards the\ncompensation to the petitioner.\n\n\n!For Petitioner : Mr. K.Sudarsanam for\n M/s. Surithi Associates\n\n^For Respondents: Mr. Mohd.Fiary Hussain \n for R1\n Mr.S. Jayashankar for R3\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 110,
"end": 123,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 167,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 244,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 248,
"end": 259,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 267,
"end": 294,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 736,
"end": 748,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 822,
"end": 840,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 886,
"end": 901,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nKhudiram Das\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of West Bengal & Ors.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 24,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 48,
"end": 68,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.267 of 2010\n===========================================================\n1. Ram Sevak Yadav W/O Late Shri Shivlal Yadav R/O Vill- Mahadeva, P.O. Jageshwar Asthan, P.S. Phulparas, Distt. Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Old Secretariate, Patna\n2. The Secretary Deptt. Of Health, Medical Education And Family Welfare, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna\n3. The Additional Secretary Deptt. Of Health, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna\n4. The Director Health Services, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna\n5. The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer Madhubani\n6. The Incharge Medical Officer Primary Health Centre, Ghoghardiha, Distt. Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 472 of 2010 ===========================================================\n1. Umesh Ram S/O Late Asharfi Ram R/O Village, Post Office And Police Station Ghoghardiha, Distt. Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s Versus\n1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Health, Government Of Bihar, Patna\n2. The Director-In-Chief Health Services, Government Of Bihar, Patna\n3. The Regional Deputy Director Health Service, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga\n4. The Civil Surgeon - Cum - Chief Medical Officer Distt.- Madhubani\n5. The Incharge Medical Officer Primary Health Centre, Ghoghardiha, Distt.- Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :(In Cwjc No. 267 of 2010)\nFor the Petitioner/s : Mr. L.K.Yadav\n Mr. Prabhu Narayan Prabhakar\n Mr. Binod Kumar Yadav\nFor the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc23)\n(In Cwjc No. 472 of 2010)\nFor the Petitioner/s : Mr. L.K.Yadav\n Mr. Prabhu Narayan Prabhakar\nFor the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp4)\n=========================================================== Patna High Court Cwjc No.267 of 2010 dt. 01-02-2013 2 Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Navin Sinha and Honourable Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh and Honourable Mr. Justice V. Nath Oral Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 166,
"end": 181,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 323,
"end": 337,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 500,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 508,
"end": 568,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 576,
"end": 623,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 631,
"end": 680,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 688,
"end": 765,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 902,
"end": 911,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1044,
"end": 1058,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1147,
"end": 1208,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1216,
"end": 1286,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1294,
"end": 1355,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1363,
"end": 1441,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1593,
"end": 1602,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1636,
"end": 1660,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1694,
"end": 1711,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1805,
"end": 1814,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1848,
"end": 1872,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1969,
"end": 1985,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 2053,
"end": 2064,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2092,
"end": 2115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 2143,
"end": 2150,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nThe Automobile Transport(Rajasthan) Ltd.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe State Of Rajasthan And OTHERS(And Connected Appeals)\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 16,
"end": 52,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 76,
"end": 94,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nEast India COMMERClAL Co., Ltd. Calcutta And Another\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nThe Collector Of Customs, Calcutta\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 52,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 88,
"end": 118,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Lokesh Kumar Sharma\n Additional Sessions Judge\u00ad04, New Delhi District\n Patiala House Courts, New Delhi\nUnique I D No. : 02403R0184312013\nCriminal Revision Number : 57/2/14 dated 07.02.2014\nCc No. : 20/1/13\nPs : Chanakyapuri\nU/s : 499/500 Ipc\n\n\nM/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.\nThrough its Director Sh. Rajeev Bhaduria\nJindal Centre, 12 Bhikaji Cama Place,\nNew Delhi\u00ad110066 ....Revisionist/Petitioner\n\n\n versus\n1) The State\nThrough Additional Public Prosecutor\n\n\n2) Planman Media Pvt. Ltd.\n(Owner of the Sunday Indian)\nIipm Tower,\nC\u00ad56/30, Sector\u00ad62,\nNoida\u00ad201301\nUp\n\n\n3) Mr. \nArindam Chaudhuri\nEditor in Chief\nThe Sunday Indian\n\nCr No. 57/2/14 1/32\nM/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs State & Ors. \n Iipm Tower\nC\u00ad56/30, Sector\u00ad62,\nNoida\u00ad201301\nUp \n\n\n4) Mr. A. Sandeep\n Editor\n The Sunday Indian\n Iipm Tower\n C\u00ad56/30, Sector\u00ad62,\n Noida\u00ad201301\n Up \n\n\n5) Mr. Ashok Bose\n Publisher\n The Sunday Indian\n Iipm Tower\n C\u00ad56/30, Sector\u00ad62,\n Noida\u00ad201301\n Up\n ..... Respondents\n\n Revision received by Court: 07.02.2014\n Arguments concluded : 28.10.2014\n Date of order : 13.11.2014\n\n :Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 40,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 371,
"end": 383,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 445,
"end": 470,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 689,
"end": 698,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 741,
"end": 764,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 852,
"end": 869,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1007,
"end": 1031,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1035,
"end": 1047,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1111,
"end": 1121,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1245,
"end": 1255,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated: 23/12/2011\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice V.Ramasubramanian\n\nCivil Revision Petition (Npd)(Md) No.1123 of 2006\nAnd\nM.P.No.2 of 2006\n\n1. Ayisha Beevi\n2. Beevija\n3. Hadijath Beevi\n4. Yunusa Begam\n5. Syed Ali\n6. Sumaya Begam\n7. Mohamed Yoosuf\n8. Mohamed Ismail\n9. Razira Beevi\n10.Shabi Mohamed\n11.Zakir Mugain\n12.Ferosh Khan\n13.Augustin\n14.Dr.T.C.Joseph\t\t\t..... Petitioners\n\nVs.\n\n1. Sheik Mydeen\n2. A.P.Nelson\n3. Chandrakala Ruben\t\t\t..... Respondents\n-----\n\tPetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair\nand decretal order dated 18.10.2006 made in E.P.No.201 of 2000 in O.S.No.420 of\n1976 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.\n\n!For Petitioner \t \t ... Mr.K.N.Thampi\n^For Respondent-1 \t \t ... Mr.Prabhu Rajadurai\nFor Respondents 2&3 \t\t ... Mr.A.Arumugham\n-----\n:Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 98,
"end": 115,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 192,
"end": 204,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 208,
"end": 215,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 219,
"end": 233,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 249,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 253,
"end": 261,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 265,
"end": 277,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 281,
"end": 295,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 299,
"end": 313,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 329,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 330,
"end": 346,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 362,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 363,
"end": 377,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 378,
"end": 389,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 390,
"end": 406,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 436,
"end": 448,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 452,
"end": 462,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 466,
"end": 483,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 761,
"end": 771,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 804,
"end": 820,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 853,
"end": 864,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court\n\nDated : 09/09/2008\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice T.Sudanthiram\n\nCrl.O.P.(MD).No.3102 of 2008\n\nIndian Overseas Bank,\nK.Abishekapuram Branch,\nMannarpuram,\nTiruchirappallai - 620 020\nrep. by the Authorized Officer\nA.Rasheed Khan\t\t\t\t... Petitioner\n\nVs\n\n1.M/s.Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd.,\n a public limited company registered\n under the Companies Act,\n 14-a, E.V.R. Road,\n Puthur, Trichirappalli - 620 017.\n\n2.Sri.Arun Shankar,\n Managing Director,\n M/s.Sree Aravindh Steels Ltd.,\n 14-A, E.V.R. Road,\n Puthur, Trichirappalli - 620 017.\n\n3.Sri.S.B.Shankar,\n \"Pathmavilla\",\n 3-B, Bhulabai Desai Road,\n Chookkikulam,\n Madurai - 625 002.\n\n4.The Inspector of Police,\n Thuvakudi Police Station,\n Thuvakudi,\n Tiruchirappalli - 620 002.\t\t... Respondents\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to\ncall for the records relating to the order dated 11.12.2007 made in\nCrl.M.P.No.1472 of 2007 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,\nTiruchirappalli and set aside the same and consequently directing the learned\nChief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli to pass appropriate order in\naccordance with Section 14 of Sarfaesi Act and take possession of the secured\nassets and hand over the same to the petitioner bank.\n\n!For Petitioner ... Ms.J.Maria Roselin\n\t\t for Mr.V.Sribalaji\n^For Respondent ... Mr.P.Rajendran\n\tNo.4\t Government Advocate (Crl. Side)\n* * * * *\n\n:Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 45,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 99,
"end": 112,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 144,
"end": 229,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 305,
"end": 330,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 461,
"end": 473,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 593,
"end": 604,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 695,
"end": 784,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1335,
"end": 1350,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1364,
"end": 1375,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1399,
"end": 1410,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1 \n\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay,\n Nagpur Bench, Nagpur.\n\n\n\n\n \n \n Cri. Appeal No.418 Of 2005.\n\n\n 1. Motiram Marotrao Bhongade\n\n\n\n\n \n aged about 70 years, \n Occupation : Cultivator,\n\n 2. Sanjay Motiram Bhongade,\n aged about 34 years, \n\n\n\n\n \n Occupation : Service,\n\n 3. Laxmibai Motiram Bhongade,\n aged about 60 years, \n \n 4. Leelabai w/o. Bablu @ Rooprao Falke,\n \n aged about 34 years, \n\n All residents of Satrapur, P.S. Kanhan,\n District : Nagpur. \n \n\n\n .... Appellants.\n \n\n\n\n // Versus //\n\n The State of Maharashtra,\n Through Police Station, Kanhan, \n\n\n\n\n\n District : Nagpur. \n\n ....Respondent.\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n Shri Shashank V. Manohar, Advocate for Appellants.\n\n\n\n\n\n Mrs. K.S. Joshi, A.P.P. for Respondent.\n --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n Coram : A.P. Lavande And P.D.Kode, Jj.\n Date Of Reserving Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 85,
"end": 119,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 435,
"end": 460,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 614,
"end": 637,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 773,
"end": 798,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 879,
"end": 887,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 997,
"end": 1035,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1276,
"end": 1296,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1598,
"end": 1617,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1658,
"end": 1668,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1841,
"end": 1853,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1858,
"end": 1866,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Ms. Manu Goel Kharb\n Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, \n New Delhi \n\n\n In Re: Case No. : 223/12\n (Old Cc no. 2663/1 dated 03.10.07)\n U/s. 138 Negotiable Instrument Act\n1. Cc No. : 223/12\n\n\n2. Date of Institution : 03.10.2007\n\n3. Name of the complainant, : The Madhav Co\u00adoperative \n parentage and residence Urban Thrift & Credit \n Society Ltd., E\u00ad17, East \n Uttam Nagar, Near Pali \n Factory, Uttam Nagar, \n New Delhi\u00ad59 (Through \n Sh. Satish Kumar Garg \n S/o Sh. Ghanshyam Dass \n Gupta, President/AR)\n\n\n\n4. Name of accused : Sh. Alamgeer \n his parentage S/o Sh. Rafiq Ahmad \n and residence R/o B\u00ad254, Jj Colony,\n Hastsal, Uttam Nagar,\n New Delhi\u00ad59\n\n\nCase No. 223/12 Madhav Co\u00adoperative Vs Alamgeer 1 of 20\n \n5. Date when Judgment \n was reserved : 12.02.2014\n\n\n6. Date when Judgment \n was pronounced : 22.02.2014\n\n\n7. Offence complained of : U/s. 138 Ni Act\n\n\n8. Plea of accused : Not guilty\n\n9. Final Judgment : Convicted \n\n \u00ad :: Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 35,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 41,
"end": 79,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 527,
"end": 579,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1050,
"end": 1067,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1310,
"end": 1318,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1015 of 2004(B)\n\n\n1. Moideen S/O.Ahammedkutty,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. The Sub Inspector Of Police,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. State Of Kerala, Rep. By The\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.T.G.Rajendran\n\n For Respondent :Public Prosecutor\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.Sasidharan Nambiar\n\n Dated :13/08/2010\n\n O R D E R\n \"C.R.\"\n\n M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.\n --------------------------\n Crl.R.P.No.1015 of 2004\n --------------------------\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 79,
"end": 86,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 181,
"end": 232,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 254,
"end": 269,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 321,
"end": 334,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 412,
"end": 432,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 531,
"end": 551,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "(1)\n\n In The Court Of Sh. Girish Kathpalia, Asj\u00ad05, \n South East District, Saket, New Delhi\n Sc No. 30/14\nState \nvs \n1. Subramanyam Yadav @ Rahul Madrasi,\n S/o Sh. S. Narsingha Rao, \n R/o Gali No. 8, Ajanta Park, Khoda Colony,\n Ghaziabad, Up. (proclaimed offender)\n2. Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Netrapal,\n Gali No. 5, Prakash Nagar, \n Khoda Colony, Ghaziabad, Up &\n3. Daya Nand S/o Shri Khem Chand,\n R/o village Rajokri Pahadi,\n New Delhi\n\n\n Fir No. 473/06\n Ps Hazrat Nizamuddin\n Offence under Section 392/397/411/34 Ipc\n\n Unique Id : 2403Ro493582006\n Date of Committal : 15.01.2007\n First Date in this Court : 22.01.2014 \n Date of conclusion of arguments: 30.04.2014 \n Date of decision : 05.05.2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 34,
"end": 50,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 168,
"end": 173,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 182,
"end": 199,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 391,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 479,
"end": 488,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 702,
"end": 722,
"label": "PETITIONER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Dr. Archana Sinha\n Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Central\u00ad03) \n Tis Hazari Court / Delhi\n\n\nM. No. : 19/2013 in suit No. No. 1018/2008. \n\n\nTitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ..... Plaintiff/Respondent Vs. \n Tirumula Tirupati Devasthanams ....Defendants/Petitioners 12.05.2015 Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 44,
"end": 61,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 157,
"end": 173,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 233,
"end": 259,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 371,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "The Honble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao \n\nM.A.C.M.A No.1656 of 2010 \n\n05-11-2014 \n\nBajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd, Rep by its Regional Manager, Begumpet,\nHyd..... Appellant\n\nM. Sreedevi and others.. Respondents \n\nCounsel for Appellant : Sri T. Mahender Rao\n\nCounsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5: Sri Mohd. Yousuf \n Counsel for Respondent No.6 : Sri M. Achutha Reddy \n\nHead Note: \n\n? Cases referred:\n1) 2008 Acj 2855 \n2) 2008 Acj 1307 \n3) 2003(5) Ald 162 \n4) 2004 Acj 1 (Sc) \n5) 1985 Acj 1397 (Sc) \n6) 1995 Acj 358 (Ap) \n7) 2009 Acj 88 (Ap) \n\n\nHonble Sri Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao \nM.A.C.M.A.No.1656 of 2010 \n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 23,
"end": 42,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 136,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 197,
"end": 208,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 283,
"end": 298,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 339,
"end": 351,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 391,
"end": 407,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 652,
"end": 671,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Kerala At Ernakulam\n\nWP(Crl.).No. 323 of 2009(S)\n\n\n1. Shruthi P., W/O.Ravi.K.,\n ... Petitioner\n\n Vs\n\n\n\n1. State Of Kerala,\n ... Respondent\n\n2. District Magistrate\n\n3. Superintendent, Central Prison,\n\n For Petitioner :Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas\n\n For Respondent :Government Pleader\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.Basant\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M.C.Hari Rani\n\n Dated :06/10/2009\n\n O R D E R\n R.Basant & M.C.Hari Rani, Jj.\n ------------------------------------\n W.P(Crl.) No.323 of 2009\n -------------------------------------\n Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 75,
"end": 85,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 172,
"end": 187,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 237,
"end": 256,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 261,
"end": 291,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 331,
"end": 350,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 429,
"end": 437,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 463,
"end": 476,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 525,
"end": 533,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 536,
"end": 549,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Kambli 1 Wp1688.10\n\n In The High Court Of Judicature At Bombay\n\n Civil Appellate Jurisdiction\n\n\n\n\n \n Writ Petition No. 1688 Of 2010\n\n\n\n\n \n ...\n Tanaji Madhukar Barbade ...Petitioner v/s. \n\n State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ... \n\n Mr.G.N.Salunke for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl.GP for State. \n\n ... \n\n Coram: D.K. Deshmukh, Anoop V. Mohta & Ranjit More,Jjj Dated: 26th October, 2010 Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 81,
"end": 115,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 379,
"end": 402,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 425,
"end": 445,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 478,
"end": 489,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 513,
"end": 526,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 564,
"end": 577,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 579,
"end": 593,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 596,
"end": 607,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Madras \n\nDated: 02/08/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'Ble MR.A.P.Shah, Chief Justice \nAnd \nThe Hon'Ble Mr.Justice D.Murugesan \n\nW.A. No.443 of 2006 \n to\n W.A. No.445 of 2006 \n and\n W.A. No.485 of 2006 \n to\n W.A. No.487 of 2006 \n And \n Wamp. No.1002 of 2006 \n and\n Wamp. No.1003 of 2006 \n\nR. Shanmugam ..Appellant\n in Wa 443 of 2006\n\nAmmasi Kutty .. Appellant\n in Wa 444 of 2006\n\n1. M. Duraisamy \n2. M. Mani\n .. Appellants\n in Wa 445 of 2006\n\n1. M. Manimekalai \n2. S. Maruthachalam .. Appellants\n in Wa 485 of 2006\n\n1. Perichiappa Gounder\n2. Kumarasamy \n3. Maruchamy Gounder \n4. A. Natarajan\n5. Ramasamy Gounder \n6. Marathal\n7. Ganesh \n8. Radhamani \n .. Appellants\n in Wa 486 of 2006\n\n1. Sellappa Gounder \n2. G. Karunanidhi .. Appellants\n in Wa 487 of 2006\n\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. The State of Tamil Nadu\n rep. by its Secretary\n Housing and Urban\n Development\n Fort St. George,\n Chennai 600 009\n\n2. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board \n represented by its\n Managing Director\n\n No.331, Anna Salai,\n Nandanam \n Chennai-35.\n\n3. The Special Tahsildar\n Housing Scheme Unit-II\n Coimbatore-18.\n ..Respondents\n in all W.As.\n\n Memorandum of Grounds of Writ Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters\nPatent, against the order of the learned Judge dated 23.12.2005 passed in\nW.P.No.37583 of 2004,20237 of 2005,24968 of 2005,37578 of 2004,37580 of 2004 \nand 20176 of 2005 respectively.\n\n!For Appellants : Mr.K.Chandru\n in all Appeals Senior counsel for\n Mr.R.N.Amarnath\n\n^For 2nd Respondents : Mr.R. Vidhuthalai\n in all appeals Advocate General\n For Mr.D.Veerasekaran\n\nFor respondents : Mr.J.Rajakalifullah\n1 and 3 in all appeals Govt. Pleader\n\n\n\n:Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 97,
"end": 108,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 171,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 347,
"end": 359,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 443,
"end": 455,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 545,
"end": 557,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 562,
"end": 569,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 673,
"end": 687,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 692,
"end": 708,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 793,
"end": 812,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 817,
"end": 827,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 834,
"end": 851,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 858,
"end": 870,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 875,
"end": 891,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 899,
"end": 907,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 912,
"end": 918,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 924,
"end": 933,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1038,
"end": 1054,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1059,
"end": 1073,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1170,
"end": 1190,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1304,
"end": 1328,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1433,
"end": 1450,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1891,
"end": 1900,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1977,
"end": 1989,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2021,
"end": 2036,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2115,
"end": 2129,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 2161,
"end": 2177,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n In The Court Of Ms. Veena Rani, Chief Metropolitan \n Magistrate, District South East, Saket Court, New Delhi.\n\n State Versus Abid @ Guddu\n\n\nFir No:196/2011\nU/s 25/54/59 Arms Act \nP. S. Kalkaji\n\nDate of filing of the charge sheet : 06\u00ad08\u00ad2011\nDate of reserving order : Not reserved.\nDate of pronouncement : 26\u00ad09\u00ad2014\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 28,
"end": 38,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 96,
"end": 118,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 132,
"end": 137,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 177,
"end": 181,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Letters Patent Appeal No.2294 of 2015\n Arising out of\n Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17721 of 2015\n===========================================================\nAmrawati Devi, wife of Sri Dinanath Yadav, Resident of Mohallla- Manik Chand Talab, P.O. Anishabad, P.S. Gardanibagh, District- Patna. \n\n .... .... Appellant Versus\n1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Town Planning Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. \n\n2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and Town Planning Department, Government of Bihar. \n\n3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Law and Justice Department, Government of Bihar. \n\n4. Patna Municipal Corporation through its Chief Executive Officer, Maurya Lok Building, Bailey Road, Patna. \n\n5. Mr. Binod Kumar, son of Sri Janak Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Mohanpur, Punaichak, P.O and P.S. Shastri Nagar, District- Patna. \n\n6. Roop Narayan, son of Shri Ram Narayan Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Mehandiganj, P.O and P.S. Patna City, District-Patna, Bihar. \n\n .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Appellant : Mr. Vinod Kanth, Sr. Advocate. \n\n Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate. \n\n Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate. \n\nFor the State : Mr. Lalit Kishore, P.A.A.G.\n Mr. U.S.S. Singh, G.P.-I\n Mr. R.K. Chandram, A.C. to G.P.-I\nFor Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate. \n\n Mr. Piyush Lall, Advocate. \n\n Mr. Yash Singh, Advocate Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, Advocate. \n\n Mr. Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocate. \n\nFor the Corporation : Mr. Prasoon Sinha, Advocate. =========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice I. A. Ansari, A.C.J. \n\n and Honourable Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta C.A.V. Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 272,
"end": 285,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 444,
"end": 458,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 665,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 676,
"end": 758,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 765,
"end": 792,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 880,
"end": 891,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1016,
"end": 1028,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 1266,
"end": 1277,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1300,
"end": 1314,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1333,
"end": 1344,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1386,
"end": 1399,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1439,
"end": 1451,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1489,
"end": 1502,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1546,
"end": 1560,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1583,
"end": 1594,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1613,
"end": 1623,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1638,
"end": 1654,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1673,
"end": 1692,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1732,
"end": 1745,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1847,
"end": 1859,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 1898,
"end": 1910,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature At Patna\n\n Criminal Appeal (Db) No.196 of 2008\n===========================================================\nRaju Mistri @ Riyazuddin, son of Wafati Mian, resident of Nayee Bazar, P.S. Bhagwan Bazar, Distt- Saran at Chapra .... .... Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :\nFor the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Adv.\nFor the Respondent/s : Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, App\n=========================================================== Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha and Honourable Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi Cav Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 40,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 160,
"end": 171,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 303,
"end": 317,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 444,
"end": 458,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 495,
"end": 512,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 608,
"end": 623,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 651,
"end": 671,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hon'Ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu Hon'Ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao \nCriminal Appeal Nos.1012 of 2008 and batch \n\ndated:14-03-2013 \n\nMuddana Goud and others....APPELLANTS \n\nState of Ap, rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad....RESPONDENT Head Note: \n!Counsel for Appellants in Crl.A.No.1012 of 2008 and for respondents in Crl.A.No.475 of 2010:Smt. D.Sangeetha Reddy ^Counsel for State: Addl. Public Prosecutor ?Cases referred:\n1 2007 (2) Alt Crl 1 (D.B.) (A.P.) Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 51,
"end": 70,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 143,
"end": 155,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 187,
"end": 198,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 386,
"end": 403,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Jabalpur.\n\n First Appeal No.961/2010\n\n Harjas Rai Makhija\n -Versus-\n Smt. Pushparani Jain and another.\n\n\nPresent : Hon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi.\n\n\n\n\n Shri R.P. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by\n Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the\n appellant.\n\n Smt. Shobha Menon, learned senior counsel assisted\n by Shri C.A. Thomas, learned counsel for the\n respondents.\n Shri P.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for respondent\n No.2.\n\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 11,
"end": 51,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 140,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 196,
"end": 211,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 258,
"end": 270,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 305,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 359,
"end": 373,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 440,
"end": 452,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 506,
"end": 517,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 585,
"end": 597,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nKhandelwal Metal & Engineering Works And Another Etc.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nUnion Of India And Others\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 48,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 85,
"end": 99,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 10/10/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R.Banumathi\n\nC.R.P.(P.D.) No. 1147 of 2001\n\nK.K.Swaminathan ..Petitioner\n\n-Vs-\n\nSrinivasagam ..Respondent\n\n\n Civil Revision Petition under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code\nfiled against the Order dated 16.03.2001 in I.A.No.98/2001 in O.S.No.24\n73/1996 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.\n\n!For Petitioner : Mr.A.Venkatesan\n\n^For Respondent : Ms.M.B.Dominique for Mr.P.Duraisamy\n\n\n:Order",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 41,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 94,
"end": 105,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 153,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 213,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 510,
"end": 522,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 546,
"end": 559,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 567,
"end": 578,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Case No.:\nTax Reference Case 1-2 of 1992\n\nPetitioner:\nTuticorin Alkali Chemicals And Fertilizers Ltd. Madras\n\nRespondent:\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, Madras\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 55,
"end": 109,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 123,
"end": 157,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Hon'Ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu And Hon'Ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram \nCriminal Appeal No.722 Of 2011 And \n\ndated:12-06-2013 \n\nKaram Sreenivasu Dora .... Appellant \n\nThe State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra\nPradesh, Hyderabad.....RESPONDENT Counsel for the appellant:Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Public Prosecutor Head Note: \n?Cases referred:\n1. A.I.R.1952 Sc 343 \n2. (1973) 2 Scc 793 \n3. Air 1984 Sc 1622 \n4. (2009)13 Supreme Court Cases 534 \n5. (2012) 6 Supreme Court Cases 403 \n6. A.I.R.1971 Sc 1871 \n7. (2006) 13 Scc 516 \n8. A.I.R.1956 Sc 116 \n9. A.I.R.1980 Sc 898 \n10.(2002)4 Scc 679 Hon'Ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu And Hon'Ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram Criminal Appeal No.722 Of 2011 And Referred Trial No.7 Of 2012 Common Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 29,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 72,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 153,
"end": 174,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 198,
"end": 221,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 342,
"end": 359,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 711,
"end": 720,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 745,
"end": 763,
"label": "JUDGE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Petitioner:\nDelhi Judicial Service Association Tis Hazaricourt, Delhi Et\n\n\tVs.\n\nRespondent:\nState Of Gujarat And Ors. Etc-Etc.\n\nDate Of Judgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 12,
"end": 69,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 92,
"end": 108,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan \nAt Jaipur Bench, Jaipur\nS.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2581/2015\nK Ramnarayan-Petitioner vs. Shri Pukhraj-Respondent\nwith \nS.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3925/2015\nBhagwan Sahai-Petitioner Vs. Satyanarayan Maheshwari-Respondent\nwith\nS.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2655/2015\nM/s. Ganeshdas Gyanchand Munot & Anr.-Petitioners \nvs. \nHeera Lal Peepada-Respondent\nwith \nS.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3926/2015\nRamesh Chand-Petitioner vs. Satyanarayan Maheshwari-Respondent\nwith \nS.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3968/2015\nKailash Chand-Petitioner Vs. Satyanarayan Maheshwari-Respondent\nwith \nS.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5072/2015\nShri Pankaj Kumar Lodha-Petitioner Vs. Amarchand & Ors.-Respondents\n \n\nDate of Judgment :: 18/05/2015\n\nHon'ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi\n\n \nMr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Saurabh Bhandari, Mr. B.L. Agarwal, Mr. Alok Chaturvedi, Mr. M.A. Khan, for the petitioners.\nMr. J.P. Gupta, Miss Shikha Parnami, Mr. Anil Mehta, for the respondents.\nJudgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 7,
"end": 70,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 109,
"end": 121,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 149,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 205,
"end": 218,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 234,
"end": 257,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 317,
"end": 342,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 385,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 441,
"end": 453,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 469,
"end": 492,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 548,
"end": 561,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 577,
"end": 600,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 661,
"end": 679,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 695,
"end": 704,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 779,
"end": 794,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 803,
"end": 814,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 844,
"end": 860,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 866,
"end": 878,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 884,
"end": 899,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 905,
"end": 914,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 941,
"end": 951,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 958,
"end": 972,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 978,
"end": 988,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n\n\n R\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n Dated the 3rd day of August 2012\n :Before:\n Hon'Ble Mr.Justice : V.Jagannathan\n Writ Petition No. 14047 / 2012 (Gm-Res)\n\nBetween :\n\nSri B.V.Acharya,\nSenior Advocate,\nS/o late Ramachandra Acharya,\nAged about 78 years,\nNo.42, 5th Main Road,\nJayamahal Extension,\nBangalore - 560 046.\n ...Petitioner\n\n ( By Sri R.N.Narasimhamurthy & Sri Ashok\n Harnahalli, Senior Advocates, along with\n Sri Sreenivas Rao, Sri Vishal Badni,\nSri Shahul Hameed and Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, Advocates. )\n\nAnd:\n\n1. Sri N.Venkateshaiah,\n S/o late Narayanappa,\n Aged about 94 years,\n No.7, Shivaganga Mutt Road,\n Chamarajapete, Bangalore-18.\n\n2. The State by Lokayuktha Police,\n Bangalore, represented by\n the Public Prosecutor,\n High Court Buildings, Bangalore.\n ...Respondents\n\n ( By Sri Ramesh Gupta, Senior Advocate,\n along with Sri B.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, &\n Sri Shivananda Raj for Kochhar & Co.,\n Advocates for R-1.\n Sri B.A.Belliappa, Advocate for R-2. )\n 2\n\n\n\n\n Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the\nConstitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.\npraying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned\norder dated 21.4.2012 in P.C.R.No. 19/2012 passed by the\nCourt of the Xxiii Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special\nCourt, Lokayuktha), Bangalore, and also to quash the\ncomplaint, which is the basis of the said case.\n\n\n This petition coming on for orders this day, the court\nmade the following :\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 68,
"end": 104,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 227,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 293,
"end": 304,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 519,
"end": 538,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 545,
"end": 571,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 618,
"end": 631,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 637,
"end": 649,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 655,
"end": 668,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 677,
"end": 693,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 726,
"end": 741,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 883,
"end": 888,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 1095,
"end": 1107,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1149,
"end": 1166,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1197,
"end": 1211,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 1291,
"end": 1304,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Sh. Reetesh Singh, Asj-02/Ftc\n New Delhi District Patiala House Courts, Delhi\n\n\nCrl. Appeal No. 16/2014\nI.D. No 02403R0071782014\n\n\nMasood Paracha\nS/o Sh. Siraj Paracha\nR/o 2148, Kucha Dakhani Rai,\nPataudi House,\nDaryaganj, New Delhi.\n ......Appellant\n\nVersus\n\n\nState (Nct of Delhi) ...... Respondent\n\n\nDate of institution of the case : 06.05.2014\nDate of reservation of order : 12.09.2014\nDate of announcement of Judgment : 30.09.2014\n\n\n Judgment\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 20,
"end": 33,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 35,
"end": 97,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 165,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 340,
"end": 360,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In The Court Of Shri Arun Kumar, Metropolitan\n Magistrate:Dwarka Courts:New Delhi\n\nCc No: 308/13\nUnique Case Id No: 02405Ro202512013\n\n\nSunni Kadian\nS/o Late Shri Kharak Singh\nR/o Rz-55, B Block,\nOld Roshan Pura Extn.,\nNajafgarh\nNew Delhi-110043 ...........Complainant\n\n Versus\n\nAshok Kumar\nS/o Late Shri Khajan Singh,\nR/o 3/D, New Roshan Pura Extn.,\nRation Office Wali Gali,\nNajafgarh.\nNew Delhi-110043 ...............Accused\n\n\nOffence Complained of or proved : Under section 138 of\n Negotiable Instruments\n Act, 1881\nPlea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty\nDate of filing : 25.06.2013\nDate of Institution : 26.06.2013\nDate of reserving judgment/order : 04.01.2014\nFinal Order/Judgment : Acquitted\nDate of pronouncement : 10.01.2014\n\nJudgment",
"entities": [
{
"start": 21,
"end": 31,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 33,
"end": 88,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 142,
"end": 154,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 343,
"end": 354,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n Sa No.908 of 2012\n\n High Court Of Madhya Pradesh ; Jabalpur\n S.A.No. 908 of 2012\n Madhu Janiyani\n Vs.\n State of M.P\n\n\nFor the Appellant : Shri Naman Nagrath, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri\n Himanshu Mishra Advocate.\nFor the Respondent : Smt Sharda Dubey, Pl.\n\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 89,
"end": 128,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 209,
"end": 223,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 297,
"end": 309,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 341,
"end": 354,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 413,
"end": 428,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 467,
"end": 479,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "1\n\n \u00ae\n In The High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore\n\n Dated This The 30th Day Of July 2012\n\n Before\n\n The Hon'Ble Mr.Justice Jawad Rahim\n\n Crl. R.P. No.1262/2008\nBetween:\n\n 1. Smt J.Umadevi,\n W/O N.Rathnakar Babu,\n Aged About 31 Years,\n Residing At No.758, 8Th Cross,\n 5Th Main, R.T.Nagar,\n Bangalore\n\n 2. Smt.J.Usha,\n W/O Ravishankar Raju,\n Aged About 29 Years,\n Residing At No.107,\n \"Priyadarshini Apartment\",\n 1St Floor, 1St Stage,\n Indiranagar,\n Bangalore\n ... Petitioners\n (By Sri M.S.Rajendraprasad, Adv.,)\n\nAnd:\n\n State Of Karnataka\n By Indiranagar Police,\n Bangalore\n ... Respondent\n (By Sri Raja Subramanya Bhat, Hcgp.,)\n 2\n\n\n This Crl.Rp Filed Under Section 401 Cr.P.C\nPraying To Set Aside The Order Dated 13.08.2008\nPassed By The X Addl. Cmm., Mayo Hall, Bangalore\nIn C.C.No.22101/2007, So Far As The Petitioners Are\nConcerned And Consequently Discharge The\nPetitioners.\n\n This Revision Petition Coming On For\nDictating Orders This Day, The Court Made The\nFollowing:\n\n Order\n",
"entities": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 99,
"label": "COURT"
},
{
"start": 214,
"end": 225,
"label": "JUDGE"
},
{
"start": 291,
"end": 300,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 472,
"end": 478,
"label": "PETITIONER"
},
{
"start": 751,
"end": 769,
"label": "LAWYER"
},
{
"start": 792,
"end": 810,
"label": "RESPONDENT"
},
{
"start": 920,
"end": 940,
"label": "LAWYER"
}
]
},
{
"text": "They had admittedly left India after the first day of March, 1947, for Pakistan and it appears from the counter-affidavits that they had left on account of the setting up of the dominions of India and Pakistan.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 25,
"end": 30,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 54,
"end": 65,
"label": "DATE"
},
{
"start": 71,
"end": 79,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 191,
"end": 196,
"label": "GPE"
},
{
"start": 201,
"end": 209,
"label": "GPE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "Non-applicant produced witnesses NAW 1 M.B. Mandarvalia and other witnesses NAW 2 Chhotu Lal, owner of the vehicle, NAW 3 Subhash Singh Dabi and NAW 4 Riyaj Anwar and NAW 5 Sanjay Kumar.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 39,
"end": 55,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 82,
"end": 92,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 122,
"end": 140,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 151,
"end": 162,
"label": "WITNESS"
},
{
"start": 173,
"end": 185,
"label": "WITNESS"
}
]
},
{
"text": "No doubt, civil and criminal jurisdiction is conferred on the Gram Katchahry, but the Gram Katchahry can sentence an accused to (i) simple imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months; (ii) fine not exceeding Rs. 1000/-, and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment not exceeding 15 days.",
"entities": []
},
{
"text": "The company was incorporated on the 13th of November, 1980.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 36,
"end": 58,
"label": "DATE"
}
]
},
{
"text": "In 1994 MPU681 (M. P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam) Naveen Raghunath Karnik v. State of M. P., the Division Bench of this Court held that Section 20 of the Adhiniyam contains an efficacious and alternative remedy on unsuccess Under Section 16(4) and aggrieved person has to pursue that course.",
"entities": [
{
"start": 3,
"end": 93,
"label": "PRECEDENT"
},
{
"start": 138,
"end": 148,
"label": "PROVISION"
},
{
"start": 232,
"end": 245,
"label": "PROVISION"
}
]
}
]