IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BORDER SECURITY FORCE ACT, 1968 Date of Decision: W.P.(C) No.

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BORDER SECURITY FORCE ACT, 1968 Date of Decision: W.P.(C) No."

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : BORDER SECURITY FORCE ACT, 1968 Date of Decision: W.P.(C) No.1616/2012 Ex. Constable Mohan Kumar Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr.Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.Himanshu Bajaj, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA ANIL KUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner is an ex-constable of the Border Security Force and he has challenged the order of dismissal dated 6th June, 2011 passed against him by the Summary Security Force Court. The petitioner has also prayed for his reinstatement with all the consequential benefits. 2. Brief relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed on 26th February, 2002 as a Constable in the Border Security Force. At the time of his enrollment, the petitioner was 19 years old and had passed 10th class examination in Hindi medium. 3. The petitioner was thereafter, tried by the Summary Security Force Court for six offences under Section 23, and under Sections 19(b) and 19(a) of the Border Security Force Act, The charges framed against the petitioner were that at the time of enrollment, he willfully gave a wrong declaration in his enrollment form that he had never been arrested, prosecuted/convicted/imprisoned or otherwise dealt with under any law in force of India or outside, though a case under Section 392, 323/34 of the IPC

2 and Section 3(1)10 of SC/ST Act, was registered against him at the Police Station-Kothwali, District Kannouj and it was even tried by the Special Sessions Court in case No.86/2003. However, in the said matter the petitioner was acquitted on 7th September, Regardless, as per the respondents the petitioner ought to have disclosed about this case to the appropriate authority at the time of enlistment. The other charges against the petitioner were pertaining to the offence of overstaying the leave allowed to him on many occasions. As per the second charge, the petitioner was granted leave of absence from 3rd August, 2009 to 10th August, 2009 and after the expiry of the stipulated period of leave, he failed, without sufficient cause, to rejoin the duty and reported voluntarily at Headquarter 47 Battalion BSF Kalyani on 24th September, 2009 after overstaying for 44 days. 4. The third charge against the petitioner was that he overstayed for 52 days after the expiry of his leave from 5th October, 2009 to 19th October, 2009 and joined voluntarily at Headquarter 47 Battalion BSF Kalyani only on 11th December, The fourth charge against the petitioner was that he had overstayed for 97 days after his leave from 21st January, 2010 to 10th February, 2010 and reported voluntarily at the Headquarter 47 Battalion BSF Kalyani only on 19th May, The fifth charge against the petitioner was that he had overstayed for 22 days after the expiry of his leave from 23rd May, 2010 to 27th May, 2010 and voluntarily reported at the Headquarter 47 Battalion BSF Kalyani only on 18th June, As per the sixth charge, the petitioner was again absent for 73 days, after he absented himself on 9th November, 2010 and voluntarily rejoined the BSF Headquarter 47 Battalion BSF at Kalyani only on 22nd January, The petitioner was thereafter tried by the Summary Security Force Court and he pleaded guilty to all the six charges. The plea of guilt was recorded in compliance with the rules and thus the Summary Security Force Court found the petitioner guilty of all the charges. The charges as framed against the petitioner in the charge sheet dated 1st June, 2011 are as under:- (FIRST CHARGE) U/S 23 OF BSF ACT 1968 MAKING AT THE TIME 0F ENROLMENT A WILLFULLY FALSE ANSWER TO A QUESTION SET FORTH IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMS OF ENROLMENT WHICH WAS PUT TO HIM BY THE

3 ENROLLING OFFICER BEFORE WHOM HE APPEARED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING ENROLLED In that he, at STC BSF Tekanpur on 26/02/2002 when appeared before Shri R K Bhargava, Comdt an enrolling officer, for the purpose of being enrolled for service in the Border Security Force to the question put him "Have you ever being arrested, prosecuted/convicted/imprisoned, bound over interned externed or otherwise dealt with under any law in Force of India or outside. If so, state particulars?"answered, "NO" whereas he knew the said answer to be false. (SECOND CHARGE) U/S 19(b) OF BSF ACT, 1968 WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE OVERSTAYING LEAVE GRANTED TO HIM In that he, having been granted leave of absence from to (08 days E/Leave) failed without sufficient cause to re-join duty on expiry of said leave and reported voluntarily at HQ 47 BN BSF, at Kalyani on (F/N) after overstaying 44 days. (THIRD CHARGE) U/S 19 (b) OF BSF ACT, 1968 WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE OVERSTAYING LEAVE GRANTED TO HIM In that he, having been granted leave of absence from to (15 days E/Leave) failed without sufficient cause to re-join duty on expiry of said leave and reported voluntarily at HQ 47 BN Kalyani on (F/N) after overstaying 52 days. (FOURTH CHARGE) U/S 19(b) OF BSF ACT, 1968 WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE OVERSTAYING LEAVE GRANTED TO HIM In that he, having been granted leave of absence from to (05 days C/Leave) failed without sufficient cause to re-join duty on expiry of

4 said leave and reported voluntarily at HQ 47 BN Kalyani on (F/N) after overstaying 97 days. (FIFTH CHARGE) U/S 19 f1310f BSF ACT,1968 WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE OVERSTAYING LEAVE GRANTED T0 HIM In that he, having been granted leave of absence from to (05 days EOL) failed without sufficient cause to re-join duty on expiry of said leave and reported voluntarily at HQ 47 BN BSF, Kalyani on (A/N) after overstaying 22 days. (SIXTH CHARGE} U/S 19(a) OF BSF ACT, 1968 ABSENTING HIMSELF- WITHOUT LEAVE In that he, at 1600 hrs on absented himself from Unit line till 1000 hrs on when he voluntarily re-joined HQ 47 BN BSF, Kalyani (WB) after absenting 73 days. 7. The Summary Security Force Court after considering the petitioner s plea of guilt and other antecedent circumstances, awarded the sentence of dismissal from service to the petitioner by order dated 6th June, The petitioner challenged his order of dismissal dated 6th June, 2011 by filing a petition, under Rule 28A of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 and the rules made therein, before the Director General, Border Security Force. The petitioner in his petition contended that on account of his wife s physical and mental condition he could not report in time, however, delay in reporting and remaining absent without leave was unintentional. The petitioner alleged that the mental state of his wife was disturbed and there was no other person in the family who could take care of her and, therefore, he was compelled by circumstances beyond his control to overstay his leave. The petitioner also contended that the tradition of black magic and bad women are very much prevalent and so due to the mental depression suffered by his wife, he was forced to follow the local remedies for the welfare and well being of his family and his wife. He further contended that

5 on 6th June, 2011 he had appeared before the Summary Security Force Court, however, the enquiry was devoid of any merits since the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play had not been complied with as the petitioner was denied the opportunity to defend himself and was also not provided with the material evidence available against him, which prejudiced him as he could not defend himself effectively. The petitioner contended that he had answered all the queries in Hindi which the petitioner got to know later on, were not recorded properly and he had also prayed that the proceedings be recorded in Hindi and that he be given a copy or information pertaining to the statements which was, however, denied to him. 9. Regarding making a false declaration at the time of enlistment he contended that a false complaint was made against him in the year 2001, and that he was not aware that the matter had been converted into an FIR, and that he had been charged under Section 392/323/34 of IPC and thus in the circumstances, the petitioner never intentionally and deliberately misled or willfully filed a false declaration at the time of enrollment. 10. The petitioner also challenged the order of his dismissal on the ground that he had overstayed on account of family problems and because he was highly disturbed and on account of mental stress, which is why he was not able to report for duties within the stipulated time. 11. Subsequently, the petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 28A before the Director General, Border Security Force was dismissed by order dated 17th November, 2011 passed by the Director General, BSF. While dismissing the petition the Director General dealt with the plea that the charge and the enquiry proceedings against the petitioner were devoid of merit and thus it was baseless, intangible in law and against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. The concerned authority, however, considered the statement of Dharmender Kumar, GD/Clk PW-1 and rejected the plea of the petitioner. 12. The concerned authority held that the perusal of the record clearly revealed that the charges against the petitioner were heard by his Commandant under Rule 45 of the BSF Act, 1968 on 26th February, During the hearing, the petitioner was given the opportunity to cross examine all the four witnesses and he was also given the opportunity to give his statement in defense, however, the petitioner did not avail the said opportunity. During the hearing, the petitioner pleaded guilty to all the six

6 charges after the evidence in ROE was made known to him. While dismissing the petition by order dated 17th November, 2011, the concerned authority held as under:- (a) That, the charges and the inquiry against him is devoid of merit, baseless, intangible in law and against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. He was denied opportunity to defend himself properly and was not provided with the material evidence available to enable him to properly present his defence statement, to cross examine the witnesses and present his own defense witnesses. During ROE, Const Dharmender Kumar GD/Clk (PW-1) has deposed and produced the documents regarding overstayal as well as absence periods of the petitioner pertaining to 2nd to 6th charges. SI(M) Somanath Behra (PW- 2) has corroborated in material particulars the statement of PW-1 regarding charges No. 2 to 6 and produced additional documents. He has also produced the documents regarding the 1st charge i.e. Enrolment Form filled by petitioner, copy of FIR, copy of charge sheet and record of Court proceedings pertaining to criminal case against the petitioner. Further at the trial the petitioner has pleaded 'Guilty' to all the six charges on being arraigned by the Court. The perusal of record reveals that charges against petitioner were heard by his Comdt under BSF Rule 45 on on an offence report. During hearing the petitioner was given opportunity to cross examine all the 04 prosecution witnesses so examined therein and to make statement in defence. He did not avail those opportunities. Further during the hearing he pleaded 'Guilty' to all the six charges and consequently ROE was ordered. Before conducting ROE, the petitioner was given order of ROE alongwith charge sheet. During ROE statements of all the prosecution witnesses were recorded in his presence and he was given opportunity to cross examine them and he cross examined PW-2 at length. Thereafter he was given opportunity to make statement in defence and produce witnesses in defence which he declined to avail. Further, at SSFC trial on being arraigned by Court, he pleaded 'Guilty' to all the six charges. Before recording findings of 'Guilty' he was explained by the Court the meaning of the charges and the general effect of his plea and difference in procedure which was to be followed consequent to said plea. The Court also afforded him opportunity to make statement in mitigation of punishment and to call witnesses to character. Before awarding him sentence, the Court recorded his previous convictions, character and rewards etc. Hence from the above it is evident

7 that there is sufficient evidence on record to substantiate the charges against the petitioner and he was given full opportunity at every stage of disciplinary proceedings to defend him and further there is no violation of principles of natural justice. 13. The said order also dealt with the plea of the petitioner that he had prayed for recording the proceedings in Hindi and had also requested to be given the copy of the statements of the witnesses which was denied to him. The Director General in his order dated 17th November, 2011 noted that the ROE proceedings were recorded in English, however, after completion of the statement of the witnesses, the statements were read over and explained to the petitioner in Hindi and the petitioner had also signed the statements after understanding the same. The petitioner had even cross examined PW-2 at length and, therefore, there was no reason to believe that the petitioner was not allowed to cross examine or that he did not understand the proceedings, or the statements recorded, or that they were not explained to the petitioner in Hindi. It was also disclosed that the entire ROE proceedings containing the statements of witnesses and the documents were handed over to the petitioner on 3rd June, Regarding the allegation in the first charge that he had made a false declaration at the time of enrollment, the Director General in its order dated 17th November, 2011 noted that at the time of enrollment in the enrollment form at serial No.12 he had disclosed that the petitioner had never been arrested, prosecuted/convicted or imprisoned under any law in force in India, whereas an FIR No.197/2001 under Sections 393/323/504/506 of IPC and Section 3(1) 10 of SC/ST Act was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Kotwali, Kannouj on 27th June, 2001 and the charge sheet was filed on 1st February, 2002 in the Court of CJM, Kannouj, before the enrollment of the petitioner in the BSF. The petitioner s plea that the petitioner was not aware of the registration of the FIR against him was not accepted and it was held that the petitioner willfully concealed the relevant particulars. The authorities also held that the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner is irrelevant. Regarding the compliance of the procedure, the Director General held that the petitioner was heard under Rule 45 on 26th February, He was handed over the convening order of the SSFC charge sheet and the ROE proceedings on 3rd June, 2011 by letter dated 1st June, 2011, and he was also given an opportunity to intimate the name of the person to be appointed as the friend of accused. The petitioner had exercised his option and appointed Sh.Satyavir Singh, AC who was appointed as the friend of the accused at his trial. The SSFC proceedings were conducted in accordance with the rules and no such

8 procedural lapses could be pointed out by the petitioner which would have entailed quashing of the SSFC proceedings. 14. The Director General while considering the petition under Rule 28A filed by the petitioner against his order of dismissal dated 6th June, 2011 noted that at the time of conviction the petitioner was about 29 years of age and he had rendered 9 years 3 months and 10 days of service in the BSF. During the service the petitioner had been tried 4 times summarily and once by the SSFC and he had not received any reward during his service and thus after examining all the aspects of the case the Director General sustained the order of dismissal dated 6th June, The petitioner filed another revision petition under Section 117 of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 against the order of his dismissal dated 6th June, 2011 and the dismissal of his petition under Section 28A by order dated 17th November, 2011 on 3rd January, 2012 reiterating the pleas and contentions raised by him previously. 16. The revision petition under Section 117 of Border Security Force Act, 1968 was disposed of by the concerned authorities by order dated 4th January, 2012 holding that as per Section 117 of BSF Act read with Rule 167(2) of the BSF Rules, a person subject to the BSF Act, who is aggrieved by the findings or sentence of the Summary Security Force Court Act, can submit only one petition to any of the prescribed authorities. Since the petitioner had already filed a petition under Rule 28A to the Director General, Border Security Force which was dismissed by order dated 17th November, 2011, therefore, his petition for review under Rule 117 was not maintainable and, therefore, it was dismissed by order dated 4th January, Aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition contending, inter-alia, that his order of dismissal is bad as the pleading of guilty by the petitioner was not unequivocal and was given by him under force and coercion and in contravention of Rule 143 of the BSF Rules as the petitioner was not explained the consequences of pleading guilty. 18. On behalf of the petitioner it is also contended he had given his statements in Hindi requesting for pardon and had also explained the circumstances in respect of the charge, however, his statement was not

9 recorded verbatim and only one sentence was recorded that he may be pardoned for the last time. In the circumstances, it is contended that the proceeding was in contravention of Rule 143(6) of the BSF Rules because the statement of the accused for mitigation of punishment was of such nature which required evidence and the SSFC should have permitted the petitioner to lead the evidence to prove his plea regarding mitigation of punishment. 19. The petitioner also contended that he never overstayed the leave granted to him without sufficient cause. As per the petitioner, he had overstayed his leave only on account of the illness of his wife and since he was the only adult person in his family, he was forced to stay to look after his ailing wife. 20. The petitioner also contended that regarding the first charge of not disclosing the correct information in his enrollment form, it was because at the time of enrollment he was 19 years old and he had only passed Class 10 of the Board Examination in Hindi and had thus filled the enrollment form as directed by the officials of the BSF who were present there. The petitioner contended that, in fact, he did not understand the English language and this fact is also evident from his signatures on the enrollment form which are in Hindi. 21. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents who has appeared on advance notice. Perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 28A of the Border Security Force against his order of dismissal dated 6th June, 2011 reveals that regarding the first charge his plea was that he was not aware that the complaint filed against him in 2001 had been converted into an FIR and that he had been charged under Section 392/323/34 of the IPC. The plea taken by the petitioner in the said petition is as under:- 11. That it is further submitted that a false complaint was lodged against the applicant in the Village in the year The applicant was not aware that the matter has been converted into a FIR and he has been charged under section 392/323/34 1PC. Your applicant was not detained or arrested in the aforesaid matter by the Local Police at any time when the applicant applied he had no knowledge about the ongoing FIR as submitted above. 22. In the said petition, the petitioner did not allege that he was not conversant with whatsoever was written by him in the enrollment form as he

10 did not know English and it was written by him at the instance of BSF officials. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has taken a diametrically opposite stand and has tried to blame the officials of the BSF stating that he had filled the form at their instance and as directed by them. The plea taken by the petitioner in ground D of the writ petition is as under:- D. Because the first charge against the petitioner relates to the year 2002 for which the petitioner cannot be tried by SSFC after a lapse of nine years. Moreover, at the time of joining the BSF, the Petitioner was only 19 years old and had passed the Class 10 Board in Hindi Medium, and had filled the Enrolment Form as directed by the Officials of BSF, who were present there. The fact that he do not understand English Language, can be verified from the fact that his signatures on the Enrolment Form were in Hindi. 23. Apparently the petitioner has taken contradictory stands and the plea of the petitioner cannot be believed. In the circumstances, if the petitioner had pleaded guilty and the respondents have acted on his plea of guilt, no fault can be found with the decisions of the respondents. The plea raised vehemently by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was forced to plead guilty also cannot be accepted. The learned counsel is unable to show any contravention of Rule 143 in any manner with regard to the petitioner pleading guilty of all the six charges. The plea of guilt was recorded on 6th June, If the petitioner had been forced to record the plea of guilt, the petitioner should have communicated or made a representation complaining about the same to any of the superior authorities or officers as promptly as possible. The learned counsel contended that the first time this plea was taken by the petitioner, that he had been forced to plead guilty, only when the petition was filed by the petitioner under Rule 28A on 26th August, No cogent reason has been disclosed on behalf of the petitioner explaining that if indeed he was forced to plead guilty on 6th June, 2011 then why he had remained quiet until 26th August, In any case, perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 28A of Border Security Force Act, 1968 to the Director General also reveals that no such plea was taken by the petitioner that he was forced to plead guilty, rather what is stated by him is that he was denied the opportunity to defend himself and was not provided with the material evidence available against him. It was also contended by the petitioner that he had made the submissions in Hindi and that they were not recorded properly which the petitioner got to know only upon examination. The petitioner also averred in his petition that he had prayed that the proceedings be recorded in Hindi and

11 that he should be given a copy of the information or statement. However, the petitioner did not subsequently plead that he was forced to plead guilty. In the circumstances, the plea of the petitioner that he was forced to plead guilty cannot be accepted and it is apparent that it is an afterthought and thus on such a plea the order of dismissal passed against him is not liable to be set aside. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that Rule 143(6) of the BSF Act was not complied with as the petitioner wanted to lead the evidence to prove the circumstances for mitigating his sentence, which was not allowed to him. It is pertinent to note that in the petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 28A against the order of dismissal dated 6th June, 2011 on 26th August, 2011 and the review petition dated 3rd January, 2012, no such plea was taken by the petitioner. The plea now raised in the writ petition that the petitioner wanted to examine the witnesses under Rule 143(6) is as under:- B. Because further, petitioner at the time of his statement in mitigation of punishment had given his statement in Hindi requesting for the pardon and had also explained the circumstances in respect of the charges. However, his statement was not recorded verbatim and only one sentence in English was recorded I may be pardoned for the last time. The proceeding was in contravention of Rule 143(6) as the statement of the accused was of such nature which required evidence and the SSFC should have permitted the petitioner to lead evidence to prove his statement. 25. Thus, in the facts and circumstances this plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted since if, in fact, his statements had not been recorded in the proper manner then the said plea he would have taken at the first instance rather than at such a belated stage. Therefore, the only inference that can be drawn is that the said plea is an afterthought and thus deserves to be rejected. 26. In the totality of the facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons the petitioner has failed to make out any illegality, irregularity or any perversity in the orders passed by the respondents dismissing the petitioner from service. The writ petition is without any merit and it is, therefore, dismissed.

12 Sd/- ANIL KUMAR, J. Sd/- SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. MARCH 21, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. WP (C) No.4604/1996. Reserved on: Date of decision:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER. WP (C) No.4604/1996. Reserved on: Date of decision: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER WP (C) No.4604/1996 Reserved on: 11.07.2008 Date of decision: 11.08.2008 SOHAN LAL KAPOOR Through: Major K.Ramesh, Advocate..PETITIONER

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT, BAIL APPLN. No.1626/2009. Judgment reserved on :20th October, 2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT, BAIL APPLN. No.1626/2009. Judgment reserved on :20th October, 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972. BAIL APPLN. No.1626/2009 Judgment reserved on :20th October, 2011 Judgment delivered on: 16th January,2012 SUDESH KUMAR

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005. Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1956 W.P.(C) No. 5114/2005 Judgment decided on: 14.02.2011 C.D. SINGH Through: Mr Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 15th January, RFA 269/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 15th January, RFA 269/2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 15th January, 2014. RFA 269/2013 GANGADHAR PADHY... Appellant Through: Counsel for the appellant (appearance not given)

More information

W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 P R E S E N T HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI

W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 P R E S E N T HON BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI BY COURT: 1 W.P.(C) No.5740 of 2001 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 226 of the Constitution of India) Parmanand Pandey & Anr.. Petitioners. Versus The State of Jharkhand & Ors.....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION. CM No of 2005 in W.P. (C) No of 1987 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION CM No. 15134 of 2005 in W.P. (C) No. 1043 of 1987 Orders reserved on : 26th July, 2006 Date of Decision : 7th August, 2006 LATE BAWA HARBANS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN PENAL CODE CRL.M.C. No. 233/2014 Date of decision: 14th February, 2014 DR. ZUBAIR UL ABIDIN Through: Mr.Suraj Rathi, Adv.... Petitioner versus STATE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010. Decided on: 9th August, 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010. Decided on: 9th August, 2011. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE W.P. Crl. No. 1029/2010 Decided on: 9th August, 2011. DEEPAK GARG Through: Mr. Vijay Agarwal, Advocate.... Petitioner versus

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EX.P. 133/2011 Reserved on: January 6, 2012 Decision on: January 9, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EX.P. 133/2011 Reserved on: January 6, 2012 Decision on: January 9, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE EX.P. 133/2011 Reserved on: January 6, 2012 Decision on: January 9, 2012 AMAR SINGH SEWARA In person.... Petitioner versus REGIONAL

More information

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI Company Appeals (AT) No.101 to 105 of 2017 (arising out of Order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in CP Nos. 16/152/2015,

More information

outside and saw that the light in front of the house of Inderjit Singh was on and two Sikh youths armed with Kirpans stained with blood were shouting

outside and saw that the light in front of the house of Inderjit Singh was on and two Sikh youths armed with Kirpans stained with blood were shouting IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Criminal Appeal Nos. 786-789 of 2003 Decided On: 28.05.2009 State of Punjab Vs. Manjit Singh and Ors. Hon'ble Judges: Mukundakam Sharma and B.S. Chauhan, JJ. Mukundakam Sharma,

More information

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF STATE OF GEORGIA, Petitioner, Civil Action No. Inmate Number vs., Habeas Corpus Warden, Respondent (Name of Institution where you are now located) APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ALLOTMENT OF TEHBAZARI. W.P.(C) 1249/2012 and CM 2716/2012. Decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ALLOTMENT OF TEHBAZARI. W.P.(C) 1249/2012 and CM 2716/2012. Decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ALLOTMENT OF TEHBAZARI W.P.(C) 1249/2012 and CM 2716/2012 IN THE MATTER OF Decided on: 13.03.2012 SMT.OM WATI Through: Mr. M.M. Kashyap, Advocate Petitioner

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 911 2007 Ejaj Ahmad Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Binay Kumar Opposite Parties CORAM: HON BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR For the Petitioner:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on: IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SERVICE MATTER W.P.(C) No.9681/2009 Judgment decided on: 11.03.2011 RAJEEV KUMAR MISHRA...Petitioner Through: Mr Rakesh Kumar Khanna, Sr. Adv. with Mr Piyush

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Pronounced on 3rd August, 2012 W.P. (C) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Pronounced on 3rd August, 2012 W.P. (C) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: SUIT FOR POSSESSION Reserved on: 17th July, 2012 Pronounced on 3rd August, 2012 W.P. (C) No.865/2000 DIVINE UNITED ORGANISATION Petitioner Through: Mr.

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Versus. 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 23 rd July, 2010. + W.P.(C) 11305/2009, CM No.10831/2009 (u/s 151 CPC for stay), CM No.9694/2010 (u/o1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment) & CM No.

More information

In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. Cr.M.P.No.141 of Binod Kumar Singh..Petitioner V E R S U S

In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. Cr.M.P.No.141 of Binod Kumar Singh..Petitioner V E R S U S In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Cr.M.P.No.141 of 2013 Binod Kumar Singh..Petitioner V E R S U S Central Bureau of Investigation through its S.P, (A.C.B), Ranchi Opposite Party CORAM: HON BLE MR.JUSTICE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 184 OF 2011 Federation of SBI Pensioners Association & Ors....... Petitioner(s) Versus Union of India & Ors...............

More information

COURT NO. 3, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI T.A. No. 60 of 2010 Delhi High Court W.P (C) No. 621 of 2003

COURT NO. 3, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI T.A. No. 60 of 2010 Delhi High Court W.P (C) No. 621 of 2003 COURT NO. 3, ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI T.A. No. 60 of 2010 Delhi High Court W.P (C) No. 621 of 2003 IN THE MATTER OF:...Applicant Through Shri P.D.P Deo counsel for the Applicant.

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011. % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6105/2011 Date of decision: 1 st September, 2011 % SADHNA BHARDWAJ.. Petitioner Through: Mr. Dipak Bhattarcharya, Adv. Versus THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

More information

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: BHUBANESWAR. PRESENT:- Sri I.K. Das LLB, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: BHUBANESWAR. PRESENT:- Sri I.K. Das LLB, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. 1 IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: BHUBANESWAR. PRESENT:- Sri I.K. Das LLB, Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar. Crl. Appeal No. 2/18 of 2012 (Arising out of judgment dtd. 12.4.12 in GR case No.

More information

DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NEED FOR DOMESTIC ENQUIRY

DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NEED FOR DOMESTIC ENQUIRY DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NEED FOR DOMESTIC ENQUIRY For the smooth functioning of an industry, the defined codes of discipline, contracts of service by awards, agreements and standing orders must be adhered to.

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No.

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) WP(C) No. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) -Vs- WP(C) No. 1846/2010 Sri Ram Prakash Sarki, Constable (Since dismissed from

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Judgment pronounced on: 07.03.2012 I.A. No.13124/2011 in CS (OS) No.1674/2011 SURENDRA KUMAR GUPTA Through Mr. J.S. Mann, Adv....

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, Date of decision: WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 Date of decision: 24.05.2011 WP(C) No. 3595/2011 and CM Nos.7523/2011 YUDHVIR SINGH Versus Through: PETITIONER Mr.N.S.Dalal,

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Crl. M.C.No. 4264/2011 & Crl.M.A /2011 (stay)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. Crl. M.C.No. 4264/2011 & Crl.M.A /2011 (stay) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT Crl. M.C.No. 4264/2011 & Crl.M.A. 19640/2011 (stay) Decided on: 22nd February, 2012 SHORELINE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS LTD.

More information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay) * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4784/2014 and CM No.9529/2014 (Stay) Pronounced on: December 11, 2015 M/S IMS MERCANTILES PVT. LTD.... Petitioner Through: Mr.Bharat Gupta with Mr.Saurabh

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE. Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) No.807/2008. % Date of decision:1 st December, 2009 M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD & ANR. Petitioner Through: Mr Prem Kumar and Mr Sharad C.

More information

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). Versus *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 20 th September, 2010. + W.P.(C) No.2037/1992 & CM No.3935/1992 (for interim relief). % SH. SATISH CHAND KAPOOR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR s Through:...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 12210/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 12210/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 Date of Decision: 16.01.2012 W.P.(C) 12210/2009 NORTHERN ZONE RAILWAY EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LTD...

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998. Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 C.R.P. 589/1998 Date of Decision: 6th March, 2009 SURINDER KAUR Through: Petitioner Ms. Nandni Sahni, Advocate. versus SARDAR

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 5568/2017 & CM No /2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. % Judgment delivered on: W.P.(C) 5568/2017 & CM No /2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 18.09.2017 + W.P.(C) 5568/2017 & CM No. 23379/2017 M/S EPSILON PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT LTD... Petitioner Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS... Respondents

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CELLULAR OPERATORS ASS.O.I. & ORS. - Versus -

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CELLULAR OPERATORS ASS.O.I. & ORS. - Versus - THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 15.01.2010 + W.P.(C) 583/2007 CELLULAR OPERATORS ASS.O.I. & ORS... Petitioner - Versus - NIVEDITA SHARMA & ORS... Respondent Advocates who

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 W.P.(C) 1345/2011 DATE OF ORDER :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 W.P.(C) 1345/2011 DATE OF ORDER : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT, 1949 W.P.(C) 1345/2011 DATE OF ORDER : 14.03.2013 GUPTA AND GUPTA AND ANR Through: Mr. Sumit Thakur, Advocate.... Petitioners

More information

Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017

Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017 Crl. Rev. P. No. 5 of 2017 BEFORE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK 31.07.2017 Heard Mr. Pallab Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Nava Kumar Kalita, learned Additional Public

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2016 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2016 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2016 (Arising out SLP (Crl.) No. 7284 of 2016) CHANDRAKESHWAR PRASAD @ CHANDU BABU Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981 81 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981 82 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS) RULES, 1981 Rules Contents Page No. 1. Title 83 2. Definition 83

More information

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH

ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK FULL BENCH W.A. NO.122 OF 2014 In the matter of a reference made by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.09.2014... Sri Kasinath Nayak. Petitioner -Versus- State

More information

BERMUDA 2004 : 32 OMBUDSMAN ACT 2004

BERMUDA 2004 : 32 OMBUDSMAN ACT 2004 BERMUDA 2004 : 32 OMBUDSMAN ACT 2004 Date of Assent: 17 December 2004 Operative Date: 1 May 2005 1 Short title 2 Interpretation 3 Application of the Act 4 Office of Ombudsman 5 Functions and jurisdiction

More information

The Protection of Human Rights Act, No 10 of 1994

The Protection of Human Rights Act, No 10 of 1994 The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 No 10 of 1994 An Act to provide for the constitution of a National Human Rights Commission. State Human Rights Commission in States and Human Rights Courts for

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012. Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY Date of decision: 17th July, 2013 RFA 383/2012 DESIGN WORKS Through: Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Adv.... Appellant Versus ICICI BANK LTD... Respondent

More information

1990 CHAPTER S HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows:

1990 CHAPTER S HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, enacts as follows: 1990 CHAPTER S-63.1 An Act respecting Summary Offences Procedure and Certain consequential amendments resulting from the enactment of this Act (Assented to June 22, 1990) HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice

More information

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd.

CRP No. 216/2014 VERSUS. Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. CRP No. 220/2014 VERSUS. Bajrang Tea manufacturing Co. [P] Ltd. IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh) The Federal Bank Ltd. Petitioner VERSUS Mahendra Kumar Choukhany & Ors. Respondents CRP No. 220/2014 The Federal

More information

ANALYSIS. BE IT ENACTED by the General Assembly of New Zealand in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

ANALYSIS. BE IT ENACTED by the General Assembly of New Zealand in Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: 1965, No. 137 News Media Ownership 1117 ANALYSIS Title 1. Short Title 2. Interpretation 3. Restrictions on operation of private broadcasting station or publication of newspaper 4. Membership of news company,

More information

(4) Filing Fee: Payment of a $ 5.00 filing is required at the time of filing.

(4) Filing Fee: Payment of a $ 5.00 filing is required at the time of filing. Instructions for Filing a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon By a Person in State Custody (28 U.S.C. 2254) (1) To use this form, you must be a person

More information

Section 1: Statement of Purpose Section 2: Voluntary Discovery Section 3: Discovery by Order of the Court... 2

Section 1: Statement of Purpose Section 2: Voluntary Discovery Section 3: Discovery by Order of the Court... 2 Discovery in Criminal Cases Table of Contents Section 1: Statement of Purpose... 2 Section 2: Voluntary Discovery... 2 Section 3: Discovery by Order of the Court... 2 Section 4: Mandatory Disclosure by

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. SUBJECT : Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 WP(C) No.14332/2004 Pronounced on : 14.03.2008 Sanjay Kumar Jha...

More information

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI. KANUBHAI M PATEL HUF - Petitioner(s) Versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 5295 of 2010 WITH SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5296 OF 2010 AND SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5297 OF 2010 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A.No. 4674 of 2012 Mahendra Kumar Ruiya................Petitioner -Versus- 1. State of Jharkhand through. 2. Gautam Kumar Dubey..........Opp. Parties ----------

More information

110th Session Judgment No. 2991

110th Session Judgment No. 2991 Organisation internationale du Travail Tribunal administratif International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal Registry s translation, the French text alone being authoritative. 110th Session

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No /2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI. Date of Judgment: Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No /2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Date of Judgment: 05.07.2011 Ex. F. A. No.18/2010 & CM No. 18758/2010 YOGENDER KUMAR & ANOTHER...Appellants Through: Mr.Ved Prakash

More information

Number 27 of 2010 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2010 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART 1 Preliminary and General. PART 2 Impact of Crime on Victim

Number 27 of 2010 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2010 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART 1 Preliminary and General. PART 2 Impact of Crime on Victim Click here for Explanatory Memorandum Section Number 27 of 2010 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2010 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1 Preliminary and General 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. 3.

More information

Article IX DISCIPLINE By-Law and Manual of Procedure

Article IX DISCIPLINE By-Law and Manual of Procedure NOTICE 10-01-13 The following By-Laws, Manual and forms became effective August 28, 2013, and are to be used in all Disciplinary cases until further notice. Article IX DISCIPLINE By-Law and Manual of Procedure

More information

THE MAGISTRATES' COURTS ACT, Title PART I. Short title and commencement. Interpretation. PART II

THE MAGISTRATES' COURTS ACT, Title PART I. Short title and commencement. Interpretation. PART II Section 1. 2. THE MAGISTRATES' COURTS ACT, 1984 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Title PART I PRELIMINARY Short title and commencement. Interpretation. PART II ESTABLISHMENT, CONSTITUTION AND SET UP OF MAGISTRATES'

More information

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3945 OF 2018 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.35786 OF 2016) SISTERS OF ST. JOSEPH OF CLUNY APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF

More information

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF C. v. IRELAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 March 2012

FIFTH SECTION. CASE OF C. v. IRELAND. (Application no /08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG. 1 March 2012 FIFTH SECTION CASE OF C. v. IRELAND (Application no. 24643/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 1 March 2012 This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. C. v. IRELAND JUDGMENT 1 In the case of

More information

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates.

Through : Mr.P.V.Kapur, Sr.Advocate with Mr.V.K.Nagrath, Mr.Abhay Varma & Mr.Sidhant Kapur, Advocates. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR RECOVERY RESERVED ON : 27th NOVEMBER, 2014 DECIDED ON : 11th DECEMBER, 2014 CS (OS) 1980/2011 & CC No.21/2012 SHIV SHAKTI MADAN... Plaintiff Through

More information

HIGH COURT (BISHO) JUDGMENT. 1. The appellant who was accused no. 3 in the proceedings in the court a quo,

HIGH COURT (BISHO) JUDGMENT. 1. The appellant who was accused no. 3 in the proceedings in the court a quo, HIGH COURT (BISHO) CASE No. CA & R 21/2000 DUMISANIMBEBE Appellant and THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT EBRAHIM J: 1. The appellant who was accused no. 3 in the proceedings in the court a quo, was convicted

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : COMPANIES ACT 1956 Judgment delivered on: 03.01.2013 WP(C) 668/2012 AND CM No.27/2013 (for directions) & CM No.9851/2012 (for directions) M/S. KLEN & MARSHALLS

More information

FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION (REGULATION) ACT, 1976

FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION (REGULATION) ACT, 1976 FOREIGN CONTRIBUTION (REGULATION) ACT, 1976 [Act No. 49 of Year 1976] An Act to regulate the acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality by certain persons or associations,

More information

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on:

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on: THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 Judgment delivered on: 10.10.2013 OMP 234/2013 NSSL LIMITED...PETITIONER Vs HPCL-MITTAL ENERGY LIMITED & ANR....RESPONDENTS

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHANGE OF LAND USE MATTER Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 5180/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHANGE OF LAND USE MATTER Date of Decision: W.P.(C) 5180/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CHANGE OF LAND USE MATTER Date of Decision: 25.04.2013 W.P.(C) 5180/2012 NEERA SHARMA... Petitioner Through: Mr S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prashant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO OF 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO OF 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO. 2348 OF 2014 wp-2348-2014.sxw Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority.. Petitioner. V/s. The

More information

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com) DISTRICT : KOLKATA IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P. No. (W) of 2017 In the matter of :- An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ;

More information

Consolidated text PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED. The Misuse of Drugs (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1974 [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE

Consolidated text PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED. The Misuse of Drugs (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1974 [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED The Misuse of Drugs (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law, 1974 [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE This consolidated version of the enactment incorporates all amendments listed in the footnote below.

More information

... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP WITH

... Respondent Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP WITH * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: November 05, 2009 Judgment delivered on : November 10, 2009 + CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.136/1998 RAJENDER SINGH @ MASTER Through:... Appellant Mr.

More information

1. Words underlined with a solid line ( ) indicate the insertions in the existing rules.

1. Words underlined with a solid line ( ) indicate the insertions in the existing rules. APPROVED AMENDMENTS TO THE JSE EQUITIES RULES General explanatory notes: 1. Words underlined with a solid line ( ) indicate the insertions in the existing rules. 2. Words in bold and in square brackets

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- W.P.(C)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- W.P.(C) 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ---- W.P.(C) No. 3768 of 2015 ------ M/s Tata Steel Limited, an existing Company under previous Company Law, through Mrs. MeenaLall wife of Shri BehariLall,

More information

as amended by Architects and Quantity Surveyors Amendment Act 11 of 1992 (GG 420) came into force on date of publication: 17 June 1992 ACT

as amended by Architects and Quantity Surveyors Amendment Act 11 of 1992 (GG 420) came into force on date of publication: 17 June 1992 ACT Architects and Quantity Surveyors Act 13 of 1979 (OG 4029) brought into force, with the exception of section 13(1), on 1 January 1980 by AG 36/1979 (OG 4057); section 13(1) brought into force on 2 May

More information

NO. 01-B-1642 IN RE: CHARLES R. ROWE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

NO. 01-B-1642 IN RE: CHARLES R. ROWE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS 9/21/01 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA NO. 01-B-1642 IN RE: CHARLES R. ROWE ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS PER CURIAM * This matter arises from a petition for consent discipline filed by respondent, Charles

More information

Legal Supplement Part B Vol. 55, No st April, RULES THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES, 2016

Legal Supplement Part B Vol. 55, No st April, RULES THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE RULES, 2016 Legal Supplement Part B Vol. 55, No. 45 21st April, 2016 181 LEGAL NOTICE NO. 55 REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT, CHAP. 12:02 RULES MADE BY THE RULES COMMITTEE UNDER SECTION

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF MAY 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.PATIL AND THE HON BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR BETWEEN WRIT APPEAL NO.2828

More information

Second Session Eleventh Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Act No. 9 of 2017

Second Session Eleventh Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Act No. 9 of 2017 Legal Supplement Part A to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 56, No. 82, 7th August, 2017 Second Session Eleventh Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Act No.

More information

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH AT CHANDIMANDIR -.- TA 111 of 2012 (arising out of SWP 165 of 2009)

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH AT CHANDIMANDIR -.- TA 111 of 2012 (arising out of SWP 165 of 2009) 1 ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH AT CHANDIMANDIR -.- TA 111 of 2012 (arising out of SWP 165 of 2009) Mustaq Ahmad Sheikh Petitioner(s) Vs Union of India and others Respondent(s) -.- For

More information

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. + Writ Petition (Civil) No.5855 of % Judgment delivered on: January 11, Versus

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI. + Writ Petition (Civil) No.5855 of % Judgment delivered on: January 11, Versus * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.5855 of 2001 Judgment reserved on: December 16, 2009 % Judgment delivered on: January 11, 2010 Chander Bhan S/o Shri Chhotey Lal R/o Village

More information

CHAPTER 3:04 SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

CHAPTER 3:04 SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) 3 CHAPTER 3:04 SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. MAKING OF APPEAL 3. (1) Right of appeal. (2) Appeals

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 RFA No.595/2003 Reserved on: 4th January, 2012 Pronounced on: 13th January, 2012 SHRI VIRENDER SINGH Through: Mr. R.C. Chopra,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.835 OF 2017 VERSUS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.835 OF 2017 VERSUS 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.835 OF 2017 SUNIL SAMDARIA... PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : SUIT FOR POSSESSION Pronounced on: 16th October, 2014 CS (OS) NO. 1804/2012 MRS. VEENA SETH Through: Ms. Kamlesh Mahajan, Advocate... Plaintiff Versus

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARKS ACT, Judgment delivered on :3rd September, 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARKS ACT, Judgment delivered on :3rd September, 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT: TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 Judgment delivered on :3rd September, 2012 IA No.10795/2011 in CS(OS) 514/2010 STOKELY VAN CAMP INC & ANR... Plaintiff Through Ms.

More information

Standing Counsel for TNPSC

Standing Counsel for TNPSC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 15.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.20439 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011 E.Bamila.. Petitioner Vs. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 VERSUS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 VERSUS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CM(M) No.887/2014 DATE OF DECISION : 25th September, 2014 SMT. SALONI MAHAJAN Through: Mr. Puneet Saini, Advocate....Petitioner

More information

Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court 1994

Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court 1994 Draft Statute for an International Criminal Court 1994 Text adopted by the Commission at its forty-sixth session, in 1994, and submitted to the General Assembly as a part of the Commission s report covering

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP( C ) NO.. 2017 (IN THE MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) IN THE MATTER OF : JOGINDER KUMAR SUKHIJA S/o Sh.Prabhu Dayal Sukhija R/o 174, IInd Floor, Avtar

More information

SMALL CLAIMS COURT ACT

SMALL CLAIMS COURT ACT LAWS OF KENYA SMALL CLAIMS COURT ACT NO. 2 OF 2016 Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General www.kenyalaw.org Small Claims Court No. 2 of 2016 Section

More information

MANGE RAM BHARDWAJ Petitioner Through: Mr.R.K.Saini, Mr.S.P.Pandey, Mr.Sitab Ali Chaudhary, and Ms.Rashmi Pandey, Advocates VERSUS

MANGE RAM BHARDWAJ Petitioner Through: Mr.R.K.Saini, Mr.S.P.Pandey, Mr.Sitab Ali Chaudhary, and Ms.Rashmi Pandey, Advocates VERSUS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : THE PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 Reserved on: May 07, 2012 Pronounced on: May 21, 2012 W.P.(C) No. 515/1989 MANGE RAM

More information

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015

ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2. OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014. Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015 1 RESERVED ORDER A.F.R ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, LUCKNOW COURT NO 2 OA 274/2014 with MA 1802/2014 Thursday, this the 16th of Feb 2015 Hon ble Mr. Justice Virendra Kumar DIXIT, Judicial Member

More information

Papua New Guinea: Proceeds of Crime Act 2005

Papua New Guinea: Proceeds of Crime Act 2005 The Asian Development Bank and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development do not guarantee the accuracy of this document and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequences of

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RONALD COTE Petitioner vs. Case No.SC00-1327 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent / DISCRETIONARY REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT BRIEF

More information

REFUGEES ACT 130 OF 1998

REFUGEES ACT 130 OF 1998 REFUGEES ACT 130 OF 1998 [ASSENTED TO 20 NOVEMBER 1998] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 APRIL 2000] (English text signed by the President) as amended by 1 Refugees Amendment Act 33 of 2008 [with effect from a

More information

TITLE XVIII MILITARY COMMISSIONS

TITLE XVIII MILITARY COMMISSIONS H. R. 2647 385 TITLE XVIII MILITARY COMMISSIONS Sec. 1801. Short title. Sec. 1802. Military commissions. Sec. 1803. Conforming amendments. Sec. 1804. Proceedings under prior statute. Sec. 1805. Submittal

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.W. J.C. No. 72 of 1999 (R) with C.W. J.C. No. 74 of 1999 (R) Urmila Devi Petitioner [CWJC No. 72/99 (R)] 1. Pushpa Devi 2. Urmila Devi... Petitioners [CWJC

More information

Rule 900. Scope; Notice In Death Penalty Cases.

Rule 900. Scope; Notice In Death Penalty Cases. POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS 234 Rule 900 CHAPTER 9. POST-CONVICTION COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS 900. Scope; Notice In Death Penalty Cases. 901. Initiation of Post-Conviction Collateral Proceedings.

More information

THE ENERGY REGULATION ACT CHAPTER 436 OF THE LAWS OF ZAMBIA

THE ENERGY REGULATION ACT CHAPTER 436 OF THE LAWS OF ZAMBIA [CAP. 436 " REPUBLIC OF ZAMBIA THE ENERGY REGULATION ACT CHAPTER 436 OF THE LAWS OF ZAMBIA 2 CAP. 436] Energy Regulation THE ENERGY REGULATION ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY Section 1.

More information

Misuse of Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act Vis-à-vis Human Rights: Need for Statutory changes

Misuse of Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act Vis-à-vis Human Rights: Need for Statutory changes Misuse of Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act Vis-à-vis Human Rights: Need for Statutory changes By Prof (Dr) Mukund Sarda 1. Increasing number of false cases of Dowry harassment against the husbands

More information

PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE (ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND REPARATIONS) BILL, 2011

PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE (ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND REPARATIONS) BILL, 2011 PREVENTION OF COMMUNAL AND TARGETED VIOLENCE (ACCESS TO JUSTICE AND REPARATIONS) BILL, 2011 CHAPTER I PRELIMNARY 1. Short title, extent and commencement.- (1) This Act is called Prevention of Communal

More information

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH 1. Mr. N. Asangba, Presently serving as Surveyor Grade-II, PHE Central Store, under the establishment

More information

Notification PART I CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY

Notification PART I CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY [TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZZETTE OF INDIA, EXTRAORDINARY, PART II, SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION (i)] GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION) Notification

More information

No. 5 of 1992 VIRGIN ISLANDS DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENCES ACT, 1992

No. 5 of 1992 VIRGIN ISLANDS DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENCES ACT, 1992 No. 5 of 1992 VIRGIN ISLANDS DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENCES ACT, 1992 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. 3. Meaning of "corresponding law". 4. Provisions as

More information