Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 190 (6.67 seconds)
Documents citing State Of West Bengal vs Atul Krishna Shaw And Anr on 28 August, 1990

State vs Atul Jain Etc on 8 July, 2011

1. Briefly facts of the case are that prosecution has put allegations against accused persons that as per the deposition of PW15 Smt. Indu Jain who happens to be the mother of deceased Sandeep Jain, deceased Sandeep Jain, elder brother of accused Atul Jain used to sit at Jain Tea Stall at WZ­B249, Hastal Road since Sandeep was 7 FIR no.267/2009 State Vs Atul Jain etc 7 years old and Sandeep used to take care of the work and also used to help his father. Accused Atul Jain never used to do any work and was always engaged in drinking habits of liquor and used to Awaragardi. Accused Atul Jain was also in the habit of involving himself in scuffle and used to steal various articles of his Bhabhi namely Sarita Jain and used to abuse her.
Delhi District Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Atul Tanwar on 3 April, 2018

In the present case convict has been convicted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act.  No previous conviction has been alleged or proved against convict.  The convict is not involved in any such case, as State Vs. Atul; FIR No. 50/18; PS RG 2/2 stated by him.  Convict is having a family to support.   Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused/convict is facing trial for defacing the public property   by   putting   a   poster   for   advertisement   of   his   shop.     I   am   of considered   view   that   ends   of   justice   would   be   met   if   the   convict   is admonished u/s. 3 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958.  Further u/s. 5 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958, convict is directed to deposit Rs.500 /­ as the cost of the proceedings of the court.  The same has been deposited.  Receipt be issued.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Udaysingh Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar vs Governor, State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 26 April, 1996

25. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly stated that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Committee are based on either no acceptable evidence, or surmises and conjectures. Not assigned its own reasons been given by the Disciplinary Committee differing from the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The duty to give reasons is a safeguard against arbitrariness and compulsion of disclosure of reasons guarantees consideration by the authority and minimises chances of unconscious infiltration of personal bias or unfairness in the conclusion. Giving reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review. Reasoned decision is not only for the purpose of showing that the citizen is receiving justice, but also a valid discipline for the Tribunal itself. Therefore, statement of reasons is one of the essentials of justice as observed by Their Lordships in a case of State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna & Anr. in para 7. Their Lordships in para 10 again observed that;
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

State vs . Atul Sharma & Etc. on 15 April, 2011

7. From the statement of PW-1 it is firmly established that the accused persons attacked him due to which he sustained injuries. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the element of common intention can be inferred. It is accordingly proved that the accused persons, with their common intention caused hurt on the person of PW-1. The C/No. 241/97 Unique ID No. 02401R0051931997 Page No. 7 State Vs. Atul Sharma & etc. FIR No. 381/96 PS Adarsh Nagar ingredients of Section 323 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt. As already discussed, the nature of injury as grievous could not be proved hence, no conviction can be recorded u/s 325 IPC. However, by virtue of Section 222 CrPC a conviction u/s 323/34 IPC can still be recorded. In these circumstances, I hold all the accused persons guilty u/s 323/34 IPC.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Charutar vs Parents on 7 May, 2012

38. The learned Single Judge in exercise of his powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution could not interfere with the decision of the Fee Regulatory Committee by re-appreciating the evidence and record his own findings by entering into the accounting details. He could not act as an appellate authority. The Apex Court in State of W.B. v. Atul Krishna Shaw and another, AIR 1990 SC 2205 had held in paragraph 7 as under:-
Gujarat High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Narayan Renu vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 29 September, 2005

5. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. In exercise of the writ jurisdiction, the scope of interference with a disciplinary proceeding is very limited, namely, the employee was afforded reasonable opportunity of presenting his own case to rebut the charges, the principles of Natural Justice were observed, and the prescribed procedure was followed. The Supreme Court has observed in State of west Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw (supra), that in a quasi-judicial proceeding whore the authority has appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the findings of fact, the same are binding on the High Court. By process of judicial review, the Court cannot appreciate the evidence and record its own findings of facts subject to me well-known exceptions of perversity of findings etc. Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice.
Patna High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - S K Katriar - Full Document

Workmen Of Sadakt (Represented By Bihar ... vs Presiding Officer, Industrial ... on 20 February, 1998

I am supported by a decision in the case of State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw (supra), wherein it has been held that if the authority had appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the findings of fact, the same are binding upon the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction. In that view of the matter, in process of judicial review, this Court cannot reappraise the evidence and record the findings thereon contrary to what has been recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record has rejected the claim of the workmen but, however, allowed the pay-scale and other benefits applicable to the non-journalist, as stated above. The pay-scale applicable to the non-journalist has been allowed to the concerned workmen on the submission advanced on their behalf as stated above.
Patna High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Suburban Agriculture Dairy & Fisheries ... on 3 May, 1993

As seen earlier the effect of the operation of Secs.4 and 5 is divesting the intermediaries of his pre-existing right, title and interest in the estate except those which were exempted from the operation of the Act. One of the exemptions is retention of the possession of the lands covered by Sec 6 of the Act. See 6(1) (e), tand fisheries is one such. Sub-section (2) amplifies its effect. Sub- section '(2) transposes the pre-existing possessory right of the retained lands of an intermediary of tank fisheries into holder of it as a tenant without any interest therein. By fiction of law the respondent was transposed as "holder" of the possession directly under the State as tenant, subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified and subject to payment of rent as may be determined from time to time. Therefore, what was saved by non-obstenti clause of Sec.6(1) & (2) of the Act is the right of retention. of the Physical (Khas) Possession of tank fisheries. What was intended in Atul Kishan Shaw's case was that Sec. 6(2)saved the retention of possession of tank fisheries and not divesting the state of the vested rights etc. in the estate. In South Indian States of A.P. and Tamil Nadu etc. of the Madras Province, Madras Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Raiyatvari) Act, 26 of 1948 is in operation. After the states reorganisation, in Tamil Nadu it is called Tamil Nadu Act and in Andhra Pradesh it is called Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Act. Thereunder Sec. II provides procedure to grant raiyatvari patta to a raiyat in occupation. Section 3(2) (d) proviso gives statutory protection to a raiyat from dispossession till raiytavari patta has been granted-, Sees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 13 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next