The tariff order has not been challenged by the power producer. , when Phoola Ram, after doing his days work, was returning home and he was about to reach home, Nafe Singh armed with gandasi came and challenged and abused him and inflicted a gadasi blow on his head. It is contended that in the said cases it has been held that a PPA duly entered into and otherwise consistent with the tariff order of the State Regulatory Commission cannot be reopened. According to section 4 ‘of the Indian -Penal Code and section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if at the time of the commission of the offence the person committing it is a citizen of India then even if the offence is committed outside, India he is subject to 698 the jurisdiction of the Courts in India, as qua citizens the jurisdiction of Courts is not lost by reason of the Venue of an offence.
2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Lawyer in Criminal Appeal No. Therefore, the tariff approved by the State Regulatory Commission and incorporated in the PPA would remain in force for the period of time agreed upon and the same cannot be altered unilaterally. 3) Zile Singh, Krishan Pal, Raj Kumar and Phoola Ram are the residents of village Mowana. These is another aspect of the matter. Reliance in this regard is placed on two recent decisions of Ltd.
2 of the PPA the appellant is required to pay tariff as determined by the State Commission which Lawyer Chandigarh is liable to escalation @ 3% per annum. This again is a clear contempt of this Court. 2002 passed by the Special Judge, Patiala in Lawyer in Chandigarh C. A somewhat discordant note struck by this Court in Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh appellant by contending that in the PPA involved in that case there was a specific clause that the tariff would be as revised by orders of the State Regulatory Commission from time to time.
In the meantime, Jagdish armed with lathi came and inflicted lathi blow on each of his hands. 1) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28. The trial court found rest of the three accused, namely, Dhanwantari, Jamna das and Manoj guilty of offence of murder with common intention punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and convicted them accordingly. Even if the passage about the Judges were not in the leaflet the rest would still amount to a serious contempt of Court.
Ranjit and Rameshwar also reached there and inflicted lathi blow to Raj Kumar and Krishan Pal, Dharma, son of Sadhu Ram inflicted lathi blow on his shoulder, Jagdish and Ranjit inflicted lathi blow to Zile Singh, who fell unconscious. Accused Dhanwantari was further convicted under Section 201 IPC for causing disappearance of evidence of murder. The manner in which the leaflets were distributed, the language used in them and the timing of their publication could only have had one object, namely, to try and influence 685 the Judges in favour of the petitioner and the others who were in the same position as himself.
The trial court after hearing the parties found that charge framed against accused Vishal (brother-in-law of the deceased) regarding his involvement in the crime, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt as such he was acquitted. It was not fair comment on the proceedings but an attempt to prejudice the Court against the State and to stir up public feeling on the very question then pending for decision. An interesting but very important legal question arises for consideration in this appeal relating to interpretation of Section 69(3) of the Indian Partnership Act with reference to its applicability to Arbitral proceedings.
The arguments on behalf of the appellant-distribution licensee in both the cases are more or less common. (b) The licensee shall comply with such directions as the Provincial Government may by general or special order give as to the manner in which approved films shall be exhibited in the course of any performance. There is in’ it a strong denunciation of the State of Uttar Pradesh, a party to the appeal and the petitions’ regarding the very matters then under the consideration of Advocate Chandigarh this Court.
97 by affirming the conviction while reducing the sentence. it is urged that under Clause 5. If, of however, at the time of the commission of the offence the accused person is not a citizen of India these sections have no application at all. ” Explanation:-” Approved Films” means a cinematograph film approved for the purpose of this condition by the Provincial Government or the Central Government. On hearing the cry of Phoola Ram, Zile Singh and Raj Kumar, sons of Phoola Ram and Krishan Pal, his grandson came there to rescue him.
In the case of Tarini Infrastructure Ltd. This is certainly an extraordinary power which must be sparingly exercised but where the public interest demands it, the Court will 88 686 not shrink from exercising it and imposing punishment even by way of imprisonment, in cases where a mere fine may not be adequate. Thus there appears to be urgent need to review the provisions of the Advocates Chandigarh Act dealing with regulatory mechanism for the legal profession and other incidental issues, in consultation with all concerned.
852-SB of 2002 whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the judgment and order dated 03.