LexLords NRI Legal Services Calgary By NRI Legal Services LexLords

NRI legal services - https://lexlords.com/corporate/. And as such, in the absence of proof of recovery of the weapon used in the occurrence from the appellant, there was no justification, whatsoever, for the High Court to have found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Thirdly, it was submitted, that the recovery of the weapon, namely, the gun with which the appellant"Brij Lal, allegedly shot at the neighbours and co-villagers, resulting in the death of Om Prakash, Sultan Bhat and Munni Devi, was not proved to have been recovered from the appellant.

As already pointed out, if any creditor raises any dispute as to the quantum of the property as he is entitled to raise such a dispute in his written statement filed under section 10, in that situation it may well be held that such a creditor is directly interested in the enquiry under section 11 ; but it is difficult to see that all other creditors who have accepted the list of property filed by the debtor as true are directly interested in the enquiry under that section and are as such necessary parties and that without impleading them the enquiry cannot proceed.

It was submitted, that the State of Rajasthan, chose not to prefer any appeal against the order of acquittal of the co-accused " Kashi Ram. He deposed, that the occurrence had taken place within 10/15 days NRI Legal Services of his moving to the house of Mohan Ram " PW-1. And as such, there was no question of their having intentionally fired shots at the neighbours and co-villagers and therefore, could not have been held guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

18(a) of the Specific Belief Act could be granted to plaintiff as that would amount to a reconstruction of the agreement between the parties; and (iv) that no alternative relief under a. He deposed, that the accused-appellant " Brij Lal and the co- accused " Kashi Ram were calling him outside the house. He urged, that to avoid the appellant, he had surrendered the government accommodation allotted to him at Suleman-ki-Head and had moved to a rented accommodation, in the house of Mohan Ram " PW-1.

He asserted, that Mohan Ram " PW-1, was sitting outside the gate of his house, whilst he himself, his wife and children, were in the house. Fifthly, it was contended, that the evidence produced by the prosecution reveals, that the incident had occurred more than 200 feet away from the house of Mohan Ram " PW-1. It was submitted, that the same witnesses as were produced by the prosecution against the appellant-Brij Lal, were also produced by the prosecution, against the co-accused " Kashi Ram.

15 of the Specific Relief Act could be granted as plaintiff had not relinquished all further claims. All that these rules insist upon is that all persons should be joined as defendants against whom any right to relief is alleged to exist, provided that such right arises in respect of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions and the case is one where common question of law or fact would arise. If for that purpose it sought to acquire land, it could not be said that acquisition was illegal or unlawful.

Secondly, it was urged, that the target of the appellant- Brij Lal, as per the prosecution story, was Mohan Lal - PW-15. Just the above fact, according to learned counsel, is sufficient to demonstrate, that the mob which had assembled at the place of occurrence, was acting in an intimidating manner, resulting in the accused- appellant " Brij Lal and the co-accused " Kashi Ram, retreating away from the house of Mohan Ram " PW-1 towards the house of Sultan Bhat. 518 would do if he had filed a suit against him.

On the culmination of the trial against Kashi Ram, he was found innocent, and was acquitted. The Court also stated that since late the prices of real estate have sky-rocketed making it beyond the reach of low income and middle income groups of people, hence, the State has a duty to give shelter to homeless people, specially, to the people of the low income group. On such exhortation, Mohan Ram " PW-1 had told the accused-appellant and the co-accused, that he would not allow them to kill Mohan Lal " PW-15 at his residence, but they did not listen to him, and continued to hurl filthy abuses.

Rules I and 3 of Schedule I Of the Code of Civil Procedure do not lay down that every person who is ultimately interested in the result of a suit should be impleaded as a defendant. It is not possible to hold that the objector can claim any right to relief against the creditors as such. (iii) that no relief under a. He confirmed, that they were holding pistols in their hands. Refuting the contention and upholding the acquisition, the Court took note of the fact that it was a matter of common knowledge that there is acute shortage of housing accommodation both in rural and urban areas of the country.

Fourthly, it was submitted, that the co-accused " Kashi Ram, who was tried separately, was prosecuted in the same manner as the appellant. This enquiry is made after the quantum of the property of the debtor has been ascertained under section 11. Firstly, it was contended, that the factum that the appellant-Brij Lal had also suffered injuries, was sufficient to establish, that their retaliation by firing gunshots at the gathering, was a matter of self-defence, and nothing else.

The occurrence is stated to have taken place between 8 p. It is therefore apparent, that the gunshots fired by the appellant-Brij Lal and the co-accused " Kashi Ram, were in their self-defence, NRI Legal Services and nothing more. NRI Legal Services According to learned counsel, the prosecution cannot succeed in one case, and fail in the other, when the witnesses produced against both accused are the same.