.....the ground that the tribunal did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the subject matter of the writ petition.2. as per the impugned order, the petitioner had assailed the communications dated 11th march, 2005, 14th march, 2005, 20th april, 2009, 3rd may, 2010, 25th august, 2010 and 28th february, 2012 issued by the respondents. the tribunal was of the view that communication which was assailed is a matter of policy and that no wp(c) no.6535/2012 page 1 of 7 part of the cause of action had arisen in favour of the petitioner at mumbai where the petitioner was posted.3. during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has placed before us a copy of the communication dated 23rd january, 2013 received by him from the integrated headquarters, ministry of defence (navy) new delhi
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the deputy commissioner, godda vide his order no. 09/2012 dated 24.03.2012 concluded that the show-cause filed by the petitioner is unsatisfactory, hence he black-listed petitioner's firm and ordered that during the period of one year , no transaction will be made with the petitioner and/or his firm. it is also stated that respondents paid the bills submitted by the petitioner, relating to supply of goods and food, after deducting 30% and 15% amount respectively.4. sri saibal mitra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order and/or action of respondents is violative of principle of natural justice, because the petitioner has not been given adequate opportunity of hearing, before passing of the impugned order. it is submitted that in the impugned order, respondents discussed about the letter no. 785 dated 06.06.2010 of district supply officer,godda, but the copy of the said letter not given to the petitioner, therefore, petitioner could not give effective reply to the show-cause notice. accordingly, it is submitted that impugned order cannot be sustained.5. on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the state submits that petitioner has been.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTin the high court of jharkhand at ranchi w.p. (s) no. 1821 of 2010 --- ram bachan sharma --- --- ---- petitioner versus the state of jharkhand through its principal secretary, department of science and technology, govt. of jharkhand & others --- --- --- respondents --- coram: the honble mr. justice aparesh kumar singh for the petitioner: dr. shree krishna pandey , advocate for the state of jharkhand: jc to sc-1 for the state of bihar: jc to ga, bihar --- 10/ 12.09.2013 this application shall be heard. respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit, therefore, no fresh notice is required to be issued. parties are at liberty to make a mention for fixing an early date of hearing of this case. (aparesh kumar singh, j) ranjeet/
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....cases and the charge-sheet against him in the absence of placing on record any cogent grounds.15. no reason has been disclosed in the petition as to why the call record of the accused, their counsel or the pp is required.16. the learned trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner for taking on record the audio recordings of the conversations on the ground that the accused has ample opportunity to elicit facts from the witness by questioning him during cross-examination. in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, he may take recourse to the appropriate remedy as available to him under law, but for that he cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court. in fact, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner did not press reliefs `c’ to `g’.17. in view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. sunita gupta (judge) september 12 2013 as
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the prescribed form. in babbar sewing machine company (supra) it was held:11. it is a travesty of justice that the trial court should have, in the facts and circumstances of the case, passed an order striking out the defence of the defendant under order xi, rule 21 and that the high court should have declined to set it aside. the penalty imposed by order xi, rule 21 is of a highly penal nature, and ought only to be used in extreme cases, and should in no way be imposed unless there is a clear failure to comply with the obligations laid down in the rule.12. order xi, rule 21 of the cpc reads :“21. where any party fails to comply with any order to answer interrogatories, or for discovery of inspection of documents, he shall, if a plaintiff, be liable to have his suit dismissed for want of prosecution, and, if a defendant, to have his defence; if any, struck out, and to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended, and the party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection may apply to the court for an order to that effect, and an order may be made accordingly.”13. section 136 of the cpc, 1882, corresponding to order xi, rule 21 of the c.p.c. 1908, was based.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....srikaranpur kraya-vikraya sahakari samiti vs. santokh singh & ors. // 3 // revisional authority for consideration afresh, dilatation on all the factual aspects does not appear necessary. in a brief reference to the background aspects, suffice would be to notice that the respondent no.1 had earlier been working as manager with the petitioner-society. there were complaints about his conduct and working wherefor, the inquiry proceedings were taken up per section 70 of the act of 1965 wherein, the inquiry officer was directed to inquire into the following points:-“1. सम त क तक ल न नजर श सन खमसह द र तक ल न पश सक एव उप रजजस! र स ररमलव ह स य ब%न य त प ण( कर य प)र न 5 वर+ क य त भत ब%ल. क भग ) न प प कर सम त क ह तन पह1च ई क सम%न5 6 । 2- श सन खमसह द र सम त क पस व द9न क 28.9.87 प रर करव कर गल प9 ननत प प करन एव 5 र 70(6) क ह तनक ल गई आर पप र मशय. क< वसल) नह करव न । 3- श.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the complainant in fir no. 860/2006 under section 380/457/34 ipc registered at ps malviya nagar, i.e. the plaintiff no.1has duly mentioned the facts of forgery and fraud played upon her. even during the hearing of bail application learned counsel for the plaintiff no.1/complainant was present and thus the plaintiffs had due knowledge of the facts. further the defendant no.1 filed a civil suit being cs(os) no. 1688/2006 wherein the plaintiff no.1 filed a written statement on 8th september, 2006 allegedly claiming the documents to be forged. thus, even taking the said date as the date of knowledge the present suit is barred by limitation. from the documents filed by the plaintiffs, it is evident that the suit is barred by limitation. since the plaintiffs are claiming the relief of declaration of the general power of attorney and sale deed to be forged and fabricated, as per article 56 of the schedule to the limitation act, 1963, the limitation to file a suit to declare the forgery of an instrument issued or registered is three years and the time from which the period begins to run is when the forgery becomes known to the plaintiff. the plaintiff no.1 was a witness to gpa.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....regarding the other issue of re-marriage of widow of the deceased, i note, while awarding compensation, the learned tribunal has taken this fact into view because out of the total awarded amount, i.e., 11,65,000/- including the interim award of rs.50,000/-, only a sum of rs.3,00,000/- has been granted in her favour and out of the remaining amount, 65% was granted in favour of respondent no.3 smt. sudesh and 35% was granted in favour of the respondent no.2 mahesh tomar, i.e., the parents of the deceased.6. moreover, just because of the fact that the widow of deceased has re-married, it cannot be said that she had lost nothing and not suffered any mental agony. she lost her husband at a very young age and under the compelling circumstances she was compelled to re-marry.7. therefore, in view of the above discussion and taking into consideration the apportionment of the compensation amount granted by the learned tribunal, i do not find any discrepancy in granting a sum of rs.3,00,000/- to the widow of the deceased.8. learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has also disputed the multiplier of 12 applied by the learned tribunal.9. i note, the learned tribunal has.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....consortium loss of estate funeral expenses total compensation rs. 1,00,000/rs.10,000/rs. 5,000/rs.50,000/ rs. 26,36,900/- - rs.24,71,900/- modified/reduced compensation comes to rs.1,68,916/- (28,05,81626,36,900).9. i note, pursuant to order dated 15.05.2012, appellant has deposited the award amount with uco bank, delhi high court branch, new delhi. the branch manager, uco bank, delhi high court branch is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the respondents / claimants after deducting the amount mentioned above with proportionate interest thereto.10. consequently, statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant/insurance company.11. appeal stands disposed of on the above terms. cm. no. 8861/2012 with the disposal of the appeal itself, this application has become infructuous. the same is accordingly disposed of. suresh kait, j september 12 2013 jg/rs
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....suffering, inconvenience, mental shock and temporary loss of amenities suffered by the respondent no.1/injured, i do not find any discrepancy in the order awarding rs.75,000/- on account of non-pecuniary heads.8. in view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed and stands disposed of.9. vide order dated 30.08.2012, this court directed the appellant/insurance company to deposit 50% of the awarded amount (less counsel’s fee) along with upto date interest with uco bank, high court of delhi, new delhi.10. the appellant/insurance company is directed to deposit the balance 50% of the awarded amount along with upto date interest with the registrar general of this court within a period of five weeks from today.11. on deposit, the registrar general is directed to release the amount in favour of the respondent no.1/injured in terms of the impugned award dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned tribunal on taking necessary steps by him.12. on deposit of balance award amount, the registry of this court is directed to release the statutory deposit, if any, in favour of the appellant/insurance company. cm no. 14235/2012 (for stay) with the disposal of the appeal itself, this.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT