.....come up first before this court on 31 st july, 2013 when even though prima facie there did not appear any merit in the appeal but considering the fact that it is first appeal, it was deemed appropriate to requisition the trial court record and issue notice. the trial court record has been received and the counsels have been heard.3. the two respondents/plaintiffs had instituted the suit from which this appeal arises for recovery of possession of the said premises and for mesne profits/damages for use and occupation and for permanent injunction pleading that they had let out the premises to the appellants/defendants at a rent of rs.31,000/- per month under a rent agreement dated 16th march, 2007 for a period of three years with effect from 1st april, 2007 and expiring on 31st march, 2010; that after 31st march, 2010, the appellants/defendants became tenants from month to month in the premises; that the said tenancy of the appellants/defendants was determined by the legal notice dated 29th february, 2012 sent on 1st march, 2012; that the appellants/defendants inspite of determination of their tenancy had failed to vacate the premises; that the appellants/defendants had also not.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTin the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice v.chitambaresh monday, the 19th day of august 2013 28th sravana, 1935 wp(c).no. 20179 of 2013 (v) ---------------------------- petitioner(s): ----------------- 1. renuka suresh, w/o.suresh vypana house, pala p.o, kottayam ”575. 2. sandeep suresh, s/o.suresh vypana house, pala p.o, kottayam ”575. 3. george thomas nadakkal, arunapuram po, kottayam ”574. by adv. sri.a.rajasimhan respondent(s): ------------------- 1. state bank of travancore pala branch, kottayam ”575. represented by its chief manager.2. deputy tahasildar revenue recovery office, pala, kottayam-68”3. village officer lalam village, pala p.o., kottayam ”575. 4. mini roy, w/o.roy thyparambil house, chethimattom, pala p.o kottayam 68
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....(for short 'the code') after his application moved before the sessions judge for such relief had been turned down vide annexure-a3 order.2. de facto complainant in the crime is a police officer. allegation is that while doing patrol duty with another constable on a bike, on the night of 16.7.2013 at about 2.30 a.m., an autorickshaw driven by petitioner passing through was signalled to stop having suspicion that stolen goods are transported in that vehicle. driver of the autorickshaw failed to heed the signal given and proceeded further. the vehicle was chased in the bike. when the bike got in front of the autorickshaw, it was hit on the rear side with the autorickshaw intentionally by its driver and that resulted in both riders falling to the ground with the bike. on the statement given by de facto b.a.no.5387/2013 2 complainant, crime was registered for the offences stated supra, and it is now under investigation.3. learned counsel for petitioner adverting to some aspects the cases that the riders in the vehicle were in civil dress, that the bike was a private vehicle belonging to one of the riders and subsequent to the crime some enquiry is being conducted against de.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to be applied upon the pending applications for grant of mining lease/licence. consideration of these matters was deferred earlier in view of the fact that the very same notification dated 03.04.2013 was already under challenge in identical matters wherein arguments had been heard by a co-ordinate bench and order was awaited. dbcwp no.5451/2013 alongwith connected matters 2 it is noticed that the awaited order was ultimately pronounced on 31.07.2013 in a batch of petitions led by db cwp no.4241/2013: federation of sand stone mining industries association & ors. vs. state of rajasthan & ors. wherein, the co-ordinate bench held the amendment made in sub-rule (10) of rule 4 and sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the rules of 1986 to be illegal to the extent it provided for rejection of pending applications. the co-ordinate bench, inter alia, held as under:- therefore, impugned amendment dated 03.04.2013 made in sub-rule (10) of rule 4 and rule 7(3) of the rules of 1986 are hereby declared illegal to the extent of rejection of the pending applications and it is directed that all the pending applications filed upto 27.01.2011 shall be decided in accordance with law prevailing prior to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....2013 judgment the petitioner asserts that only a sum of 2,32,351/- (rupees two lakhs thirty two thousand three hundred and fifty one only) was given credit to in ext.p1 order of assessment. ext.p1 order was challenged in appeal wherein a further sum of 2,89,765/-(rupees two lakhs eighty nine thousand seven hundred and sixty five only) was paid as a condition for grant of stay. the appeal was eventually allowed and ext.p5 modified order of assessment followed.2. the petitioner laments that the sum of 2,89,765/- (rupees two lakhs eighty nine thousand seven hundred and sixty five only) remitted pending appeal has not been given credit to in ext.p5 order. the petitioner has in this regard submitted ext.p7 representation with the first respondent. i direct the first respondent to consider ext.p7 representation with notice to the petitioner within a period of one month. the coercive proceedings evidenced by ext.p6 notice shall be put on hold in the meanwhile. w.p.(c) no.20110 o”2. 3. the petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition with the judgment before the first respondent for compliance. the writ petition is disposed of. v.chitambaresh judge smm
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....has filed the above application seeking pre-arrest bail under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure (for short "the code").2. de facto complainant is a salesman of textile goods. he used to carry his business taking textile goods in a motor cycle. allegation is that the accused persons, three in number, waylayed him while he was riding on a motor cycle and forcefully robbed him a sum of rs.9,000/-, and, thereby, they committed the offence of robbery. crime registered on the complaint given by the above salesman is now pending investigation.3. learned counsel for petitioner would submit that he has been falsely implicated in the crime since he had raised some objections over the quality of textile goods sold by de facto complainant. delay in reporting the incident to police and registering of the crime is also canvassed by counsel to contend that he has been falsely implicated. opposing the application learned public prosecutor submitted that the other two accused b.a.no.4873 o”2. had been arrested and materials gathered by investigating agency disclose culpability of petitioner with the arrested accused in the commission of the offence alleged. petitioner is.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the respondent-company and signatories to the memorandum and articles of association. the company was incorporated on 27.08.2010 for the manufacture of cables. the authorised capital of the company was `1 crore divided into 10 lakh equity shares of `10 each. the paidup capital was `10 lakhs. the petitioner initially appears to have taken 75000 shares, with satish kumar taking 25,000 shares; later, the petitioner sold 30,000 shares to one mohit kathuria. the shares were transferred to mohit kathuria on 25.11.2011. the petitioner and satish kumar were appointed the first directors. mohit kathuria and arvind kumar sharma were later appointed as directors.3. the work of the company was divided between the three directors: the petitioner was to look after the sales, mohit kathuria and satish kumar, the manufacturing operations. arvind kumar sharma was only a sleeping director. initially the company did well, but later on started facing financial problems for various reasons. soon the manufacturing operations stopped and the factory became dysfunctional; the factory land had been mortgaged to the bank for loan purposes and interest burden started increasing every day. losses.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....claim of the individual petitioners' with liberty to them to prefer fresh individual representation before the respondents-managing director of mada, dhanbad together with all supporting facts and documents within a period of 3 weeks. on receipt of such representations, the respondents- managing director, mada shall consider the same in accordance with law and after verification of such service records of the retired employees/deceased employee pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, rules, guidelines and circulars prevalent in the department of mada, so far as their grievances are concerned within a period of 12 weeks thereafter, which shall also be communicated to the individual petitioners. needless to say that if any of the claim of these petitioners are found to be genuine and admissible, the same shall also be paid as per scheme framed by the respondents mada, which is applicable to the retired employees of mada. such payments as per the scheme should commence within one month of the passing of the reasoned order. accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid term. (aparesh kumar singh, j) jk
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTin the high court of jharkhand at ranchi cr. m.p. no.1778 o”1. jasbir kaur 2. ravinderjeet kaur @ bhuggi kaur . petitioners versus the state of jharkhand & anr. opp. parties ----- coram: honble mr. justice r.r. prasad ----- for the petitioners : mr. ananda sen, advocate for the opp. party : app ----- 02/19.08.2013: issue notice to the opp. party no.2 to show cause as to why not this application be admitted and/or, if possible, be disposed of at the time of admission itself, for which requisites etc. under registered cover with a/d must be filed by friday i.e. on 23.08.2013. let this case be listed on appearance of the opp. party no.2. till then, further proceeding of sakchi p.s. case no.69 of 2012 (g.r. no.1080 of 2012) pending in the court of learned chief judicial magistrate, jamshedpur, shall remain stayed, so far these petitioners are concerned. (r.r. prasad, j.) ravi/
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to be applied upon the pending applications for grant of mining lease/licence. consideration of these matters was deferred earlier in view of the fact that the very same notification dated 03.04.2013 was already under challenge in identical matters wherein arguments had been heard by a co-ordinate bench and order was awaited. dbcwp no.5451/2013 alongwith connected matters 2 it is noticed that the awaited order was ultimately pronounced on 31.07.2013 in a batch of petitions led by db cwp no.4241/2013: federation of sand stone mining industries association & ors. vs. state of rajasthan & ors. wherein, the co-ordinate bench held the amendment made in sub-rule (10) of rule 4 and sub-rule (3) of rule 7 of the rules of 1986 to be illegal to the extent it provided for rejection of pending applications. the co-ordinate bench, inter alia, held as under:- therefore, impugned amendment dated 03.04.2013 made in sub-rule (10) of rule 4 and rule 7(3) of the rules of 1986 are hereby declared illegal to the extent of rejection of the pending applications and it is directed that all the pending applications filed upto 27.01.2011 shall be decided in accordance with law prevailing prior to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT