.....of the brother where the respondent is residing is not cordial.9. before adverting to the legal rights of the parties, some brief background of the factual matrix would be necessary to be referred to.10. parties were married according to hindu rights and ceremonies on 27.10.2014. a female child was born on 17.11.2015. the allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent deserted the petitioner and the child and left her matrimonial home on 28.10.2016. the contention of the respondent wife is that she did not voluntarily leave the house but was forced to leave the house and was deserted by the petitioner. crl.rev. p.. 76/2018 page 3 of 7 11. subject petition under section 12 of the protection of women from domestic violence act was filed on 31.01.2017. application seeking custody of the minor daughter was filed on 15.07.2017. by the impugned order dated 16.10.2017, the mahila court was of the view that since the female child was less than 2 years of age and needs care of the mother, interim custody was granted to the respondent mother. this order has been upheld by the appellate court.12. on 12.04.2018, under orders from this court, the child was produced in court. since the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....since no request for his surrender or return was received within that period, we are not inclined to examine the said submission, considering the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody presently, and a writ petition to seek a writ of habeas corpus would not lie in respect of a detenue who is in judicial custody. it is the nature and status of present detention of the petitioner with which we are concerned. even if it were to be accepted for the sake of argument, that his detention may not have been valid for a certain period earlier, that would not be a ground to quash his detention and direct his release, if he is now in legal custody. in this regard, we may refer to our decision in moin akhtar qureshi v. union of india & ors., 2017 scc online del 12108 wherein we have, in depth, discussed the law on the subject as laid down by the supreme court and by this court.19. we proceed to deal with the primary submission of the petitioner that extradition request made by the republic of philippines is invalid on the ground that it was made before the issuance of the notified order under section 3(1) and 3(3)(a) of the act. the petitioner has argued that since the extradition.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....its director t. wangchuk shamshu. in the written statement preliminary objections were taken particularly in respect of suppression of material facts. it was stated that the defendant company i.e. himlayan heli services private limited was incorporated in july, 1998 as a 100% subsidiary of the world expeditions (india) private limited, established in august, 1987. the said company was owned and promoted by harsh vardhan sharma and wangchuk shamshu, both citizens of india and pioneers in india in the field of adventure tourism like skiing, trekking and rafting. in 1989 harsh vardhan and wangchuk decided to get together and do business jointly and formed the company in the name and style of world expeditions private limited. in and around 1989-90 plaintiff expressed his keenness to do business in india in the area of heli skiing which at that point of time was only being conducted in kashmir through m/s himalayan heli ski, a company belonging to mr. soudan. a working arrangement was entered into between m/s world expeditions private limited and the plaintiff to organize tours for heli skiing in manali, cs(os) 205/2009 & crl.m.a.5011/2009 in cs(os) 210/2009 page 3 of 46.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....advocate .....petitioner versus renu & anr. through: ms. namita roy & mr. amit, .....respondents coram: hon'ble mr. justice sunil gaur advocates order (oral) impugned order of 7th december, 2018 directs dna testing to ascertain paternity of the minor child, whose right to claim maintenance is disputed by petitioner on the ground that he is not the natural father of the child in question. trial court has relied upon supreme court’s decision in nandlal wasudeo badwaik vs. lata nandlal badwaik & ors. (2014) 2 scc576for allowing dna testing for paternity of the child.2. the challenge to impugned order by petitioner’s counsel is on the ground that dna testing is not to be routinely allowed.... petitioner’s counsel submits that petitioner disputes that he was crl.m.c. 6637/2018 page 1 of 3 married with the first respondent. it is submitted that there is no proof on record that the child in question was born out of the marriage of petitioner with first respondent. so, quashing of the impugned order is sought while relying upon supreme court’s decision in nandlal wasudeo badwaik (supra).3. upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and decision in nandlal wasudeo badwaik.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....land acquisition, rehabilitation and re-settlement act, 2013. ii. pass any further order/s that this hon‟ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. the narration in the petition is that a notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act, 1894 (laa) was issued on 23rd january 1965 followed by a declaration under section 6 of laa issued in 1966. the w.p.(c) 43/2017 page 1 of 3 award was passed in 1984-85.3. in the counter affidavit filed by the lac, a preliminary objection is raised that the petition is barred by laches. it is further stated that land in question was acquired under award no.17/1984-85 and possession of khasra no.649/346 (9-17), village lado sarai, new delhi was taken on 21st july, 1984.4. in para 11 of the counter affidavit of the lac in a tabular column, the details of the payment of compensation as per statement „a‟ has been set out. a separate counter affidavit has been filed by the dda enclosing the copy of the possession report thereby confirming that physical possession of the land was taken and handed over to it.5. mr. vishal mann, learned counsel for the... petitioners, however disputes that.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....that the trial court should have fixed ad-interim maintenance at least at 1/3rd of the income of the husband.16. keeping in view of the totality of facts and circumstances, i am of the view that the assessment in the impugned order of interim maintenance of rs. 24,000/- is on a lower side, the wife is entitled to interim maintenance, pending final adjudication of her application under section 125 cr.p.c., at rs.50,000/- per month.17. in view of the above findings, i find is no merit in the petition filed by the husband. however, the petition filed by the wife is liable to be allowed and the wife is, accordingly, held entitled to interim maintenance at the rate of rs.50,000/- per month instead of rs.24,000/-.18. this amount of rs. 50,000/-, as interim maintenance, shall be paid by the husband from the date of the impugned order, i.e., 19.01.2017. this would be in addition to the amount of rs. 24,000/- directed to be paid by the impugned order from the date of the filing of the interim maintenance application till 19.01.2017. the husband shall clear the arrears of maintenance within a period of 4 months from today. crl.rev.p. 146/2017 & crl.rev.p. 172/2017 page 9 of 10 19. it is.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the collector had erred in proceeding on the basis that the petitioners had paid only a sum of ₹1,95,000/- as stamp duty. she submitted that in fact the petitioner had paid a total w.p. (c) 2808/2017 page 5 of 10 amount of ₹2,27,500/- as stamp duty and other charges.16. lastly, she submitted that the collector had erred in imposing any penalty on the basis that the agreement was required to be compulsorily stamped and registered. she submitted that the possession of the said property was not handed over at the time of entering into agreement and, therefore, the provisions relating to registration of the agreement on payment of 90% of the stamp duty payable on a conveyance deed was not applicable. she further submitted that the levy of penalty was also contrary to the express observations made by this court in the order dated 30.03.2016.17. ms taneja, learned counsel appearing for the respondents countered the submission that the stamp duty was payable on the consideration as set forth in the sale deed. she contended that the consideration was required to be determined on the basis of the notified circle rates and, therefore, the decision of the collector in this regard.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....per the licence agreement for the period from 1963 to 1981, the appellant no.2/plaintiff no.2 had permitted the appellant no.1/plaintiff no.1 to manufacture press studs with the world famous trademark „555‟ of the appellant no.2/plaintiff no.2. it was the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that appellant no.1/plaintiff no.1 carried on business for the licensed period from 1963 to 1981, and from a part of this period from december, 1977 to october, 1979 documents were filed so as to show the user of the trademark „555‟ by the appellant no.1/plaintiff no.1 as the licensee of the appellant no.2/plaintiff no.2. in law, user by a registered licensee is equal to the user of the owner of the trademark and the benefit of user by the licensee of the trademark can be taken by the registered owner of the trademark as its own user. it was pleaded that appellant no.1/plaintiff no.1 was selling its goods/ products under the descriptive trademark „pony‟ as part of a label which contained a colour scheme of silver, grey and orange and this was in use since the year 1988. the sales figures with respect to the „pony‟ card i.e. „pony‟ trademark were pleaded to exist from 1979 to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....i.e. three years, the maximum period of detention permissible under the act, he was set at liberty.15. even in the instant case, keeping in mind the fact that the date of the incident was 19.10.2000 and on the date the ossification test conducted on the appellant, i.e., on 20.04.2001, it was opined by experts that his age was less than 21 years and more than 17 years, which means he would have been 16 ½ years on the date of the offence. if the benefit of one year margin on the lower side is extended to the appellant, his age would have been 15 ½ years on the critical date. taking into consideration the fact that the opinion given by the medical board gives the range of age, that is less than 21 years but over 17 years, we are of the opinion that the benefit of one- year margin on the lower side ought to be given to the appellant. on doing so, we find that the appellant would be entitled to claim the advantage of juvenility under the act. ordered accordingly. 16 having regard to the fact that as on 12.06.2009, the appellant had remained in custody for a period of 8 years 7 months and 9 days, which is far in excess of the maximum prescribed period of 3 years for which a juvenile.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....mg + pioglitazone 7.5 mg b) metformin 1000 mg + pioglitazone 7.5 mg w.p.(c) 10403/2018 & other connected matters page 6 of 31 4. admittedly, the manufacture, sale and distribution of the aforesaid fdcs have been proscribed on account of inclusion of the formulation pioglitazone 7.5 mg. the sub-committee constituted to examine the matter of proscribing/restricting the said fdcs had, inter alia, found that the evidence for efficacy of 7.5 mg of pioglitazone is insufficient and, therefore, had recommended prohibition of the said fdcs. since, the principal issue involved is common, the said petitions were heard together.5. the aforementioned notifications have been challenged, essentially, on five grounds. first, that the drug technical advisory board (dtab) was not properly constituted and, therefore, the constitution of the sub-committee, which examined the matter regarding the fdcs in question, was also invalid. second, that the impugned notifications are based on recommendations, which are unreasoned and made without application of mind. third, that the conclusion of the sub-committee of dtab that the evidence of efficacy of 7.5 mg pioglitazone is insufficient is wholly erroneous.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT