.....11.10.2002 urging various legal contentions. 2. for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties the brief facts are stated hereunder. the appellant herein registered a case against the respondent under section 120b read with sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, indian penal code, read with section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the prevention of corruption act, 1988. the respondent had challenged the said fir registered against him and sought for quashing of the same. the principal legal contention urged before the high court in the cr.m.p. filed under section 482 of cr.p.c. to quash the fir proceedings is that sub-section (2) of section 154, cr.p.c. contemplate that a copy of such information recorded shall be issued forthwith, free of cost to the informant, is a mandatory requirement. on the basis of the said legal contention the respondent has sought for quashing the same. the said legal contention is accepted by the high court and recorded a finding on the basis of the perusal of the information sought to have been received by the appellant herein is bald in the sense that application under section 154, cr.pc. has no place nor could it be said.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....at hyderabad in writ petition no. 22445 of 2005, dated 11.07.2006. 4. before delving into the merits of the case, we would first bring forth the factual resume of the case. one smt. basheerunnisa begum was the original owner of the property in question. she had filed an application before the state government stating her intention of donating the excess land, admeasuring 10,000 sq.mts., held by her in plot nos. 63 and 66 at road no. 10, banjara hills, hyderabad to the appellant-society for promotion of its cultural activities and construction of a complex by it and sought for exemption from the provisions of chapter iii of the urban land (ceiling and regulation) act, 1976 ("the act" for short). 5. the appellant-society had also filed an application dated 03.05.1984 before the state government, inter alia, requesting the government to exempt the aforesaid excess land from the provisions of the act and thus enable the original owner to donate the said land, for the purposes of construction and establishment of a cultural centre, in favour of the appellant-society. 6. the special officer and competent authority, urban land ceiling, hyderabad had examined the aforesaid requests.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....thus the impugned award be set aside.3. learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that for regularization age is not a relevant factor. reliance is placed on rourkela shramik shangh vs. steel authority of india ltd. and another, jt 200.(1) sc 46.wherein it was laid down that contract labours should have been working for ten years continuously. the respondent was a permanent labour like other labourers and thus could not have been discriminated on the point of age. there being no infirmity in the impugned award no interference is thus called for. the finding of the learned trial court that for regularization age is not relevant is as per law and the spirit of the settlement. it was not a statutory regularization but a regularization pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties.4. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.5. briefly the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent was employed at the shakurpur basti lpg plant through a contractor m/s ranjeet singh and company on 12th august, 1983 for the job of handling of lpg cylinders and security of plants etc. in june, 1985 the petroleum.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of accounts and delivery/destruction of infringing goods were also made in the suit. along with the suit, the respondents filed an application under order xxxix rule 1 and 2 cpc being i.a. no.14609/2009 praying for an interim injunction till the disposal of the suit.2. in the plaint filed, it was pleaded by the respondents that the respondent no.1 together with its affiliates is engaged in the business of publication and distribution of magazines and journals internationally. the respondent no.2 is the wholly owned subsidiary of the respondent no.1 as also the licensed/permitted user of trade mark of the respondent no.1, having its branch office at unit no.15, first floor, plot not d-2, southern park, saket business district, new delhi110017. since last several years the respondent no.1 has been selling fashion and lifestyle magazine under the trade mark vogue in around 145 countries including india. since the year 1976, the respondent no.1 is the registered proprietor of trade mark vogue in india in relation to publications. since the year 2007 the respondent no.2 is publishing a magazine under the trade name vogue india at mumbai and selling and distributing the same from its.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for the petitioners that the om dated february 05, 1992 was issued by the delhi administration much before the respondents joined service and thus it was not the duty of the petitioners to have made known the said office memorandum to the respondents and hence the tribunal wrongly applied the law declared in bachan singhs case (supra) is noted and rejected by us for the reason it may not be the duty of the writ petitioners to have informed the respondents regarding the om dated february 05, 1992, but it was the duty of the writ petitioners to have called upon the respondents to take the typing test.9. we have repeatedly asked learned counsel for the petitioners whether her clients have any material to show that during their service after they were appointed on compassionate grounds the respondents were called upon to take the written test. learned counsel replies in the negative.10. logic guides us that where the employer does not disclose to the employee the existence of an existing office memorandum when the employee joins service and thereafter during service does not subject the employee to a stipulated proficiency test, it does not lie in the mouth of the employer to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....petitioner on daily wages w.e.f. 6th june, 1997 and was granted extension on the basis of need of the work. since his work was not found to be satisfactory and he was also found to be irregular, a warning was issued to him vide letter dated 5th january, 1998. the respondent did not report for duty in the month of october, 1998, therefore, he was not granted extension and the same fact was made known to him vide letter dated 6 th november, 1998. a demand notice was sent by the respondent to the establishment/society asking it to withdraw the letter declining the grant of extension on 22nd january, 1998. conciliation proceedings were initiated and on its failure, a reference was made by the state government in the following terms of reference: whether the services of sh. devender kumar have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect? 6. the question of competence of the government of nct of delhi in making a reference of an industrial dispute in a case where the industry is under the control of central government was decided with reference to rule 2(f) of industrial.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the names of the petitioner and his father as has been mentioned in the instant petition before this court and the petition before the learned tribunal.9. i have perused both the original cards depicting the photographs of the petitioner. photocopies of the same have been kept on record and the original cards have been returned to the petitioner in court. even otherwise, the petitioner had already received half of the amount as per the directions of the learned tribunal.10. in the facts and circumstances of the case, the branch manager of the aforesaid bank is directed to release the entire amount with upto date interest accrued thereon in favour of the petitioner.11. in view of the above, the instant petition stands disposed of.12. a copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties. suresh kait, j.january 09 2013 sb
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....suffice would it be for us to note that when the writ petitioners were inducted in service by dsidc they were less than 30 years of age.8. one more fact of importance needs to be noted. 35 posts of junior engineers are sanctioned as also created in dsidc and when writ petitioners were, after induction in service as work assistants/technical supervisors made to perform duties as junior engineers or assistant engineers, 11 vacant posts of junior engineers and assistant engineers existed in dsidc.9. we are informed at this stage that some writ petitioners are now working as assistant executive engineers.10. the question which we are now called upon to address is the applicability of paragraph 53 of the opinion of the supreme court in umadevis case, which otherwise holds that creation of posts is a power of the executive and no court can issue a mandamus, effect whereof is that the executive is to create a post. directions to regularize employees have been treated as akin to an order creating a post. the reason is but obvious. unless there exists a sanctioned post there cannot be an individual holding the post on regular basis. but an exception is carved out in para 53.11. the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks fund insufficient. a demand notice issued under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (the n.i.act) remained unheeded compelling the respondent bank to file a complaint under section 138 read with section 141 of the n.i.act.5. the learned metropolitan magistrate (mm) took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance. during pendency of the complaint case, it was referred to the mediation centre, dwarka courts, new delhi where on 26.05.2012 the parties entered into an amicable settlement whereby the petitioner agreed to pay a sum of ` 9.08,800/- in full and final settlement of the claim of the respondent bank in monthly installments of `1,50,000/commencing from 26.05.2012. the last installment of `1,58,800/- was to be paid on 26.10.2012.6. the petitioner did not honour the settlement. his plea is that on 07.06.2012 he was admitted in sir ganga ram hospital where angioplasty was done and he was discharged from the hospital on 11.06.2012. a perusal of the photocopies of the documents from sir ganga ram hospital testifies that the petitioner did undergo angioplasty on.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....is entitled to look into the overall service record of the employee, which would obviously include all his past conducts and involvements. the factum of an accident having taken place at the hands of the respondent, and his involvement in a case under the ipc for rash and negligent driving, as well as the alleged behavior and demeanor could have validly been considered, apart from his conduct of frequent abstention from work. merely because the management may not have proceeded with the charge sheet, and terminated the respondents services while under probation instead, it cannot be inferred that such termination during the period of probation is punitive. the management is entitled to assess the efficiency, regularity, sincerity of the probationer and also gauge his propensity to get involved in criminal or disciplinary misconduct while deciding whether, or not, to continue with the services of the probationer. pertinently, the respondent did not plead or prove a case of any personal malafides or vindictive conduct on the part of any officer of the management. if the approach adopted by the industrial adjudicator in the present case were to be accepted, it would become.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT