.....as a substantial sum is to be recovered under the award by nbcc. thus, no cause is made out for adjourning the matter again.3. the background facts are - nbcc had published an advertisement dated 3rd february, 2007 inviting offers from various parties for development of land on an outright sale/resource sharing basis. in response to the said advertisement, the... petitioners offered their land admeasuring 34.83 acres, located at mouza kulai, p.s. panchala on n.h.6, howrah district, west bengal (hereinafter, „land‟), for joint development. accordingly, a 50-50% joint venture partnership firm was formed as per registered partnership agreement dated 9th october 2007. the name of the said j.v. firm, formed as a partnership firm, was nbcc-r.k. millen. in lieu o.m.p. 859/2014 page 2 of 12 of transfer of rs.10 crores to the... petitioner company, the land was transferred to the newly formed firm, vide various sale deeds. vide supplementary memorandum of understanding dated 28th november 2007, it was agreed that the bank account of the partnership firm would be operated by nbcc only. the relevant modification to clause 7.1 reads as under: “provided however that till the clu.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....building department, vikas bhawan, new delhi of the first respondent.2. upon notice, learned counsel for first respondent submits that the rejection order has not been enclosed with this petition and so, there is no w.p.(c) 9763/2018 page 1 of 3 basis to quash the aforesaid minutes of meeting (annexure a-10). it is submitted that the certified copies of khatoni, award, statement-a and occupancy certificate have not been provided and time is sought to give a proper response to this petition.3. since the order passed on the basis of the minutes of meeting (annexure a-10) has not been placed on record, therefore, this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. instead thereof, it is deemed appropriate to permit petitioner to make a concise representation to the first respondent.4. at this stage, petitioner’s counsel submits that a precise representation alongwith certified copy of sale-deed, award and the revenue record, i.e. khatoni, which will reflect occupancy status of petitioner as well, would be appended with the representation which will be filed within four weeks from today. if any such representation is received by first respondent alongwith certified copies.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....whosoever else may be in possession of the property unless they establish any independent right.23. i may add, that it is for this reason only that order xxi rule 35 of the cpc, while providing mode of execution of a decree for immovable property, in sub-rule (1) thereof provides that where a decree is for delivery of any immovable property, possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom it has been adjudged, by removing “any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate the property”. the said rule does not say ‘….by removing the defendant/judgment debtor from the property’. the decree is thus entitled to be executed, not only against the defendant/judgment debtor but against any person who may be found in possession of the property. this becomes further clear from rule 102 of order xxi which provides that nothing in rules 98 and 100 shall apply to resistance or obstruction in execution of a decree for possession of immoveable property by a person to whom judgment debtor has transferred the property after the institution of the suit in which decree was passed or to the dispossession of any such person.24. though the law is absolutely clear and no.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....this court also, has avoided filing of the affidavit which the petitioner was called upon to file to w.p.(c) no.5036/2017 page 7 of 8 show that in fact the petitioner had not indulged in sub-letting. the petitioner has also failed to appear before this court to enable this court to put questions to the petitioner to satisfy itself whether the petitioner and his family members were residing in the quarter. the only inference from all the aforesaid is that there is no error in the orders impugning which this petition under article 227 of the constitution of india has been filed.18. the jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of india cannot be converted into a second appellate jurisdiction. i have already, in earlier order dated 8th august, 2018, observed that the petitioner has approached this court in equitable jurisdiction, after exhausting statutory remedy available and that equitable jurisdiction cannot be exercised in favour of the petitioner if the petitioner is not worthy of any equity and is only abusing the process of the court.19. the senior counsel for the petitioner, inspite of opportunity given therefor, has chosen not to satisfy this court of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....j.m. sharma, inspector in-charge, armoury godown and he deposited the same.12. imran uddin (pw-11) stated that on 20th april, 2009, he was in his factory at t-759, dcm road, bara hindu rao (tyre market). he didn’t know anything about the instant case and he had never visited vasant vihar on the above date. he further stated that he had not signed any document pertaining to the present case and that he had never given or made any statement to the dri officers in connection with the present case. during the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that on 2nd february, 2009, he was passing through d-2 block, vasant vihar and at around 11:30 hours he was requested by the officers of dri to join the proceedings with regard to the interception of one african lady who would be carrying the narcotic drugs and she would be coming around 12 hours on that day. he also denied the suggestion that one lady officer of the dri team had informed him that the team of officers had intercepted one african lady and requested him to witness the search proceedings for which he voluntarily agreed.13. bhuwan ram (pw-10) stated that on 3rd february, 2009, sh. s. c. mathur, the then chemical.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....admittedly made of rs. 27,500/- on 15.02.2011 and the suit was filed within 3 years on 12.03.2012. the trial court has referred to a very important fact that not only has the appellant/defendant failed to file its statement of account as to the due amount from the business dealings between the parties, if not as found in the account of the respondent/plaintiff, but also that the respondent/plaintiff examined the witness from the office of the registrar of firms to show the balance sheets of the appellant/defendant company for the financial years ending 2009- 2015/ex.pwto ex.pwand which categorically showed that respondents/plaintiffs were shown by the appellant/defendant company as sundry creditors and the outstanding as on 31.03.2012 was shown as a sum of rs. 17,25,000/-. in my opinion, the admissions made by the appellant/defendant in its balance sheets is the best evidence and clearly shows that it cannot be disputed by the appellant/defendant that it was liable to the respondents/plaintiffs.8. learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued that the suit was not validly filed as the respondent no.1/ defendant no.1/ rfa no.786/2018 page 6 of 11 partnership firm was not.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....captioned petitions under section 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (in short ‘1996 act’) are not maintainable, in view of the fact that section 3g of the national highways act, 1956 (in short ‘1956 act’) which gives the power only to the central government to appoint an arbitrator. it is stated that being a special act, it overrides the 1996 act. 3 furthermore, learned counsel for the respondents has placed before me a communication dated 11.09.2018 addressed by the deputy secretary (la), government of nct of delhi to the general manager of the respondents. via this communication, it is indicated that the competent authority has nominated the district magistrate/deputy commissioner of north, north-west and south-west districts as an arbitrator under the 1956 act. 4 ms. jain has also placed before me a copy of a prior letter of the respondents dated 13.03.2018 addressed to the same authority i.e. deputy secretary (la) regarding the appointment of an arbitrator, albeit, by the central government. the communication dated 11.09.2018 has been issued pursuant to the respondents’ letter dated 13.03.2018. 5 having perused the order of the supreme court, i am.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to have taken place, even where intention to abandon is not apparent. (iii) whether intention to abandon exists, or not, is a question of fact, to be determined in each case. (iv) termination, or removal, from service, is a positive act of the employer; per contra, abandonment is a positive act of the employee. (v) the fact that the act, which, per rule, regulation or standing order, is deemed to amount to “abandonment of service”, also constitutes “misconduct”, within the said applicable rules or regulations, is not a ground to contend that the employer necessarily had to treat the act as “misconduct” and proceed against the employee by way of a domestic inquiry or disciplinary proceeding; the discretion, in this regard, vests with the employer. (vi) any evidence, to indicate that the employee, or workman, desired to join duty, but was prevented from doing so, would, by itself, militate against any presumption of “abandonment”. (vii) unless and until it could attract one or more of the exceptions statutorily engrafted in section 2(oo) of the id act, striking, of the name of a workman, off the rolls of an the workman having establishment, on.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....petition is under section 9 of the arbitration and conciliation act 1996 (hereinafter referred as ‘the act’) seeking interim relief. the brief facts of the case are: o.m.p.(i)(comm.) 103/2018 page 1 of 25 a) the petitioner - connaught plaza restaurants private limited (for short ‘cprl’) operates fast food restaurants across the whole of north and east india under the name of "mcdonald's". the respondent was (till recently) acting as the sole purchasing and forwarding agent of the petitioner in terms of the agreement between the parties. the duties of the respondent under the said agreement included interalia, warehousing, placement of orders, distribution and ensuring safe custody of the products/ goods being handed over to the petitioner. however, post the wrongful and illegal termination of the said agreements by the respondent, the respondent has refused to release the products/ goods, (which products/ goods also include perishable products) to the petitioner with the intention of causing unlawful harm and injury to the business of the petitioner. the illegal withholding of the products/goods has caused irreparable loss to the petitioner and crippled its business.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....act') as neither the physical possession was taken nor compensation paid.2. in this case the notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act was issued on 05.11.1980, section 6 declaration was made on 07.06.1985. an award bearing no.20/1987-88 was passed in the year 1987.3. counsel for the petitioner relies on copies of jamabandi placed on record. reliance is placed on translated copy, more particularly, paragraph 3 to show that the land in question is excluded from the ministry of rehabilitation, government of india and its ownership and title has been approved in favour of rahimuddin, son of bhika. paragraph 3 is reproduced below:-"“the khasra no.266/(6-9), 276 / (5-8) total 11-17 bigha is exluded from ministry of rehabilitation, government of india, and its ownership and title has been approved in favour of rahimuddin son of bhika.” 4. counter affidavit has been filed by the lac. mr panda, learned counsel for the lac submits that as per award, the land in question is in the ownership of the custodian department. he further submits that payment has not been released in favour of either of the custodian or the petitioner herein. physical possession of the subject.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT