.....was to be fixed in due course and not from the date of this order.3. upon hearing and perusal of impugned order and the material on record, i find that the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of petitioner has not w.p.(c) 4777/2018 page 1 of 2 been considered in impugned order while rejecting petitioner’s representation.4. in the facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with permission to petitioner to make a fresh and concise representation to respondent within a week from today to claim the relief as sought in this petition. upon receipt of said representation, respondent shall pass a speaking order thereon, within a period of eight weeks and convey its fate to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.5. with aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of. copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties. (sunil gaur) judge may04 2018 s w.p.(c) 4777/2018 page 2 of 2
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of direction issued by respondent-director of education on 9th february, 2018 was sought by petitioner by making a representation to fourth respondent on 12th february, 2018 (annexure-p). according to petitioner’s counsel, there is no response to the aforesaid request (annexure-p). in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition and the application with direction to fourth respondent to consider petitioner’s request of 12th february, 2018 (annexure p) and to pass a speaking order thereon, within a period of four weeks, if the request is not granted and petitioner be accordingly informed within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy, in accordance with the law. fourth respondent be apprised of this order forthwith to ensure its wp( c ) 4770/2018 page 1 compliance. with the aforesaid direction, this petition and the application are disposed of. a copy of this order be given dasti to petitioner’s counsel. may04 2018 p (sunil gaur) judge wp( c ) 4770/2018 page 2
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and are already on record. i have therefore heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on merits qua the relief of injunction.” 5. the relevant facts of the present case are that the hindustan times ltd. (‘htl’) incorporated in 1924 transferred its media business in the year 2003 to the plaintiff, i.e. hindustan times media ltd. (‘html’). it is stated that the plaintiff is a media house engaged in the business of print media, radio and internet services and enjoys a leadership position in the english and hindi newspaper market. it is stated that the intellectual property rights (‘iprs’) including trademark rights and the cs (comm) 1054/2016 page 2 of 4 goodwill of htl have been assigned to the plaintiff which has now become the proprietor of all the iprs including the trademark ‘hindustan times’. it is stated that the plaintiff is also proprietor of registered trademarks ‘hindustan times’ and logo ‘ht’ in classes 9, 16, 41 and 42 and of the marks www.hindustantimes.com, www.hindustantimes.in, www.hindustantimes.co.uk, hindustan times (device), hindustan times comics and www.hindustan.in under class 16 of the trade marks act, 1999.6. learned counsel.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the works of strengthening of road surface of outer ring road from modi mill to chirag delhi (masjid moth). w.p.(c) 3009/2018 page 1 of 13 2. the facts are that the petitioner had succeeded in the tender floated by the government of nct on 12.01.2018, which was for strengthening of road surface of outer ring road from modi mill to chirag delhi (masjid moth). bids and related documents were to be submitted by 22.01.2018. in terms of the tender conditions the bid was open for acceptance for a period of60 days from the date of opening of tenders/financial bid. the petitioner furnished its bid on 20.01.2018, together with earnest money of `19,33,900/-.3. it is undisputed that the petitioner‟s bid was deemed lowest as it was lower by 38% of the estimated cost (of the work). the controversy arises thereafter; the petitioner contends that it never received the acceptance letter or any communication; the respondent nct, on the other hand states that the competent authority accepted the tender on 01.02.2018 and consequently an offer letter was issued to the petitioner on 02.02.2018. the terms of the contract granted 60 days time to public agency (gnctd) to communicate its formal.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....but it was dismissed by the industrial adjudicator.5. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.6. in the facts and circumstances of the case, i find that the petitioner was not given the due opportunity by the industrial adjudicator for adducing his evidence in support of his claim. he had already filed his affidavit in evidence on 16.11.2010. on the crucial date, request was made for adjournment on medical ground which was declined without any justification. there could be no intention of the petitioner to delay his own case particularly when his affidavit in evidence was already filed on previous date. therefore, the impugned award dated 21.01.2011 is hereby set aside with the direction that the industrial adjudicator shall give one more opportunity to the petitioner to wp (c) 4685/2016 page 2 of 3 adduce his evidence. the industrial adjudicator shall also give opportunity to the respondent to adduce its evidence and decide the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within three months from 09.07.2018..7. the parties shall appear before the industrial adjudicator on 8.9. 09.07.2018. the petition is disposed of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....additional documents to be brought on record, the tribunal could not proceed so, as it did.2. learned counsel for the revenue contests some of the factual submissions and argues that the materials on record clearly reveal that the assessee’s counsel had agreed to produce the additional documents. he further justifies this course by stressing that a reference to these documents was found in the other documents which were part of the record. learned counsel also submitted that the itat cannot be faulted for fixing an early date of hearing having regard to the circumstance that the appeal for ay20092010 was at an advanced stage of hearing. w.p(c) 4742/2018 & 4743/2018 page 2 of 6 3. this court has considered the submissions of the parties. in view of the final order that is proposed, a detailed discussion of the facts is not necessary. the tribunal’s observation in the impugned order made in the course of the rectification application i.e. that an order, allowing an application for early hearing, is merely administrative, is clearly incorrect. in this regard, the tribunal’s view in olympia paper & stationery stores (supra) is as follows:-"“9. it consequently follows from.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for petitioner contends that after the period of ninety day, petitioner’s suspension was not reviewed despite representations made on 8th march, 2018; 28th march, 2018 and 17th april, 2018 (annexure p-8 colly.) and that no response to these representations has been received by petitioner from first respondent till date. w.p.(c) 4707/2018 page 1 of 2 3. in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with direction to first respondent to pass a speaking order on petitioner’s representation of 28th march, 2018 (annexure p-8 colly.) within a period of two weeks from today and to convey its fate to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.4. with aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are disposed of. copy of this order be given dasti to counsel for the parties. (sunil gaur) judge may04 2018 s w.p.(c) 4707/2018 page 2 of 2
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. this is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. all these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. this is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. w.p.(c) 4757/2018 page 11 of 13 (k) if a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to to principles of incrementalism. the doctrine of precedent or (l) reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. a pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) it cannot be doubted.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....proceedings shall be conducted at bangalore.15. i have put it to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner if he would be agreeable in case the present arbitration proceedings are conducted by the same arbitral tribunal. he submits that he would have no objection, provided that arbitral tribunal conducts the proceedings at delhi, as contained in the teaming agreement.16. as observed in the order dated 12.01.2018 and hereinabove, for purpose of section 11 of the act, there are two separate agreements between the parties with two different arbitration agreements. i cannot force the petitioner or the arbitrator to shift the venue of arbitration as agreed to between the parties in such agreements. in any case, this cannot be a ground for seeking review of the order passed by this court.17. accordingly, i find no merit in the present review petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. may04 2018/rv navin chawla, j arb.p. 631/2017 page 6
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....had also sought the dissolution of marriage on the ground of desertion which was rejected. mat.app(fc) 74/2018 page 1 2. the admitted facts of the case are that the marriage between them was solemnized on 22.11.1982 as per hindu rites and ceremonies. they were blessed with four children and all have attained the age of majority.3. the appellant failed to file any written statement to the divorce petition filed by the respondent/husband within the period granted to her from time to time. her defence was struck off vide order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the learned single judge of this court in cm no.910/2015. on a petition under article 227 of the constitution of india, filed by the respondent/husband as he was apparently aggrieved by the act of the appellant/wife of not filing her written statement. against the said order, the appellant filed a special leave petition (civil) before the hon‟ble supreme court of india. it was also dismissed vide order dated 16.08.2016 as a result there is no challenge to the averments made by the respondent/husband in his divorce petition.4. in the said petition, the respondent/husband had disclosed the acts of cruelty committed by.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT