.....other side has not proved that the income of the deceased was not rs.3,300/- per month is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. when the appellants assert that income of the deceased was rs.3,300/- per month, it was for them to prove the same by leading evidence and by producing document that income of the deceased was rs.3,300/- per month and not for other side to disprove that income of the deceased was not rs.3,300/- per month. considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case when the tribunal has awarded future economic loss considering the income of the deceased at the rate of rs.2,700/- per month, it cannot be said that the tribunal has committed any error and/or illegality, which calls for interference of this court.6. in view of the above, there is no substance in the present appeal, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....additional civil judge, gandhinagar in application exhibit-1 filed in civil misc. application no. 79 of 2009 dated 02.03.2010 was confirmed.2. the facts in brief are that the respondent had filed summary suit no. 14/2008 against the petitioner for recovery of an amount of rs.15 lacs, which came to be decreed vide order dated 31.03.2009. thereafter, the petitioner under order 37 rule 4 of the cpc had preferred an application being civil misc. application no. 79/2009 for restoration of the suit in question. along with the said application, an application for delay condo nation was filed by the petitioner. the learned 4^th additional civil judge, gandhinagar vide order dated 02.03.2010 rejected the said application on the ground of non production of the documentary evidence. being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred civil misc. appeal no. 25 of 2010 before the learned additional sessions and fast track court, gandhinagar. however, the learned sessions judge, vide order dated 18.10.2010 rejected the said appeal. hence, this petition.3. heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. it appears from the record that the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....case i express no opinion. however, in so far as the present case is concerned, considering the maximum sentence provided under the law and other fact and circumstances of the case, the applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with f.i.r. being c.r. no.ii-27 of 2008 registered at kadi police station on his furnishing bond of rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower court and subject to the following conditions that he shall:(a) not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;(b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;(c) maintain law and order;(d) not leave the state of gujarat without prior permission of the sessions judge concerned;(e) furnish the address of his residence at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this court;(f) mark presence in the concerned police station on every 1^st and 15^th day of english calendar month between 11:00 am to 2:00 pm;(g) surrender his passport, if any, to the lower court immediately.3. if breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the sessions judge.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....on 1.9.1994 and 14.11.1994. such application having filed, as the petition being time barred, it was dismissed, which is also confirmed by the learned single judge.5. we have heard the counsel for the appellant and ms. call, learned agp, for the state.6. it is not in dispute that the final orders which were passed on 1.9.1994 and 14.11.1994 were not challenged by the appellant for more than 13 years. the proceedings under section 84-c also reached finality when appellant lost before the supreme court. it is also not in dispute that no construction has been made on the land in question even till date. in the facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted. in absence of any merits, the appeal is dismissed. no costs.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by the learned single judge of this court in special civil application no.12550 of 2009, whereby the petition has been dismissed.2. the relevant facts are that the father of the petitioner was in panchayat service had expired on 19.6.2009. it is the case of the petitioner that at the relevant point of time, he was minor and, therefore, could not apply for compassionate appointment. upon attaining majority, he applied for compassionate appointment. 3. the said application of the original petitioner came to be rejected vide decision dated 17.3.2008 on two grounds, one was that the application was not made within a period of six months from the death of the deceased employee and the another was that the family pension of rs.3062/- is available to the dependent members of the family of the deceased employee and terminal benefits are also paid of rs.3,66,509/-. under these circumstances, the original petitioner had approached before this court by preferring the petition. the learned single judge dismissed the petition by observing that the petitioner was ineligible under the express provisions of the scheme for compassionate appointment and dismissed the petition without stating.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....pendency of this petition, the petitioner has expired and her heirs and legal representatives are brought on record on 11^th may 2009.3. the brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was the owner of the land bearing survey no.114, admeasuring 4957 sq.meters situated at village tarsali, taluka and district baroda. the petitioner has been given exemption under section 20 of the urban land ceiling act for the aforesaid land. the petitioner was in actual possession of the remaining land. the exemption under section 20 of the act with regard to the land of the aforesaid survey number was granted to the petitioner by order dated 12^th december 1980. however, the same was cancelled subsequently by order dated 30^th august 1983.4. it is also the case of the petitioner that out of total land of survey no.114, the petitioner had applied for n.a. permission of 1499.58 sq.meters of land to the district development officer under section 65 of the bombay land revenue code. the district development officer, vide his order dated 9^th july 1986, granted n.a. permission for the said land. the said order was, however, taken in review after 7 years and by an order.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for the petitioner. suffice it to say that in the present case, the petitioner is not required to be kept in custody.3. looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, without examining the nature of powers of the learned magistrate in ordering re-arrest of the accused upon addition of more serious and graver charges, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with c.r.no.i-78 of 2010 of talala police station on furnishing bond of rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower court and on conditions that he shall :[a] not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty;[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;[c] maintain law and order;[d] mark his presence before the concerned police station on every 1^st and 15^th day of english calender month between 11.00 a.m. and 2 p.m .[e] not leave the state of gujarat without prior permission of the sessions judge concerned;[f] furnish the address of his residence at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this court;[g] surrender his passport, if.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....judgment and order. 4. the state government has challenged the aforesaid order of the learned single judge in all the appeals before us. 5. the facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the writ petitions and also these special appeals are as under: 6. more than one lakh (to be exact 1,08,848) posts of safai karmcharis (sweepers) were created in the panchayati raj institutions on temporary basis, which were spread to a large number of districts of the state. these posts were meant for maintaining cleanliness in the rural areas. order in this regard was passed by the government on 6.6.2008. advertisements were made in the newspapers and due selection process followed. as a result of the selection process, 828 posts of sweepers were allotted to the district of firozabad; a select list was prepared and was also published; and, subsequently, on 27.9.2008, letters of appointments were issued to the selected candidates. on 28/29.9.2008, 777 candidates have joined their posts on the strength of the appointment letters issued by the competent authorities. 7. be that as it may, some complaints appear to have been made by a couple of legislators, alleging that about 38 candidates were.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....they shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of rs. 10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) each with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the lower court and subject to the following conditions :[a] shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation whenever required.[b] shall remain present at concerned police station on 1^st february, 2011 between 11:00 am to 2:00 pm:[c] shall not hamper the investigation in any manner nor shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;[d] at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change the residence till the final disposal of the case or till further orders;[e] will not leave india without the permission of the court and, if holding a passport, shall surrender the same before the trial court immediately[f] it would be open to the investigating officer to file an application for remand, if he considers it just and proper and the concerned magistrate would decide it on merits.[g] this.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....he further raised the question of limitation of the suit and submitted that the learned civil judge has committed grave error in not granting the application filed by the petitioner by deleting the name of the petitioner.4. i have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.5. the learned civil judge in paragraph 3 of the impugned order has observed that in view of the provisions of section 54 of the evidence act the time limit for filing the proceedings commence either from the date of the agreement or from the date on which the said agreement is disputed. 6. therefore, the present suit is filed within the period of limitation. in that view of the matter, the trial court has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner. hence, no interference is called for. the petition is devoid of any merits. hence, the same is dismissed summarily. notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT