.....of principal junior civil judge, narsipatnam. petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. brief facts of the case are that the plaint schedule land is a part of land situated in s.no. 426/3 of chettupalli village and originally belonged to gudepu people. the husband of first plaintiff and father of 2nd plaintiff by name akkireddi appalanaidu purchased the said land under two different sale deeds dated 14.2.1952 and dated 2.4.1959 from gudepu somulu and another. it is stated that the father of 2nd plaintiff appalanadi had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule land since the dates of purchase and subsequent to him the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. it is also stated that the land situated to the west of plaint schedule land belonged to the father of the defendants. on 24.6.1973 the second defendant being the manager of the family of the defendants provided a cart track admeasuring 50 yards x 3 yards in their land for the plaintiffs to reach local fund road by receiving consideration of rs. 350/- and also executed an agreement on the same day itself in evidence to the above.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....from 08.01.89 to 31.01.89, in addition to his absence from duty as reflected in the termination order and, therefore, his service was not satisfactory. as a result, the impugned termination order was issued by giving one month?s salary in lieu of one month?s notice. it was also contended that the termination order is termination simpliciter without showing any ground for punishment and, therefore, article 311(2) is not attracted.6. from the narration of facts and pleadings as discussed above, this court will now consider and decide the issues raised by the parties. firstly, it is a matter of record that the impugned termination order dated 22.1.1990 was issued by shri d.mishra in his capacity as the commandant of the 8th bn. manipur rifles and the same impugned termination order was examined, in a statutory appeal, by the same officer in his capacity as the appellate authority i.e. dig of police (ops) and thereby rejected the appeal. in this view of the matter, the maxim ?nemo debet esse judex in propia sua causa? is squarely applicable in the case and in consequence thereto, the impugned orders are reiterated. mr.l.sarat sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner relied.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....(chowdhury), advocate (bar association room no.8) as receiver at an initial remuneration of 700 gms. to be paid by the petitioner. receiver to file a report by the returnable date. the receiver will be entitled to appoint an agent but must exercise full control over such agent. the local police authority is directed to render necessary assistance to the receiver, if so requisitioned by him/her. the assistance to be rendered by the police will include the necessary help in tracing out the equipment. i make this application returnable four weeks after the puja vacation to pass further order. receiver and all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....not been compliance yet with the orders passed by this court. it is also submitted that the method adopted by the municipal corporation is not satisfactory and the court should pass further orders giving directions to the municipal corporation to initiate criminal proceedings at least against the persons who have been found responsible for disbursing money regarding age-old pension against persons who have been long dead. needless to say that the commissioner of the municipal corporation and so also the state through its home department would give priority to such category of cases. learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 submits that if this court makes any observation, the same may cause prejudice to his client respondent no.4 who has already been facing a criminal case on a complaint filed by one raj kumar khate. we do not think that respondent no.4 would be prejudiced in any manner if this court directs the respondent corporation to initiate action against persons who have credited pension against senior citizens who are already dead and, therefore, the contention of the respondent no.4 that he would be prejudiced by such observation is meaningless. in order to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the chairpersons concern shall have the power to adjourn the meeting, if necessary. that the value of each member shall be in accordance with the books of the respective applicants and where entries in the book are disputed, the chairpersons concerned shall determine the value for the purpose of the meeting. that the chairpersons do report to this court the results of the said meetings within three weeks from the date of the conclusion of the meetings and their reports shall be verified by their affidavits. summons be signed as of date. the application is thus disposed of. that the chairpersons and all parties concerned shall act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the price. mr. sarkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant state submits that against the order of the special bench his client has already preferred a special leave petition before the supreme court but in that proceeding no stay has been granted by the supreme court. in view of such fact, we dispose of the appeal by directing the registrar of assurances, kolkata to take into consideration the aforesaid conditions indicated in the judgment of the special bench and to act accordingly. this registration, it is needless to mention, will abide by the decision of the pending special leave petition in the supreme court. the respondent is at liberty to satisfy the registrar that the aforesaid conditions have been satisfied in the fact of the present case. let the decision be taken within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties by tuesday (5.10.10) subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of both the applicant companies in relation to consenting and/or approving the proposed scheme of arrangement. the special officer shall meet the equity shareholders and shall file his report before the court by 10th november, 2010 when the matter shall appear in the list as company matters new. the special officer will be paid remuneration assessed at 600 gm. in view thereof, all formalities for convening and holding meetings of shareholders of the applicant companies including publication of advertisement in the newspapers convening the meeting of shareholders are dispensed with. special officers and all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to export these goods over the weekend. accordingly, i pass an order of injunction restraining the respondent and their agent rashmi metallicks ltd. from exporting the consignment of iron ore fines lying at gangavaram port till october 5, 2010. t is submitted that the quantity at the gangavaram port will meet the contractual quantity. list this application as a new motion at the top on october 5, 2010. all parties including the statutory authorities will act on the basis of the communication of the advocate on record for the petitioner in case of delay in issuance of the signed copy of this order. all parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....k.s. roy road, 2nd floor, room no. 35, calcutta- 700001 and shall file his/her report on 6th october, 2010. the special officerwill be paid remuneration assessed at 600 gms.in view thereof, all formalities for convening and holding meetings ofshareholders of the applicant companies including publication of advertisement inthe newspapers, sending formal notice to shareholders, convening the formalmeetings of the shareholders, publication in the calcutta gazette are dispensedwith.summons be signed as on date. the matter is made returnable on 6th october,2010. special officers and all parties concerned including the department are toact on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....is no reason for the high court to exercise power under art.226 for monitoring the investigation, if it is still in progress. in so far as the question of police protection is concerned, it is not the case that in spite of order of the company law board directing the police to give the petitioner necessary protection so that he may enter the shop in question, the police have failed and neglected to execute the order. admittedly, alleging violation of the interim order of the company law board the petitioner has initiated contempt proceedings which are pending before the board, and the board has not made any order directing the police to do anything for any purpose. in my opinion, the petitioners remedy, if any, is before the board where the proceedings concerned are pending. he is not entitled to any relief from the high court under art.226. for these reasons, the petition is dismissed. no costs. certified xerox.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT