.....the bills relate to his professional fees and the company on demand did not pay the amount. accordingly, statutory notice was served under section 434 of the companies act, 1956 on september 29, 2008. the company did not respond to the said statutory notice. hence, a windingup petition had been filed. after hearing the parties, the hon'ble company court directed after giving an adjustment of rs.15,000/-, which was admitted by the petitioning creditor before the hon'ble company court, admitted the winding-up petition in respect of the principal sum of rs.89.000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from september 29, 2008, which is the date of the statutory notice. the hon'ble company court further directed that if the entire amount, inclusive of interest, is paid off by the company to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of the pr serving an authenticated copy of the order on the company, the winding-up petition will remain permanently stayed, and in default of payment, direction was given to publish advertisement once in the statesman and once in aajkal. publication in the official gazette was also dispensed with. being.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....(being g.a.no. 1198 of 2010) in the said writ petition and the trial court again passed an order on 11th june, 2010 and directed that the said order was an interim order and that was subject to the final disposal of the writ petition. the court further directed that since the other operators are operating their vehicles through eastern metropolitan bye pass, the state transport authority is directed to make the endorsement on the permit of the petitioners, which is valid till 2013, allowing the petitioners to operate their vehicles on the route barasat to garia through eastern metropolitan bye pass. being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. in our considered opinion, a prima facie case has been made out by the state authorities to file the present appeal on the ground that the writ petitioners came before the court, got an order and gave an undertaking that the permit should be granted in their favour without touching eastern metropolitan bye pass and thereafter filed application and after enjoying the permit for a long time tried to have a mandatory direction on the state transport authority to allow them to have the permit touching e.m. bye pass. therefore, in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....rules contain different provisions the one of which is more beneficial to the employees has to be accepted in the welfare state. considering this fact we find that the law laid down by this court in the case of bharosi (supra) and bhajanlal (supra) lay down the correct law while the law laid down by the gulab singh (supra) is not correct as the view taken in the said case was taken without considering the 1977 rules and 1979 rules. in such circumstances we hold that the services of gangmen are governed by the rules applicable to work charged and contingency paid employees even though the gangman is not included in the schedule of 1976 rules and the age of superannuation is 62 years as other class iv employees of the state government because they are in comparable category."4. the judgment rendered by the full bench squarely covers the issue which crops up for consideration in the present petition as to whether a permanent gang men would be entitled to serve till the extended age of 62 years and as held by the full bench in vishnu mutiya (supra) the present petition is allowed and the order dated 17.12.99 is hereby set aside. the petitioner would be entitled to all the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to quash the order dated 22.3.2001 passed in g.r. no.1333 of 1996, tr. no.498 of 2001 arising out of gaya kotwali p.s. case no.121 of 1996.2. short fact of the case is that official of the commercial taxes department intercepted a truck bearing registration no.brb 9015 loaded with various articles. since the transporter had violated certain provisions of the bihar finance act, the transport company was imposed penalty of rs.77,822.16 paise. it was alleged in the written report of commercial taxes officer, investigation bureau, gaya division, gaya submitted before the officer-in-charge, kotwali police station, gaya that while releasing the truck along with goods, the transporter/petitioners were directed to ascertain and note down the name and address of the persons to whom the goods of the truck were to be released and furnish the same to the commercial taxes authorities and the goods were to be released after obtaining permission from the authority concerned. it was alleged that subsequently, it was found that no goods were available at the office of the transporter and as such it was alleged that the petitioners had committed offences under sections 49b and 39(3-b) of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....hereto, although the petitioner carries its activities in israel and respondents in india, arises for consideration in the petition. backdrop facts: the first petitioner is a company registered in cyprus. the second petitioner is registered in nicosia. the first respondent is a content aggregator. the first petitioner and the 1st respondent entered into an agreement on or about 4th april, 2007, in terms whereof non-exclusive rights to stream licensed content was granted to the latter via the internet on its website and on other terms and conditions contained therein. the said agreement came into force w.e.f. 4th april, 2007; pursuant whereto, nine different channels of zee tv transmitted from india were to be re-transmitted by the petitioners from their israel headend throughout the world except india. an ‘addenda’ to the said agreement was executed; pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, six more channels of the said broadcasters were added for retransmission on and from 15th october, 2009. indisputably, those signals were meant especially for the indian audience residing/travelling abroad. this petition has been filed inter alia on the premise that on.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....section 4 a of the act-1995. e. to pass any order/orders in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents which deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” the petitioner is a cable operator. the 1st respondent is also a cable operator. the 3rd respondent herein has been constituted in terms of the provisions of telecom regulatory authority of india act, 1997 (the act) for the purpose of regulating inter alia the business of cable network. the 3rd respondent in his capacity as a nodal officer is responsible for collection of entertainment tax under the provisions of delhi entertainment and betting tax act, 1996. the petitioner is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the allegedinaction on the part of the official respondents herein in taking appropriate steps against the 1st and 2nd respondents in so far as despite the fact that the area in question had been declared to be a cas area, but they had been allowing them to continue to carry on their operations of transmitting signals of various channels of the broadcasters on a non-cas basis. we are, in this petition, concerned with a preliminary issue of maintainability of the petition raised by.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....agony without any basis, which is also liable to be upset. per contra, a submission was made, on behalf of the complainant, that by adducing satisfactory evidence, the complainant had not only established the incomplete work of the opposite party, but also established its cost and completion and therefore, in the award, there cannot be any infirmity, thereby, praying for the dismissal of the appeal, supporting the findings of the district forum, in its entirety. 8. it is an admitted fact [as pleaded in the complaint, admitted in the written version] that there was an agreement between the parties for the construction, on the first floor, in the house of the complainant, measuring 1200 sq.ft., at the rate of rs.300/-per sq.ft. it is not in dispute that pursuant to the understanding, a sum of rs.4,47,000/- was paid by the complainant, to the opposite party. but according to the complainant, though the opposite party had received more amount, than the amount agreed, he had not constructed the building, using standard materials, but also failed to finish the same within the agreed period, thereby, compelling him to finish the work, spending a sum of rs.49,350/-, which should be.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTjustice shri. k.r. udayabhanu, president the appellants are the opposite parties in cc.236/09 in the file of cdrf, ernakulam. the bill issued by the appellant/opposite parties for a sum of rs.1800/- stands cancelled. 2. the petitioner has been issued the penal bill alleging that the out house of the complainant has been let on rent with effect from october 2008 and that the complainant had applied for separate electric connection only on 10.2.09. we find that at best the difference of duration of the period for which the out house was occupied by another family is less than 4 months. there can be no justification for issuing a bill amounting to rs.1,08,000/-. we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. 3. in the result, the appeal is dismissed in-limine. the office is directed to forward the copy of this judgment to the forum urgently.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for this part of the amount has been issued on 9.8.05. the same has to be limited to 2 year period ending on 9.8.05 ie; only from the period from 8.8.03 to 7.8.05 can be claimed by the opposite party. the opposite party will be entitled only for the energy charges for the above period. the opposite party is at liberty to issue fresh bill without any penal charges for the above period. 6. so far as ext.a2 bill for rs.47,841/- is concerned we find that the same does not suffer from any infirmity. the opposite party/appellant is entitled to realize ext.a2 bill amount. 7. hence, the order of the forum is set aside and the appeal is allowed in part as above. office will forward the lcr to the forum along with the copy of this order to the forum urgently.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the financier. 3. the evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits filed by the respective parties and exts.a1 to a6 and b1 to b3. 4. we find that the contention with respect to the possibility of the vehicle having been seized by the financier is not mentioned in the version at all. the opposite party/appellant has not taken any steps before the forum to see that the duplicate copy of the rc is produced. everything could have been subjected to an investigation by the opposite party which has not been done. the appellant has not disputed the fact with respect to the quantum of compensation. 5. in the circumstances, we find that there is no scope for admitting the appeal. the appeal is dismissed in-limine. the office will forward the copy of this order to the forum urgently.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT