.....took place two months ago and the fir was registered after seven months of the recording of the statement on 20th january, 2016. despite the fact that the prosecutrix alleged that she was dragged to the top floor by pulling her hair, no injury was received and no mlc in this regard was prepared. the complainant has leveled similar allegations against the other persons as well and thus is a habitual complainant. hence the fir in question be quashed.4. in the above noted fir the complainant alleged that she had been married with the petitioner no.1 for the last 16 years and out of the wedlock four daughters were born. her husband re-married with another lady without her consent and started beating her and her daughters as she belonged to a poor family. her husband wanted to leave her and divorce her after his second marriage. two months ago while she was in her room her husband along with his friend raja came to her room and asked her to remove her clothes and thereafter she was sexually assaulted by raja and then by her husband. her husband committed unnatural sex with her and threatened to kill her and her younger daughter by throwing them from the terrace, if she.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and east delhi municipal corporation (hereinafter, „edmc‟), on the other. nrdmc and edmc are collectively referred to as `corporations'. the facts in each appeal are different and hence separate judgments are being passed in each of the appeals.2. briefly, these are cases where various work orders were placed on contractors by both the corporations. the works were executed by the contractors and thereafter, the engineer-in-charge has passed the final bills. payments in respect thereof were not made. suits for recovery were filed by the contractors. the trial court decreed the suits in favour of the contractors. rfa1602017 page 1 of 50 3. in the work orders, the contractors seek either/all of the following payments: a. payment of the principal amount as passed in the final bill; b. c. refund of security deposit; interest on account of late payment of the principal amount, as also due to delay in refund of security deposit.4. the corporations rely on clauses 7 and 9 of the general conditions of contract in respect of payment of principal amount and interest, read with the amendment of 19th may, 2006. in respect of the security deposit, the corporations rely on clauses 17.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....so, it is submitted that the scrutiny of the dossiers/obc certificates of petitioners to verify the creamy layer status has been rightly done and thus, these petitions deserve dismissal.12. upon hearing and on perusal of impugned communication of 14th october, 2004 of first respondent, on basis of which obc certificates of petitioners were scrutinized, the material on record and the decision cited, w.p.(c) 3073/2017 & connected matters page 6 of 8 i find that o.m. of september, 1993 deals with officers class alone and that the equivalence or comparability of posts in psus viz-a-viz posts in government has not been carried out. first respondent in its counter affidavit maintains that impugned communication of 14th october, 2004 has been brought about to clarify the aforesaid o.m. of september, 1993. the communication of 14th october, 2004 takes into account salary of parents of obc candidates whereas as per o.m. of september, 1993, the income from other sources is the basis to determine the creamy layer status of obcs in case of psus, where equivalence has not been established. undisputedly, equivalence has not been established in case of psus viz-a-viz the posts in government......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and east delhi municipal corporation (hereinafter, „edmc‟), on the other. nrdmc and edmc are collectively referred to as `corporations'. the facts in each appeal are different and hence separate judgements are being passed in each of the appeals.2. briefly, these are cases where various work orders were placed on contractors by both the corporations. the works were executed by the contractors and thereafter, the engineer-in-charge has passed the final bills. payments in respect thereof were not made. suits for recovery were filed by the contractors. the trial court decreed the suits in favour of the contractors.3. in respect of each of the work orders, the contractors seek either/all rfa4182017 page 1 of 60 of the following payments: a. payment of the principal amount as passed in the final bill; b. c. refund of security deposit; interest on account of late payment of the principal amount, as also due to delay in refund of security deposit.4. the corporations rely on clauses 7 and 9 of the general conditions of contract in respect of payment of principal amount and interest, read with the amendment of 19th may, 2006. in respect of the security deposit, the corporations.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and east delhi municipal corporation (hereinafter, „edmc‟), on the other. nrdmc and edmc are collectively referred to as `corporations'. the facts in each appeal are different and hence separate judgements are being passed in each of the appeals.2. briefly, these are cases where various work orders were placed on contractors by both the corporations. the works were executed by the contractors and thereafter, the engineer-in-charge has passed the final bills. payments in respect thereof were not made. suits for recovery were filed by the contractors. the trial court decreed the suits in favour of the contractors.3. in the work orders, the contractors seek either/all of the following rfa4322017 page 1 of 60 payments: a. payment of the principal amount as passed in the final bill; b. c. refund of security deposit; interest on account of late payment of the principal amount, as also due to delay in refund of security deposit.4. the corporations rely on clauses 7 and 9 of the general conditions of contract in respect of payment of principal amount and interest, read with the amendment of 19th may, 2006. in respect of the security deposit, the corporations rely on clauses 17.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....between the parties and, jurisdiction to render the impugned award. therefore, briefly stated, 4. aforesaid controversy are as under:-"the relevant facts necessary to address the the respondent is a registered partnership firm and is, inter alia, 4.1 engaged in the business of sale and purchase of various kinds of fabric (suitings and shirtings). the respondent is also a member of the delhi hindustani mercantile association (regd.).... petitioner no.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of the companies act, 1956 and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are directors of petitioner no.1 company. 4.2 the respondent firm claims that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 (who were arrayed as respondent nos. 3 & 4 before the arbitral tribunal) used to purchase fabrics in the name of m/s priknit apparels pvt. ltd. ( arrayed as respondent no.1 before the arbitral tribunal), on credit basis, from the respondent.... petitioner no.1 was arrayed as respondent no.2 before the arbitral tribunal. the respondent claimed that during the period 02.12.2006 to 12.06.2008, they supplied goods for a total value of ₹2,25,82,801.90/-. the respondent submitted that it had o.m.p. (comm) 374/2016 page 2 of 15 received.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and east delhi municipal corporation (hereinafter, „edmc‟), on the other. nrdmc and edmc are collectively referred to as `corporations'. the facts in each appeal are different and hence separate judgements are being passed in each of the appeals.2. briefly, these are cases where various work orders were placed on contractors by both the corporations. the works were executed by the contractors and thereafter, the engineer-in-charge has passed the final bills. payments in respect thereof were not made. suits for recovery were filed by rfa5602017 page 1 of 59 the contractors. the trial court decreed the suits in favour of the contractors.3. in respect of each of the work orders, the contractors seek either/all of the following payments: a. payment of the principal amount as passed in the final bill; b. c. refund of security deposit; interest on account of late payment of the principal amount, as also due to delay in refund of security deposit.4. the corporations rely on clauses 7 and 9 of the general conditions of contract in respect of payment of principal amount and interest, read with the amendment of 19th may, 2006. in respect of the security deposit, the corporations.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of non-payment of post- retiral benefits to him from july, 2013.2. for the relief claimed in this petition, petitioner has not approached the respondents. let petitioner do so by way of a representation. mr.arun k.sinha, advocate submits on behalf of petitioner that representation has to be made to second respondent.3. in the facts and circumstances of this case, this petition and the applications are disposed of with permission to petitioner to make concise representations to both the respondents within a period of two weeks and w.p.(c) no.2797/2018 page 1 upon receipt of such representations, the respondent shall pass a speaking order thereon within a period of ten weeks and the fate of the representations be conveyed to petitioner by respondents within one week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy as available in law, if need be.4. with aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are disposed of. march22 2018 mamta (sunil gaur) judge w.p.(c) no.2797/2018 page 2
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....so, it is submitted that the scrutiny of the dossiers/obc certificates of petitioners to verify the creamy layer status has been rightly done and thus, these petitions deserve dismissal.12. upon hearing and on perusal of impugned communication of 14th october, 2004 of first respondent, on basis of which obc certificates of petitioners were scrutinized, the material on record and the decision cited, w.p.(c) 3073/2017 & connected matters page 6 of 8 i find that o.m. of september, 1993 deals with officers class alone and that the equivalence or comparability of posts in psus viz-a-viz posts in government has not been carried out. first respondent in its counter affidavit maintains that impugned communication of 14th october, 2004 has been brought about to clarify the aforesaid o.m. of september, 1993. the communication of 14th october, 2004 takes into account salary of parents of obc candidates whereas as per o.m. of september, 1993, the income from other sources is the basis to determine the creamy layer status of obcs in case of psus, where equivalence has not been established. undisputedly, equivalence has not been established in case of psus viz-a-viz the posts in government......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....so, it is submitted that the scrutiny of the dossiers/obc certificates of petitioners to verify the creamy layer status has been rightly done and thus, these petitions deserve dismissal.12. upon hearing and on perusal of impugned communication of 14th october, 2004 of first respondent, on basis of which obc certificates of petitioners were scrutinized, the material on record and the decision cited, w.p.(c) 3073/2017 & connected matters page 6 of 8 i find that o.m. of september, 1993 deals with officers class alone and that the equivalence or comparability of posts in psus viz-a-viz posts in government has not been carried out. first respondent in its counter affidavit maintains that impugned communication of 14th october, 2004 has been brought about to clarify the aforesaid o.m. of september, 1993. the communication of 14th october, 2004 takes into account salary of parents of obc candidates whereas as per o.m. of september, 1993, the income from other sources is the basis to determine the creamy layer status of obcs in case of psus, where equivalence has not been established. undisputedly, equivalence has not been established in case of psus viz-a-viz the posts in government......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT