.....appearing for the student that the vice chancellor had allowed her to continue with the course. however, there is nothing on record to support this fact. further, such permission was clearly incorrect if at all given. in the subsequent meeting of the academic council, the student was not permitted to continue with the course. all these factors were completely ignored by the division bench in the impugned judgment. therefore, at least after the academic council had rejected the student's request, she could not have been allowed to continue. this did not happen and the college allowed her to take the further examinations for iii and iv semesters also. we totally disapprove of all this.10. the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence from the court merely on the ground that she was admitted by respondent no. 2 and has been allowed to study the course. vide interim order dated 05.11.2009, the petitioner was allowed to avail the hostel accommodation and attend the classes by way of interim measure without creating any right or equity in her favour.11. in view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed and it is held that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....as open and the contention of the gmada that even in the plan of the year 1998, constructions had been mentioned, there is a disputed question of fact that this court cannot resolve.5. the learned counsel appearing for the gmada points out to the development of law relating to town planning and building regulations with reference to the punjab urban estates (development and regulation) act, 1964 that defines the 'urban estate' to mean an area declared under section 3(1) of the 1964 act. section 3 empowered the state government to declare areas as urban estates through notifications where it was situate or within the limits of the local authority. the provisions of the act were sought to be enforced through various sets of rules and in so far as it pertains to development and regulations, they are governed by the punjab urban estates (development and regulation) rules of 1974. the lay out plan refers to a plan as approved by the chief town planning, punjab showing the following details under rule 3 (xxxi):'layout plan' means the plan approved by the chief town planner, punjab, showing any or all or all of the following:(i) streets, roads, public open spaces, parking areas.(ii).....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....has not challenged the conviction of the appellant under section 20 of the ndps act but has submitted that sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant be reduced to already undergone by the appellant. fine has already been deposited by the appellant.4. as per the custody certificate placed on record by the learned state counsel, the appellant has undergone three months and seven days of actual sentence as on 9.4.2010 and is not involved in any other criminal case.5. keeping in view the above facts, it would be just and expedient to reduce the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant to already undergone by him6. accordingly, conviction of the appellant under section 20 of the ndps act is maintained. however, the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to already undergone by him.7. the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....way of affidavit stating therein that he has no objection if the f.i.r is quashed. the same is taken on record.2. it would be relevant to note the facts of the present case. respondent no. 2 - gurdev singh had got the present fir registered against the present petitioner and one kuldeep singh son of ajaib singh, alleging therein that they got a power of attorney in a deceitful manner and pledged the property of the complainant for a sum of rs. 1,99,000/-. however, the matter has since been compromised amicably with the intervention of the friends and relatives of the parties. the compromise dated 02.02.2010 has been placed on record as annexure p-5.3. the full bench of this court in the case of kulwinder singh and ors. v. state of punjab and anr. 2007(3) rcr (criminal) 1052 has observed as under:the compromise, in a modern society, is the sine qua non of harmony and orderly behaviour. it is the soul of justice and if the power under section 482 of the cr.p.c. is used to enhance such a compromise which, in turn, enhances the social amity and reduced friction, then it truly is finest hour of justice. disputes which have their genesis in a matrimonial discord, landlord-tenant.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the case of the complainant, in brief, as noticed by the additional sessions judge, in para no. 2 of its judgment reads as under:in nutshell, the facts mentioned in the complaint are that the marriage of complainant ajit was solemnized with accused no. 3 smt. chalti, whereas his brothers satbir and meer singh got married with smt. kabul and smt. prem respectively on 08.07.1992 according to hindu rites and ceremonies. accused no. 3 is the legally weeded wife of the complainant, whereas accused no. 4 is the legally wedded wife of his brother satbir. accused no. 3 lived with the complainant in the matrimonial home at bawal upto 07.05.1998. the parents of the accused nos. 3 and 4 are greedy persons. they took the accused nos. 3 and 4 on 7.5.1998 from the matrimonial home along with the cash and other articles. thereafter, the complainant visited at the parental home of accused no. 3 several times, but the accused no. 3 refused to accompany him. a panchayat was also convened but the parents of the accused nos. 3 and 4 refused to send them. thereafter, the complainant filed a petition under section 9 of the hindu marriage act, which was decreed in his favour on 24.12.2003. now the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....also no force because the copy of the assessment register of municipal record cannot prevail over the recital made in the sale deed regarding the factum of delivery of possession in favour of the respondent. if the plaintiff/respondent did not got incorporate the factum of the sale deed in the municipal record, it does not mean that he is not owner in possession of the suit property. the filing of complaint by defendant no. 1 in a criminal court on 7.6.2000 i.e. after lapse of two years is also suggestive of the fact that defendant no. 1 had came upon with an after thought and concocted version to challenge the impugned sale deed which under the facts and circumstances of the case has been executed by defendant no. 1 for lawful consideration of rs. 12,000/- in favour of plaintiff/respondent. phool kumar dw-4 has also deposed in cross-examination that parties to the sale deed were present at the time of execution of the sale deed. thus, in view of above discussion and evidence on record, it cannot be said that plaintiff had got executed the alleged sale deed in his favour by playing fraud upon defendant no. 1/appellant, hence counter claim of defendant has also been rightly.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....profit for use and occupation since 28.11.1984, was ordered to be dismissed; whereas respondents have filed cross objection no. 5-c of 1999.2. the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that respondent no. 1 had, in fact, filed suit no. 106 of 1984 against the appellants for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was owner in possession of the property in dispute to the exclusion of defendants with a consequential relief of restraining the defendants by permanent injunction from interfering in the peaceful possession and occupation of the said property.3. the case pleaded by respondent no. 1 in his suit was that the suit property along with other property was owned and possessed by hindu undivided family of lala behari lal consisting of himself and his three sons i.e. bhagwan dass, puran chand and lachhi ram. after the death of behari lal, aforesaid property devolved upon all the three sons and ultimately on 10.1.1949 property was partitioned and suit property fell to the share of hindu undivided family of lachhi ram and his two sons rajeshwar and brij mohan plaintiff and defendant in the suit.4. lachhi ram father of the plaintiff and defendant was running halwai.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....nirmal singh is apt to reproduce as under:q. anything else you want to say?a. i am innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. in fact, i was in possession of kinnov orchard standing on the land measuring 134 kanals 12 marlas. when the complainant alongwith balwinder singh trespassed into the land and inflicted injuries to us, i also got stay order dated 14.6.99 from the court of addl. civil judge (sr.divn.), dasuya. i was the attorney of harbans singh, who had purchased the share of his brother baldev singh vide sale-deed dated 21.10.99 and it was specifically mentioned in the sale-deed that the possession has been delivered and complainant party was not in possession of the land on 5.11.99. the alleged kabuliat-nama is a forged document prepared by jagtar singh to usurp the property. the ld. distt. judge, hoshiarpur held that the said lease-deed regarding the share of the land of the plaintiff was sought to be created and used by the appellant satbir singh in connivance with jagtar singh, whose power of attorney had already stood cancelled. even the distance of kinnov orchard was not mentioned in the land in question. the appeal filed by satbir singh was.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....were not seen while committing the crime. statements of master hanuman, hari kishan and mohit shows that prosecution story is not genuine one. in fact, deceased used to take liquor. he was residing alone. under depression, he seems to have committed the crime, that is why, burn injuries were noticed below the face and neck. on the day of occurrence, there was election of the society. bijender singh was the director of the society and remained in the premises of the society from 11.00 am to 4.00 pm. headmaster of the school while appearing as dw3 also stated that mahender singh (deceased) used to remain drunk most of the time and was alcoholic. there was no motive to commit the crime. if something was due from the appellants, then some documentary proof could easily be produced that rs. 37,000/-was due from them. when nothing was due from the appellants, then they were not expected to set on fire the deceased.32. learned state counsel argued that no dispute regarding the occurrence. only dispute is as to who had committed the crime. in the morning, deceased had gone to attend the school and this fact is clear from the statement of dw3. after some time, he had left the school.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....i have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein, although apparently the contention appears to be attractive. in fact, documents annexures a-1 to a-3 demolish the whole case of the defendants. it is correct that according to jamabandi (annexure a-1), khasra nos. 318 and 319 were owned by sikander. it is also correct that killa no. 30 comprising suit land was formed out of khasra nos. 318, 319 and 444 during consolidation of holdings. however, in consolidation of holdings, after killa no. 30 was formed out of khasra nos. 318, 319 and 444, said killa no. 30 was allotted to darab khan alone, whereas some other land might have been allotted to defendants' predecessor sikander. khatoni pamaish (annexure a-2) clearly specifies that the land mentioned therein including land of killa no. 30 comprising the suit land was allotted to darab and darab only, who was owner in self cultivating possession thereof. similarly, consolidation proceedings (annexure a-3) reveal that darab alone was owner of the suit land comprising killa no. 30 along with some other land as the same was allotted to him in lieu of his land held before consolidation of holdings. it.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT