Reported in : 107(2009)CLT28
.....permanently from making further construction.5. the appellant-defendant no. 1 in the written statement filed by him in the suit while admitting the fact that the land adjoining the public road belonged to state government took a stand that he was in possession of the said land for more than thirty years having constructed a shop-room thereon earlier to plaintiff purchasing the adjoining land. he stated that his possession being earlier to plaintiffs purchase/possession of his land, the decree sought in the suit could not be granted. his further stand was that the plaintiff having an alternate approach to the public road which he could use, the suit was not maintainable. he also took the stand that though the state was a necessary party to the suit, it having not been so impleaded, the suit was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.6. on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as six issues for its decision. after discussing the evidence and appreciating the submissions of the respective counsel for the parties, the said court came to the conclusion that the defendant no. 1's encroachment of the government land in front of the land of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 107(2009)CLT56; 2009(I)OLR428
.....by appellant upendra. he further submitted that soubhagini, now a destitute, has been passing her days through stringent financial difficulties.10. fact remains, there is no dispute with regard to marriage between the appellant and respondent and their leading a blissful married life initially, whereafter the appellant drove the respondent out of his house on demand of dowry followed by torture. fact remains, the suit for divorce filed by the respondent under section 13 of the hindu marriage act had been decreed. the said decree having not been assailed by the present appellant has attained finality.11. thus it is no morel open to the appellant to contend that the respondent had left his house of her own and, as such, she is not entitled to any maintenance. while passing a decree of divorce the court below did not grant any maintenance and observed that the respondent might file a suit for that. consequently the respondent filed t.s. no. 318 of 1994 to which the present second appeal relates.12. according to the learned counsel for the respondent, during pendency of the earlier suit (t.s. no. 209/1983) the trial court granted interim maintenance to the respondent at the rate of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2009)154PLR285
.....tenant started residing in the premises about 25 years ago and at that time also water and sewerage lines were existing in the locality. taking this fact into consideration, learned appellate court held that since at the time of inception of tenancy, these amenities were available, and were not provided now the tenant is precluded from the. prayer that such amenities ought to be provided. learned appellate authority also relied upon the cross-examination of pw-2 amir chand taneja to hold that if on the ground floor latrine is to be constructed then chabutra and enclosure is to be demolished as there is no place for construction of latrine on the ground floor and also main hole of the sewerage line is about 25' to 30' away from the house in question. it also took into consideration that tenant has not obtained any estimate of expenses likely to be incurred on the construction of latrine. it also took into consideration that the rent is only rs. 155/- per month and if the order of learned rent controller is upheld then for times to come, landlord will be deprived of the rent.8. to controvert this part of the findings of learned appellate court, mr. mani ram verma, advocate,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2009)153PLR339
.....the courts below and has argued that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact on appreciation of evidence on record in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.8. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.9. the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is without any merit. under section 145 of the electricity act 2003, jurisdiction of the civil court is barred against an assessment made by the electricity authorities under the provisions of section 126 of the aforesaid act. however, in the present case, the relief sought by the plaintiff-respondent is entirely different. in the present case, the plaintiff-respondent has prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demanding any amount under the garb of allegations of alleged theft of energy leveled against her. thus, such kind of dispute does not fall within the purview of section 126 of the electricity act, 2003 and therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred. even otherwise, no such objection has been raised by.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2009)153PLR320
.....for acquisition of the land is for the development and utilization of land for residential and commercial area for sector 13, panipat.2. brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are owner of land measuring 3 bighas 14 biswas, comprised in khasra no. 4428/2 and 4430/2, situated in taraf insar panipat. the land in question was purchased by them vide sale deeds dated 25.3.1988 and 6.5.1988. it is claimed that the petitioners have spent huge amount of 35-40 lacs for leveling of land and raising construction for setting up factory under the name and style of 'the karigar factory'. the machinery worth crores of rupees was installed in december, 1988 and the factory started functioning prior to 31.12.1988. it has been further claimed that the petitioners have about 200 employees and the unit is producing export oriented merchandise.3. on 23.2.1989, a notification under section 4 of the act was issued for acquiring the land of the petitioners and other land owners (p-2). objections under section 5-a of the act were filed by the petitioners (p-3). on 22.2.1990, notification/declaration under section 6 of the act, bearing no. lac(p)-ntla-90/1457, was issued. though in the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2009)153PLR324
.....and then allot an alternate plot to him by charging current price instead of the price when the originally plot was allotted to him earlier.2. brief facts of the case are that on 13.12.2004 allotment of industrial plot no. 184, measuring 1800 sq. mtrs. sector 8 imt manesar was made in favour of the petitioner @ rs. 2,500/- sq. meter, tentative cost rs. 45,00,000.00. a sum of rs. 3,97,000/- being 10 per cent of the price of the plot was paid as an advance with the application. on 10.1.2005 the petitioner accepted the terms of regular letter of allotment and executed an agreement alongwith pay order of rs. 7,28,000.00 in favour of the respondent which balance amount to make it 25%. thereafter, the petitioner made several requests for possession of the plot but possession was not delivered to him. on 23.3.2006 when letters of possession were given to others the petitioner was shocked to learn that allotment of plot made to him has been cancelled. the cancellation letter has never been communicated to the petitioner. on 15.9.2006, the petitioner filed an appeal before the commissioner industries, haryana. the appeal was dismissed on 3.1.2007 on the ground that the decision had been.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2009)153PLR326
.....does not deal with any other terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 13.7.2007 (annexure p-2) except the dispute concerning price. in fact the order has accepted the rate of rs. 3,200/- as fixed in the allotment letter. the other conditions of allotment continues to govern the parties and the respondents are well within their rights of charge interest in pursuance to clauses 9 of the allotment letter.5. having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we are of the considered view that this writ petition deserves to be allowed partially. it is conceded as a fact that possession of the plot has been delivered to the petitioner on 17.7.2008 although he had deposited a sum of rs. 6,40,000/- on 2.6.2006 and a sum of rs. 7,69,482/- on 2.11.2007. therefore, to say that the petitioner has not been able to raise construction and construction charges to the extent of rs. 1,08,026/- are recoverable would be putting the cart before the bull. it does not require any imagination, that in the absence of delivery of possession, the petitioner could not have raised construction. therefore, the construction charges sought to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2009P& H95
.....17117, 17118, 17119 of 2002; 14262 of 2007 and 9673, 9674 of 2008 can be decided together. parties are in agreement that for facility of reference facts can be taken from civil writ petition no. 17112 of 2002.2. petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking declaration that private bus service scheme published by the respondent-state on 19! 1.2001, annexure p-2 is violative of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.3. a reference can be made to the facts in nut shell that in pursuance to annexure p-2, the government had invited bids for non notified routes, for allocation of the same to the highest bidder and this according to the petitioner is not permissible, being without any authority of law, as motor vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as, 'the act') envisages no such procedure or course of action on the part of the state. it has been pointed out that under section 99 which forms part of chapter vi of the act, state government for providing an efficient, adequate and properly co-ordinated road transport service in the public interest can operate stage carriage permits exclusively in favour.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2009)154PLR283
.....landlord that his relations with his son are strained. therefore, it can be safely assumed that he has to do something to earn his livelihood. therefore, ground of personal necessity for which a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded by the two courts below is upheld.15. it has been further submitted that from spray paint to paint by installation of fire ovens i.e. bhatties, no change of user can be construed as the business is same. the two courts held that there was no written consent obtained from the previous landlord for installation of fire ovens. tenant himself admitted that the premises were rented out to him for doing the business of spray painting. therefore, the findings of two courts below that by installation of fire ovens a damage has been caused to the property can be taken into consideration.16. since, i have upheld the ground of personal necessity, therefore, there is no need to go into the question whether the act of tenant to install bhatties (fire ovens) shall amount to change of user or not.17. accordingly, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2009(4)AWC3884(SC); 2008(16)SCALE122; (2009)3SCC287; 2009AIRSCW1756; 2009(3)KCCRSN81
.....appellant is, thus, before us.11. mr. dhruv mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit:(1) keeping in view the fact that after death of bishan sahai, not only the property was mutated in the name of chandramukhi, the mother of the appellant and also the appellant, the high court committed a serious error in opining that by reason of the said will dated 21.11.1965, only a limited interest has been bequeathed in favour of the appellant and his mother.(2) the second question of law formulated is not a substantial question of law. the approach of the high court in formulating the same was, thus, erroneous, wherefor no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant.reliance in this behalf has been placed on krishnan v. backiam and anr. : 2007(11)scale46 and boodireddy chandraiah and ors. v. airgela laxmi and anr. : air2008sc380 .(3) in any event, the high committed a serious error insofar as it misconstrued and misinterpreted the said will dated 21.11.1965 to hold that by reason thereof, only a limited interest in favour of the appellant had been bequeathed.12. dr. saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT