Reported in : AIR2007SC2616; 2007(4)ALLMR(SC)307; 2007(3)AWC2228(SC); [2007(113)FLR1006]; JT2007(6)SC287; 2007(6)SCALE121; (2007)5SCC655
.....12th april, 2006, by which the division bench of the high court has upheld the order passed by the learned single judge of the high court.3. the facts of the matter are narrated here in brief. an advertisement was issued by the appellant-state on 12.4.1999 for appointment of the two posts of assistant government advocate-cum-assistant public prosecutor. thereafter, the state government issued two notifications informing the dates of interview for appointment to the said posts. a writ petition (being wp(c) no. 570/99) was filed before the high court challenging the said notifications informing the date of interview on the grounds that (a) appointments could not be made only on the basis of oral interview, and (b) a written test was required to be taken. this writ petition was allowed by the learned single judge of the high court on 9th june, 1999 and a direction was issued to the state government for notifying a fresh date for conducting written test as well as oral test within one month.in pursuance to the directions issued by the high court in w.p.(c) no. 570/99, the written test was held on 1st of august, 1999 and the oral test was held on 1st of december, 1999 for the said.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : JT2007(6)SC280; 2008(1)KarLJ80; 2007(5)SCALE813; (2007)5SCC412; 2007AIRSCW6289; (2007)2SCC(Cri)523
.....petition has also been filed in which the following prayer has been made : 'the state of karnataka be represented by principal secretary, forest, environment and ecology department, m.s. building, bangalore.' 7. considering that the state of karnataka had also in fact challenged the order of the learned sessions judge, bangalore in the aforesaid criminal revision petition in which it was petitioner no. 2, there was no reason for the high court to dismiss the criminal revision petition on the ground aforementioned. in view of the above, we also allow the prayer for amendment made by the appellant during the pendency of this appeal. accordingly, we allow the application for amendment and direct the department to incorporate the amendment. 8. for the reasons aforesaid, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the criminal revision petition to the file of the high court and request the high court to decide the same at an early date preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. no order as to costs.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007CriLJ3068
.....to this particular case shall be passed separately. the present order indicates the reasons for the said order dated 20.12.2006.3. the admitted facts are that by an order dated 16.05.2006, the juvenile justice board was satisfied that the petitioner, who is a juvenile in conflict with law, had committed an offence under section 302/392/397/34 ipc in respect of the fir no. 359/1999 registered at p.s. hazrat nizamuddin, delhi. by its order on sentence passed on 16.05.2006, the juvenile justice board directed as under:release of the juvenile in the society in these facts and circumstances, would neither be in the interest of society nor in the interest of juvenile who needs behavior modification for a considerable time period. juvenile needs strict supervision in this regard, which is possible only in a custodial institution. he is above 18 years of age now and so, cannot be kept in the specified home. in these facts and circumstances of the matter, it is thought just and proper to send the juvenile to the place of safety for a period of two years. juvenile be provided with the regular counselling for his behavior modification during this period. juvenile be also involved in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2007Delhi219; 2007(96)DRJ335
.....x x x iii. 17.9% share in tower-a of the premises constructed at plot nos.5 & 7, seriall no.82, varsova, mumbaix x x x x x iv. x x x x x x 4. in the facts and circumstances explained above it is most respectfully prayed that this hon'ble court may be pleased to decree the suit in terms of settlement detailed in preceding paras.3. by order dated 23rd april, 2001, the statements of the parties were recorded by the learned single judge and aforesaid application was allowed accepting the compromise. it was also recorded as under:the compromise is accepted and recorded. decree, as prayed, in terms of the compromise, is granted. i.a. 2952/2001 and annexures a and b thereto shall form part of the decree. 4. the registry, however, did not prepare the decree-sheet on the ground that the same can be drawn after valuation report of all the properties is placed on record and the stamp duty @ 1% under article 45 of the stamp act is paid. office note dated 4th may, 2002 to this affect was prepared.5. the appellant filed an application being i.a. no. 13902/2006, which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 13th december, 2006 passed by the learned single judge. learned single judge in the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(2)ARBLR377(Delhi); 2007(96)DRJ26
.....corporation and ors. reported in and shri prasun roy v. the calcutta metropolitan development authority and anr. reported in : [1987]3scr569 .5. facts relevant for deciding the question may now be noticed. on 18th august, 1986, an agreement was executed between the appellant and the respondent at delhi for execution of works contract in the state of himachal pradesh.6. disputes and differences arose between the parties and the arbitration clause was invoked by the respondent. in may 1989, the respondent had filed a petition under sections 8 and 20 of the act before the high court of himachal pradesh at shimla for filing of the arbitration agreement and appointment of an arbitrator. however, it appears that before the filing of the petition, the appellant had appointed a sole arbitrator and on 19th october, 1989 when this fact was brought to the notice of the high court of himachal pradesh at shimla, the petition was dismissed as infructuous.7. subsequently, there was change in the sole arbitrator with mr.k.d. thite, retd. chief engineer, central water commission being appointed as an arbitrator. he made and published his award on 30th october, 1986.8. objections to the award.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 140(2007)DLT375
.....along with an interest @18% p.a., from his retiral benefits on account of damages assessed towards use and occupation of government accommodation.2. facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as follows. the petitioner joined the delhi water supply and sewage disposal undertaking, predecessor in interest of the respondent delhi jal board, in the year 1956. the petitioner was allotted quarter no. 111, water works no. 2, chandrawal, delhi for residence. the petitioner was due to retire on 30.4.1997, however, having failed to make any alternate arrangement, he made a representation to the respondent to permit him to stay in the aforesaid quarter after his retirement. the respondent vide office order no. 84 dated 12.05.1997, informed the petitioner that the competent authority had approved his request and allowed him to stay in the said premises till 31.08.1997, on payment of normal license fee. thereafter vide letter dated 28.08.1997, the petitioner again requested the respondent to further extend the time to vacate the quarter till 31.12.1997, but the said request was declined by the respondent not being permissible under the rules. the petitioner vacated the said.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(2)CTLJ48(Del)
.....agreement, made a statement on 25th september, 2001 that there is no dispute with regard to the agreement to sell and the gpa and, as a matter of fact, he has no objection if the agreement to sell is acted upon between the parties. delhi development authority was also represented on the said date by their counsel, who contended that in view of revocation of gpa by the defendant no. 1 on 26th june, 1989 and also by letter dated 11th december, 1990, information of which was sent to dda, the dda could not convert the policy laid down by union of india with regard to the scheme of conversion. the court further recorded that defendant no. 1, through his counsel, made a statement in court that there would be no impediment in conversion of land from lease hold to free hold. the court directed that the same should be done within four weeks and if any amount is due and payable by the plaintiff, defendant dda shall inform the same within one week whereupon payment shall be made.2. it appears that defendant no. 1 being aggrieved filed an application under section 151 of the code of civil procedure before the learned single judge for recalling the order dated 25th september, 2001. by.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(96)DRJ339
.....was stated in the plaint that the appellant had been dealing with the respondent for over 15 years and had trained and taught it's engineers to manufacture internationally acceptable products. it was further stated that the respondent had agreed and given an undertaking that they shall not deal with the overseas buyers of the appellant directly and shall not do any business for two years after termination of business between them. it was stated that the respondent had violated/breached their undertaking. 3. learned counsel for the appellant had drawn our attention and relied upon paragraphs 7, 11 and 12 of the plaint. for the sake of convenience, these paragraphs are reproduced below:7. that the plaintiff has learnt in the beginning of the month of october, 2003 that the defendants have in violation of their undertaking contained in their letter dated 02 april, 2003 to the plaintiff dealt and supplied goods to m/s. d.w. bendler, gmbh & company, germany, foreign buyer of the plaintiff for the last over ten years, the same goods as the plaintiff had been sourcing from the defendants, for supplying to the said foreign buyer of the value of rs.6,21,841.15p in or about the month of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2007)212CTR(Del)469
.....assessment year 1991-92 vide which the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of commissioner of income tax (appeals) was dismissed.2. the facts of this case are that the assessed filed return of income on 30th december, 1991 at 'nil income'. later on, information was received that the assessed had purchased property no. 4b/16, tilak nagar, new delhi for rs. 6 lacs plus registration charges on 5th october, 1990. a search was conducted in the business and residential premises of sister concern m/s b.k.jewellery house and its partners. after that a survey was also conducted at the business premises of sh. gajender seth, husband of smt. pushpa seth who had sold the above stated property to the assessed-company. smt.pushpa seth in her statement confirmed that the total sale consideration for the sale of the said property was rs. 45 lacs. in fact this amount was disclosed by her in her return of income tax. another statement of smt. pushpa seth was recorded on 29th july, 1996 in which the sale consideration was admitted at rs. 45 lacs and the copy of the statement was sent to the assessed by the assessing officer on 9th january, 1997. the assessed responded that the property.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(95)DRJ679
.....the respondent no. 1 g.k. mishra is the complainant. i do not consider the testimony of the witnesses worthy of giving any credence.under aforesaid facts, circumstances and testimony held above i am of the considered opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and consequently the complaint is dismissed. file be consigned to record room.5. on the above reasoning the complaint was rejected. the petitioner preferred a revision to the learned additional sessions judge. the latter dealt with the facts and narrated the sequence of events in the first part in paras 1 to 8 of his order. the only reasoning adduced by the revisional court in support of its order, dismissing the revision was that the court found no infirmity in law or illegality in the observations of the trial court.6. counsel urged that the reasoning of the courts below in rejecting the complaint namely avoidance of multiplicity of litigations or proceedings is hardly a justification for refusing to issue a process when the materials on record amply bore out commission of an offence. it was also contended that the fir lodged by the respondent/accused was in fact motivated. that fir was irrelevant at the stage.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT