Reported in : AIR2007Kant118; 2007(4)KLJ71; 2007(3)AIRKarR302
orderh.v.g. ramesh, j.1. in this petition, petitioners have filed a joint petition since the common question of law and facts are involved and sought for to quash the electrical wires, cables appliances and protection devices and accessories (quality control) order 2003, issued vide notification dated 17.2.03 as per annexure 'a' and also to declare that order 3 of the electric wires, cables appliances and protection devices and accessories (quality control) order 2003 as illegal and for such order reliefs.2 according to the petitioners, they registered themselves as a small-scale industry and the authority has granted permission to establish small-scale industry and the department has given the permanent registration number. the government has issued notification acting under section 14 of the bureau of indian standards act, 1986 and by virtue of the said order, it has included electrical wires, cables, appliances protection devices and accessories and prescribed the standards wherein it has made it obligatory for compulsory registration for the manufacture of the products and also to obtain a license under the act and that the process of manufacturing the product should be.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : ILR2007KAR2324; 2007(4)KarLJ545
.....of 2.5 kilometers between them. he submits that if it were only marked as an exhibit, the appellant-claimants would have established to the satisfaction of the reference court that the compensation paid to the lands covered in m.f.a no. 2384 of 1986 cannot form an ideal basis for the determination of the market value of the lands in question. he further submits that the preliminary notification in respect of the lands covered by m.f.a. no. 2384 of 1986 is of the year 1986, whereas in respect of the lands in question, the preliminary notification was issued in 1994.(b) the reference court has not given any wieght age to the sale-deed at exhibit-p10. the said sale-deed is dated 23rd july, 1994; the sale consideration of rs. 6,60,000/- was paid for four guntas of land. as the said sale transaction is genuine and as it has taken place just on the verge of the issuance of the preliminary notification, the said sale-deed constitutes the ideal foundation for fixing the market value.(c) the reference court has not even made any cursory reference to the valuation report at exhibit-p9. without giving any reason, the reference court appears to have impliedly rejected the appellants'.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(6)ALD421; 2007(3)ALT145
ordergoda raghuram, j.1. the conflict is commonplace, the facts simple and the law clear; and yet a combat. this writ petition is another illustration of a recurring morbidity in our public services, a dispute regarding inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. despite over abundance of precedential guidance, casual administrative practices engender such disputes with regularity. negligent administrative handling of this area festers creative claims to seniority. the dispute in this writ petition is commonplace. such disputes in several services including higher judicial service are a continuing phenomenon. we record yet another opinion on an oft visited theme.2. in substance, the petitioner seeks determination of his seniority status above respondent nos. 2 to 5 in the category of district and sessions judges grade-ii (in the andhra pradesh state higher judicial service) governed by special rules made under the proviso to article 309 of the constitution, called the andhra pradesh state higher judicial service rules (for short 'the special rules'). he also assails the administrative order of the high court of andhra pradesh (the first respondent) dated 17-08-2001.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(3)ALD488
.....the appeal has to be valued as per the explanation 4 to section 49 of the act. explanation 3 to section 49 of the act has no application to the facts of this case.6. the ratio in mishri tarachand lodha's case (supra), is that value of the appeal has to be determined on the substantial allegations in the plaint or from the pleas in the memorandum of appeal with respect to the point of dispute between the parties said to be determined by the court. as stated above, the point for consideration in this appeal would be whether the trial court was right in granting a decree for rs. 1,50,000/- with interest at 24% per annum from the date of agreement till the date of realization and in not passing a decree only for rs. 50,000/- with interest at 24% per annum for one month, as contended by the appellants. so the point in dispute in appeal relates to the trial court granting decree for rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 24% from 18-10-1998 and not awarding interest only for one month at 24% on rs. 50,000/-from 18-10-1998 i.e., up to 18-11-1998 only. keeping in view explanation 3 to section 49 of the act, appellants have to value the appeal at rs. 1,00,000/- with interest at 24% from.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(3)ALD745; 2007(4)ALT209
.....is placed on behalf of the petitioner, on the judgment of the supreme court in pankaja v. yellappa : air2004sc4102 . it was held that if sufficient factual background is present in the pleadings, amendment can be permitted, at a later stage, and it cannot be rejected, on the ground of limitation. the factors to be taken into account, while examining the application for amendment, in cases of this nature, were summed up in para-14, as under:the law in this regard is also quite clear and consistent that there is no absolute rule that in every case where a relief is barred because of limitation an amendment should not be allowed. discretion in such cases depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. the jurisdiction to allow or not to allow an amendment being discretionary the same will have to be exercised in a judicious evaluation of the facts and circumstances in which the amendment is sought. if the granting of an amendment really subserves the ultimate cause of justice and avoids further litigation the same should be allowed. there can be no straight jacket formula for allowing or disallowing an amendment of pleadings. each case depends on the factual background of that.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(5)ALT10
.....after sankranthi vacation 2007.that is how both these matters, crp and also cma referred to supra, are coming before this court for final hearing.2. facts in brief:--the revision is preferred under section 22 of a.p. buildings (lease, rent and eviction) control act 1960, hereinafter in short referred to as 'act' for the purpose of convenience, as against an order of eviction made in rc no. 666 of 1999 on the file of i additional rent controller, hyderabad as confirmed in ra no. 27 of 2003 on the file of additional chief judge, city small causes court, hyderabad. the civil miscellaneous appeal is filed as against an order of remand made in as no. 140 of 2003 on the file of xiii additional chief judge-fast track court, city civil court, hyderabad under order xliii rule l(u) of the code of civil procedure, hereinafter in short referred to as 'code' for the purpose of convenience. the facts appear to be a bit novel. r.c. no. 666 of 1999 was filed by the respondents in the crp for eviction under section 10(2(1) and section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the act referred to supra. it appears that the said petitioners in the rc no. 666 of 1999 also filed a suit os no. 1341 of 2000 on the file of vi.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(4)ALD468; 2007(4)ALT521
.....respondents, without any basis. he contends that when parliament had conferred upon the state government, the power to grant exemption, if necessary facts and circumstances exist, the government cannot boast to itself, the power to indiscriminately reject all the applications, as a matter of policy. he places reliance upon certain decided cases, in support of his submissions.7. learned government pleader for assignments, on the other hand, submits that the object of the act is to ensure that the urban property does not remain in few hands, and the petitioners cannot claim any exemption under the act, as a right. he too places reliance upon certain precedents, and submits that the power of the government, to reject applications, without stating reasons; has been upheld on several occasions.8. with an object of discouraging the concentration of urban lands, in a few hands, and to ensure proper distribution thereof, the parliament enacted the act in the year 1976. the validity of the same was upheld by the supreme court through its judgment in bhim singhji, v. union of india : air1981sc234 . the implementation part of the act, was left to the states or union territories, as the case.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007CriLJ2540
.....the court further found that if any action was required to be taken under the said provision, the authority was required to consider the material facts of the case and form a bonafide opinion on relevant consideration as to whether there was a sufficient ground for proceeding under that section and whether immediate prevention or speedy remedy was desirable. the court further found that it the authority found that such a situation existed, in that eventuality, the authority could direct any person to abstain from doing a certain act but could not pass a general order for depositing the fire arms.6. subsequently, the court in shahabuddin and ors. v. state of u.p. and ors. 2000 (38) a.l.r. 44 issued a mandamus directing the state authorities not to compel the licence holders to deposit the firm arms on the basis that elections are going to be held in the near future. similar direction was again issued in mohd. arif khan and ors. v. state of u.p. and ors. 2002 a.c.j. 586.7. in ram hit v. state of u.p. and ors. 2000 (40) alr 281. the court held that the authority cannot compel a citizen to deposit the fire arms unless there was a specific order by a competent authority under the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : II(2007)DMC399
.....the order awarding maintenance to bulbul (the son of the revisionist) at the rate of rs. 400/- per month is not assailed.2. the relevant facts are briefly that smt. gomti (revisionist) along with her minor son bulbul filed petition no. 305 of 1991 under section 125 cr.p.c. against her husband ramanand (herein respondent) for maintenance allowance on the ground that her marriage with ramanand took place in her childhood; that her gauna was held about six years back from the date of the petition (petition filed on 5.4.1990); that ramanand and his family members demanded a buffalo and the cash; that on failure to fulfill their demands she was ill treated; that her illiteracy and her dark complexion were also the reasons for subjecting her to cruelty; that out of their conjugal relationship she gave birth to a male child named bulbul, who was four years old at the time of filing the petition; that ramanand (respondent) had beaten her and turned her out of his house retaining her ornaments; that she was unable to maintain herself and her child; that ramanand was hindi typist in clerical grade in the education directorate, allahabad and was earning rs. 1600/- per month and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007ACJ1555
.....in riding a moped and, therefore, neither the owner of the truck nor new india assurance co. ltd. were liable for payment of compensation. the factum of the deceased being employed as assistant manager in vikas food products, agra was also denied. new india assurance co. ltd. by filing a separate written statement further alleged that the truck driver was not having a proper driving licence and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable for the payment of any compensation.3. motor accidents claims tribunal vide the impugned judgment, order and award dated 29.3.1993 held that the accident took place due to negligence of the truck driver alone. tribunal awarded a sum of rs. 2,04,000 to claimants-appellants by taking rs. 15,000 as the notional income of the deceased in view of second schedule of the act by applying the multiplier of 18.4. not being satisfied by the compensation awarded by the claims tribunal, the claimants-appellants have preferred this appeal for enhancement.5. we have heard mr. ashok nath tripathi, learned counsel for appellants, mr. p.k. bisaria for new india assurance co. ltd., respondent no. 1 and have perused the record. the only point raised and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT