.....of the petitioners for questioning. detailed averments have been made with regard to the response of the petitioners pursuant to said summons, facts pertaining which may be elaborated a little later. for the present, it needs to be only noted that the trigger for filing the petition is indicated to be the denial of extension of time for compliance with the summons on the ground that the legislative assembly of the state of himachal pradesh was in session till 06.04.2016 in spite of which, through the summons issued by the respondents, it was being insisted that the petitioners appeared on 17.03.2016.5. the first petition invoking the jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution of india read with section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (cr.p.c.) prayed for the grant of the following reliefs: “i) pass a writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari thereby issuing direction to quash and set aside all proceedings and actions the enforcement case information report bearing number ecir/hq/02/hiu/2015 as the same are without jurisdiction and authority of law; taken pursuant to wp(c) 856/2016 & connected matters page 4 of 101 ii) pending.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the bid was arbitrary. considerable reliance was placed upon the sdmc certificate saying that the petitioner had performed its task satisfactorily. it was contended that the petitioner’s bid for the very same work was neither deemed non-responsive nor rejected on an earlier occasion when the nit was issued in july 2016. in the circumstances, there being no change in the material facts, the sdmc could not have determined that the petitioner’s bid was ineligible. in other words, the rajasthan water corporation’s response and documents were available with sdmc even in july-august 2016. significantly, the petitioner’s bid was not cancelled. a different view, therefore, could not be taken against the petitioner with respect to the same material. it was consequently contended that the construction placed upon w.p.(c) 9728/2016 page 5 of 16 the terms and conditions of the nit together with the materials furnished by rajasthan water corporation and the nit concerning that bid nowhere justified the cancellation of the bid in this case. it is urged that the breach of code of integrity alleged was merely a unilateral assumption and not based upon any finding. furthermore.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....she cannot give a statement that the main counsel is not appearing in any court and he is not doing any work as an advocate.3. in view of the above facts, learned counsel for the respondents, and in the opinion of this court, rightly says that the tactics and strategies adopted by the appellants to continue this litigation and the interim order should be discouraged by this court by dismissing the appeal for non- prosecution or in any case vacating interim order.4. should be put to strict terms of costs.5. though, in the interest of justice the matter is adjourned, adjournment is granted subject to payment of costs of rs.25,000/- to the respondents. also, since strategies are being played for continuing of the interim order, the interim order dated 13.5.2014 is vacated. it is also prayed that in case the appeal continues then appellants list on 30th august, 2017.” 2. it is noted that the appellants were in fact the defendants in the suit and who have lost right till the supreme court. such defendants who are already parties to the suit when they file objections in execution proceedings, the scope of filing of objections by such defendants is extremely limited because issues of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....passed by the court of sub-divisional magistrate (saket), district-south, govt. of nct of delhi, in case no.034/sdm/2013 was dismissed.2. the brief facts stated are that initially a complaint on 15.03.2007 was made by shri sumer saini, chief security officer, chattarpur mandir trust, to the sho mehrauli alleging therein that a piece of land/plot in khasra no.61, village chattarpur, new delhi was under the continuous possession of the petitioner/trust and on the said plot the watchmans of the temple- om prakash, pankaj sahu and santosh kumar sahu lived in the jhuggies with their families and on 15.03.2007, the said plot was illegally encroached upon by the respondents-(nos. 2-5). an inquiry pertaining to the aforesaid complaint was carried out by the police and the police found a plot of about 704 yards there with some tin sheds. the photographs of the spot were taken and thereafter the respondents mohd ayub and mohd salim came forward and told the police officer that the said property is part of khasra no.61 and the entire khasra no.61 is the property of the delhi waqf board which is about 24 bighas and this plot measuring 704 yards has been taken on rent by them from the delhi.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement act, 2013. (hereafter called “the new act”).3. the admitted facts are that the suit lands were recovered by a notification under section 4 of the old act on 31.07.1968; they were also part of the declaration passed on 09.09.1970. after inviting claims from interested owners, including the land owners, represented in these proceedings by late mohan singh and govind singh, sons of late man singh, on 02.09.1972, the land acquisition collector (lac) published his award. the petitioners admit that compensation was paid to them pursuant to the award. the land acquisition proceedings were challenged before this court in w.p.(c) 3876/1990. at that stage, the challenge was that in view of the observations made in the award that the petitioners ought to be provided alternative land, a direction should be issued to that effect. the petitioners also relied upon a resolution of the requisitioning body, i.e. the municipal corporation of delhi (mcd) which at that stage, when it proposed w.p.(c) 407/2012 & w.p.(c) 4432/2015 page 2 of 11 acquisition, had also claimed that it needed the lands for the purpose.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the claimant in the arbitration proceeding. this was however, repelled successfully. the tribunal held that kiri had also not disclosed the true facts, because in respect to the same land, it had executed a registered assignment deed in favour of one best build creations pvt. ltd and had further also entered into an agreement to sell with one leelajay projects pvt. ltd. these facts were not in the knowledge of the claimants when they filed the claim petition. they came to know of these facts, from the website of this court. according to kiri, these were disclosed in the reply to the counter claim and the orders obtained from the website of this court were filed on record. in the order sheets relating to omp no.766/2013, what emerges is that kiri had agreed to sell the same piece of land to leelajay projects pvt. ltd. for ` 17,75,00,000/- out of which ` 5 crore has been taken as advance. leelajay had complained fao(os)(comm) 87/2016 page 3 of 10 that without disclosing to it, the said land was transferred by the way of an assignment deed dated to "best build creations pvt. ltd.". 6. the arbitrator held that the seller could not take the plea of forfeiture, as the said plea.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....application stands disposed of. crl.m.c. 2448/2017 1. notice.2. mr. ripu daman bhardwaj accepts notice.3. the present petition has been filed under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 13.06.2017 of sh. rakesh kumar sharma, addl. district & sessions judge, tis hazari courts, whereby the application seeking permission to travel to kabul (home town of the... petitioner) for six weeks and the release of passport was declined. crl.m.c. 2448/2017 page 1 of 3 4. it is the case of the petitioner that he is a foreign national of afghanistan having a passport of islamic republic of afghanistan. the petitioner arrived at t-3, igi airport, new delhi on 20.02.2017 from kabul wherein he was arrested by the custom department for possession of article appearing to be an organ pipe coral without declaring the same. the petitioner had applied for bail before the learned chief metropolitan magistrate, patiala house court, new delhi which was granted vide order dated 25.02.2017. thereafter, the petitioner filed an application seeking permission to go abroad which was rejected vide order dated 25.05.2017. on receipt of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....was registered before the sub-registrar even the wife of the appellant/plaintiff was present. rsa no.165/2017 page 5 of 8 (iii) in view of the fact that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove that there was only a loan transaction and sale documents including a registered general power of attorney were executed in favour of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1, hence, it was the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and thereafter the subsequent purchasers; with the present purchaser being the respondent no.3/defendant no.3; who were the owners of the suit property.6. to the above conclusions of the courts below i would like to add the fact that as regards the suit property third party rights have come into existence on the basis of the registered general power of attorney dated 25.9.2006 executed by the appellant/plaintiff in favour of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and once third party rights come into existence, and that too by virtue of the registered sale deeds, such third party rights have to be protected in view of section 41 of the transfer of property act, 1882, and which provision reads as under:-"“41. transfer by ostensible owner.— where, with the consent,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....passed by the learned metropolitan magistrate-03, ni act, tis hazari courts, delhi in cc. nos., i.e. 535341/16, 5353and 535342/16.2. the brief facts as alleged in the complaints filed under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 by the respondent/complainant-bank are that the petitioner had availed the crl.rev.p. 262/2017, crl.rev.p. 263/2017 and crl.rev.p. 264/2017 page 2 of 24 occ/od limit of rs. 50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lakhs only) from the respondent/complainant-bank since the year 2005. it is further alleged that the petitioner failed to adhere to the financial disciple and the loan were classified as npa. thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent/complainant-bank for settlement vide letters dated 09.03.2007 and 28.05.2007 and had issued certain cheques for repayment of the outstanding dues. the said cheques on presentation got dishonoured with remarks "insufficient funds" and the details of the said cheques are reproduced as under:-"sr. cheque amount date of return remarks legal no.no.issuance date notice issued by the petitioner sanjay kumar basoya. in cc. no.535341/2016 1. 092831 rs. 29.05.2007 12.06.2007 insufficient 20.06.2007 2,50,000/-.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....kapoor vs. mini malhotra & others and the order dated 27.04.2015 passed by the learned metropolitan magistrate/mahila court/east delhi.2. the brief facts stated are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 was solemnized on 28.04.2007 according to hindu rites and customs at new delhi. thereafter, the marital discord between the petitioner and the respondent no.1, led the respondent no.1 to seek recourse of law by invoking provisions of section 12 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005. the respondent no.1 also filed an application under section 23 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 seeking interim maintenance.3. the learned metropolitan magistrate vide order dated 27.04.2015 disposed of the application filed by the respondent no.1 under section 23 of the protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of rs. 1,60,000/- per month to the respondent/complainant from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of the order, i.e. 27.04.2015, and from the date of the order to next two years.4. aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 27.04.2015 the petitioner filed.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT