.....thereto be not released to the appellants.” that interim order has continued since then. rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 2 of 15 4. the facts in rfa no.416/1986 were that the appellants claimed to be the owners of land bearing khasra no.4(3 bighas and 12 biswas) or 3926 square yards located in the revenue estate of village jasola, delhi. this land was notified on 15th june, 1979 under section 4, 6 and 17 of the land acquisition act, 1894 („la act‟). an award was passed on 29th january 1981 by which the land acquisition collector („lac‟) fixed compensation @ rs. 3500 per bigha.5. as far as rfa no.453/1986 is concerned, the appellants claimed to be the owners of land measuring 10 bighas in khasra no.794/456, 457, 540 tosituated in the same village jasola in respect of which notification dated 15th june, 1979 was issued under sections 4, 6 and 17 of the la act. in respect of these lands too, an award was passed by the lac on 29th january 1981 fixing the same compensation @ rs. 3500 per bigha.6. both sets of appellants were dissatisfied with the award and sought a reference to the learned additional district judge, delhi („adj‟), under section 18 of the la.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....“the claimant has asked for interest at the rate of 24% per annum with effect from february, 2000. i feel that keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case including, the enquiry reports which, i feel do need attention as far as the claim of interest is concerned, i hold that as far as the amount of rs.1522772/- is concerned the claimant is entitled to interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from february, 2000 till payment. as far as the remaining awarded amount, the respondent is directed to pay the same within two months of the date of award. if the said payment is not made within time, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award till payment. the claimant shall also be entitled to costs assessed at rs.2 lacs.” o.m.p. (comm) 227/2017 page 4 of 9 13. it is apparent from the above that the arbitral tribunal felt that there was a justifiable reason why the disputed amounts were withheld by the respondent. plainly, there were reports supporting the allegations that the petitioner had inflated the bills and this was not a clear case where the arbitral tribunal could conclude that the amount.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....agency has already filed two reports under section 173 cr. pc in the court of the magistrate against the eight persons who have been arrested. thus, the proceedings against them wp(crl). 3325/2016 page 2 of 3 on the basis of charge-sheets submitted are already underway. the police is undertaking further investigation primarily in light of the allegations made by the petitioner.7. in this fact situation, it would be proper that the task of monitoring the further investigation and giving appropriate guidance thereto is entrusted to the court of the metropolitan magistrate in terms of sakiri vasu vs. state of u.p. and ors., (2008) 2 scc409 ordered accordingly. the petitioner is at liberty to assist the investigating agency, either directly or through the court of the metropolitan magistrate, in the matter.8. with these observations, the petition and the pending application are disposed of. r.k.gauba, j may12 2017 yg wp(crl). 3325/2016 page 3 of 3
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....no.262 of 2016.4. the revisionists before this court have been framed by way of a common order dated 31.05.2014; and since common questions of fact & law arise in the present batch of revision petitions, the same is being disposed of by way of a common judgment. the charges against all the circumstance that, in view of factual matrix: crl.rev.p. 262/2016, crl.rev.p. 263/2016, crl.rev.p. 264/2016 & crl.rev.p. 265/2016 page 3 of 106 exposition of the background facts with essential details is imperative, 5. in order to appreciate the controversy in the present case in the proper perspective.6. the backdrop of the present case, as per the impugned order, is that it is an offshoot of the trial proceedings conducted in relation to a devastating fire that occurred in uphaar theatres, new delhi; what is commonly referred to as, in the realm of the media, the 'uphaar cinema fire tragedy'.7. petitions are adumbrated as follows: a) the facts as are necessary for the adjudication of the present batch of was conducted the uphaar cinema fire tragedy that occurred on 13.06.1997, led to the filing of case rc3(s)/97/sic.iv/cbi/nd under sections 304, 304- a and 337 of the ipc and section 14.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....not have filed on record the receipt of payment as receipt of payment was not being issued to by the defendant as deposed by the plaintiff. the fact of non-issuance of receipt is further corroborated by the evidence of defendant no.5 sh. yogender singh, who has deposed that in the naraina village people deposited the amount in the committee without any receipt. therefore the defendant‟s own witness has corroborated the testimony of plaintiff that receipts for payment was being issued in the area of village naraina. the present case also pertains to village naraina, therefore, testimony of the plaintiff that receipts were not being issued is believable. the fact that the plaintiff had deposited rs.1,000/- per month under 16. the scheme of m/s adarsh lucky scheme dated 11.03.2006 till 15.04.2008 is proved by the fact that defendant had not produced on record the bank statement of defendant no.2 manju chanchal. it was specifically averred in the para-1 of the plaint by the plaintiff that amount was contributed in the account of defendant no.2 manju chanchal. in the cross-examination of dw-1, suresh chanchal, he admitted that his wife manju chanchal was having a saving account.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....with in exercise of power of judicial review. this court is conscious that while examining the quantum of punishment, misplaced sympathy cannot be a factor to exercise judicial review. in exercise of jurisdiction under section 11b of the industrial disputes act, 1947, quantum of compensation can be always looked into, in exercise of judicial review if the penalty is found to be harsh and undeserving. in light of the fact that respondent has unblemished service record and had already superannuated way back in the year 2015 after rendering 21 years of service, i find that penalty of dismissal from service has been rightly substituted with that of compulsory retirement by the tribunal, particularly, in view of the fact that respondent had submitted before the authorities concerned that his financial condition is bad and that he does not have money for his day-to-day expenses. in the affidavit filed by respondent before the tribunal, respondent had categorically asserted that after his dismissal from service in august, 2013, he could not get employment. in view thereof, reliance placed by petitioner’s counsel upon decision in orissa air products pvt. ltd (supra) is of no avail as.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....31 of the drug (price control) order 2013 was filed beyond the stipulated 30 days period. the appellants rejected the review for this reason by the order passed on 19th september, 2016.4. the respondent’s rejection thereto was also not favourably considered resulting in filing of the wp(c)no.11802/2016. this writ petition was accepted by the ld. single judge by an order passed on 19th december, 2016 holding that the respondent herein had rendered sufficient explanation for not being able to file the review petition within the stipulated time period of 30 days.5. the present appeal has been filed by the appellants assailing the order dated 19th december, 2016 passed in wp(c)no.11802/2016 whereby the ld. single judge had directed hearing of the review petition of the respondent on merits by the appropriate authority of the appellant.6. today, the respondent is represented before us by mr. akhil sibal, learned senior counsel. we are informed by both mr. sibal, senior counsel and mr. kirtiman singh, ld. standing counsel for the appellants that since the passing of the order dated 19th december, 2016, the respondent has once again invoked the jurisdiction of the ld. single judge.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....name sumitra grover and suchita bhambri being used interchangeably and we have on our own, after reading the annexures to the petition, narrated the facts with the clarity aforesaid.4. the counsel for the petitioner contended – (i) that when the appeal was still pending, interim protection should have been granted; (ii) that sumitra grover, mother of the petitioner, having on 21st november, 1987 agreed to sell the property to suchita bhambri and having in part performance of the agreement to sell delivered possession of the property to suchita bhambri, was not left with any rights therein to be able to create equitable mortgage of the property in favour of the bank; (iii) not only so, the mother of the petitioner sumitra grover, in the suit for partition filed by her had given a statement on 30th may, 1997 that she will not alienate, encumber or part with possession of the property or create third party rights with respect thereto and the mortgage is in violation of the said order in the suit and bad for this reason; (iv) that though after the amendment w.e.f. 24th september, 2001 to the indian stamp act, 1899 as applicable to delhi and the registration act, 1908, possession in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....thereto be not released to the appellants.” that interim order has continued since then. rfa no.453/1986 & rfa no.416/1986 page 2 of 15 4. the facts in rfa no.416/1986 were that the appellants claimed to be the owners of land bearing khasra no.4(3 bighas and 12 biswas) or 3926 square yards located in the revenue estate of village jasola, delhi. this land was notified on 15th june, 1979 under section 4, 6 and 17 of the land acquisition act, 1894 („la act‟). an award was passed on 29th january 1981 by which the land acquisition collector („lac‟) fixed compensation @ rs. 3500 per bigha.5. as far as rfa no.453/1986 is concerned, the appellants claimed to be the owners of land measuring 10 bighas in khasra no.794/456, 457, 540 tosituated in the same village jasola in respect of which notification dated 15th june, 1979 was issued under sections 4, 6 and 17 of the la act. in respect of these lands too, an award was passed by the lac on 29th january 1981 fixing the same compensation @ rs. 3500 per bigha.6. both sets of appellants were dissatisfied with the award and sought a reference to the learned additional district judge, delhi („adj‟), under section 18 of the la.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and upon going through the record of this case and the decisions cited, i find that since the factual position is not crystallized, therefore, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition while giving an opportunity to members of petitioner-union to make a comprehensive and effective representation disclosing the names and particulars of its members who claim regularization. if any such representations are made to first respondent within four weeks, then it be duly considered by respondent in the light of order of this court dated 21st august, 1998 in w.p.(c)4113/1994 and if there are any vacancies against which any of the member of petitioner-union can be absorbed after taking into consideration the vacancy position after january, 2016 till date. let a speaking order be passed by respondent no.1 on representation of petitioner’s members w.p.(c) 5202/2010 page 4 within twelve weeks from the date when such a representation is received and the fate of representation be made known to petitioner-union within three weeks thereafter.7. with aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of while leaving the parties to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT