Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3154
.....on 11.7.2003 a division bench of this court held following several supreme court decisions that the question of urgency is for the subjective satisfaction of the government and this court cannot go into the matter. in that decision the matter has been discussed in great detail. hence, we reject the challenge to the notification under sections 4 and 6 of the land acquisition act.6. the learned' counsel for the petitioner has then submitted that in view of section 11a of the act the acquisition scheme has lapsed because the possession has not been taken over from the petitioner. in this connection it has been stated in paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4, saharanpur development authority that the possession of the land was taken over on 7.8.2001. in paragraph 4 it is also stated that the publication of the notification under section 6 was done on 14.5.2001 and in two newspapers on 17.5.2001. notices were issued on 24.5.2001 inviting objection under section 9. the respondent no. 4 has already deposited a sum of rs. 1,88,68,763.00 and has completed all the necessary requirements under the acquisition act.7. it is alleged in paragraph 6 of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2004(4)AWC3572
.....section 2 (2) of the act reads as under :'except as provided in sub- section (5) of section 12, sub- section (1a) of section 21, sub- section (2) of section 24, sections 24a, 24b, 24c or sub-section (3) of section 29, nothing in this act shall apply to a building during a period of ten years from the date on which its construction is completed.(a) the construction of a building shall be deemed to have been completed on the date on which the completion thereof is reported to or otherwise recorded by the local authority having jurisdiction, and in the case of building subject to assessment, the date on which the first assessment thereof comes into effect, and where the said dates are different, the earliest of the said dates, and in the absence of any such report, record or assessment, the date on which it is actually occupied (not including occupation merely for the purposes of surviving the construction or guarding the building under construction) for the first time.'8. it is clear that u. p. act no. 13 of 1972 will not apply to a building during the period of 10 years from the date on which its construction is completed. the explanation to this section makes it apparently clear.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2004(4)AWC3569
.....this principle can be spelt out from the u. p. basic education teachers service rules, 1981. he submits that special b.t.c. training course is in fact selection in recruitment of teachers on monthly stipend commencing immediately on joining the training and to continue till such point of time the actual appointment is granted, and only those candidates who possess the same teacher training qualification are entitled for consideration in pursuance of the government orders dated 14.1.2004 and 22.2.2004. according to the learned counsel for the appellants, there is no justification for departing from the norms prescribed under the 1981 rules for affording yearwise preference in selection, and in the districts which have now been included in the state of uttaranchal such year wise preference has been given in granting admission from amongst the candidates possessing some other teachers training qualifications.9. we have given thoughtful consideration to the submission. rule 8 of the u. p. basic education (teachers) service rules, 1981 does not provide for any order of preference of appointment on the basis of the year in which a candidate possesses b.t.c. qualification. the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2004(4)AWC3567
.....make such error in future.6. in the counter-affidavit of sri pravin kumar tripathi filed before this court on 27.4.2004, he has come out with new facts. it is stated in paragraph 3 to the affidavit that a total amount of rs. 65,000 was due to be paid to the petitioner towards g.p.f. on his retirement on 30.6.1992. the petitioner was paid rs. 31,616 on 1.6.1993 and thereafter rs. 14,960 and 26,551 including interest of one year on 31.1.2002 and 28.1.2003 respectively. these three payments included only one year interest on g.p.f. of rs. 8,127 whereas the petitioner was denied the payment of rs. 23, 384 for 10 years beginning from 30.6.1992 upto 28.1.2003. in para 5 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that sri tripathi took over as accounts officer at district deoria on 16.1.2001. before him sri m. s. ansar and rajendra singh were posted as accounts officer. para 7 of the counter-affidavit of sri pravin kumar tripathi is quoted as below :'that in reply of the contents of paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner has been paid the amount of g.p.f. in three instalments. however, it was the responsibility of the officer, who could not have made.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2008)11VST424(All)
.....what connection the said report was issued has to be examined by the tribunal.6. the tribunal has decided the appeal without noticing the material facts on the record and thus its findings are vitiated. the matter needs reconsideration by the tribunal.7. great emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the applicant before this court that the applicant was declared non-taxable immediately in the preceding year 1997-98 and its account books were accepted. it was also urged that its account books have been accepted in the subsequent assessment year 1999-2000 and the opening stock of the assessment year 1999-2000 has been taken as the same as was the closing stock for the assessment year 1997-98. meaning thereby it was argued that no business was done by the firm in the relevant assessment year. this is also one of the circumstances for taking a lenient view in the matter if these facts are established from the record. the department is interested to realise the revenue due to it.8. the supreme court time and again has repeatedly laid down that the approach of the court in condoning the delay should be justice oriented. the expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2004CriLJ4576; 2004(3)MPHT111; 2004(3)MPLJ40
.....and. material collected during investigation or enquiry and punishment to which the party may be liable if convicted. nature of charge is vital factor and evidence is pertinent. the court may also consider whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the court to be freed for the time being. the legal principle and practice validate the court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the complainant or otherwise polluting the process of justice. though it is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad and criminal record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. in regard to habituals, criminological history may also be considered and the criminal record of applicant is, therefore, not an exercise in irrelevance. the deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purpose but for the bi-focal interests of justice, to the individual involved and society affected. the judge is also required to consider that mechanical.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2004(3)MPHT299
.....accidents claims tribunal, bhopal by which it had allowed the application of restoration filed by respondent no. 1.2. no exhaustive statement of facts arc necessary for the disposal of this petition. suffice it to say that respondent no. 1 submitted a claim petition under section 166 of the motor vehicles act which was dismissed in default on 3-9-2001. an application for restoration was filed on 8-4-2002. in the application, it has been contended that, from an advocate, respondent no. 1 came to know on 4-4-2002 that his claim petition has been dismissed in default on 3-9-2001. according to respondent no. 1, his counsel did not inform him regarding the dismissal of his case and when he came to know about it, he contacted another advocate and filed restoration application on 8-4-2002.3. the restoration application was resisted by the petitioner and it has been categorically stated in the reply that respondent no. 1 was not serious to his case and he was negligent. it has also been contended in the reply that the averments made in the application of restoration are vague. respondent no. 1 failed to disclose the name of particular advocate, who informed him, that his case has.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2004(3)MPHT303
.....inspectors inspected restaurant of applicant and took the sample of 'besan ka laddu'. after following the due procedure as contemplated under the act and the rules made thereunder, the sample was sent to public analyst, who found the sample to be adulterated.3. according to public analyst, the sample of 'besan ka laddu' was containing 'kesridal flour', as a result of which it was opined to be adulterated.4. the prosecution thereafter served notice under section 13(2) of the act to the applicant and filed the charge-sheet.5. the trial court framed charge under section 7/16 of the act which was denied by the applicant.6. in order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined three witnesses and placed exs. p-1 to p-19 the documents on record. the learned trial judge after appreciating the evidence came to hold that the charge against the applicant is proved and, therefore, convicted him and sentenced to suffer six month's simple imprisonment and fine rs. 1000/-.7. the appeal which was preferred by the appellant was also dismissed by the appellate court. hence this revision.8. in this revision, it has been contended by shri sanjeev saxena, learned counsel for the applicant that.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2004(4)MPHT151; 2004(4)MPLJ280
.....district judge has directed to hold recounting of ballots for the election of president, dhanpuri nagar palika parishad, held on 2242-99.2. short facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent nos. 1 to 7 contested the election of president of nagar palik parishad, dhanpuri in which petitioner was declared as a returned candidate. the polling was held on 22-12-99 and counting on 27-12-1999. respondent no. 1 hansraj tanwar filed an application immediately after counting, praying for recounting on various grounds. the application was rejected by the returning officer vide order (annexure p-2), dated 27-12-1999 on the ground that during counting no such objections were raised nor it was specified on which counting table the counting was not done properly or the counting supervisor and counting assistant have favoured the petitioner or interpolation in the tabulation sheet was made. thereafter petitioner was declared as returned candidate which has been challenged by respondent no. 1 by filing petition under section 20 of madhya pradesh municipalities act, 1961 before the district judge, shahdol as election petition no. 3/2000. it was subsequently transferred to second.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2005MP125; 2005(2)MPHT233
.....allowed the application preferred under section 34 of the act filed by the respondents and set aside the award of the learned arbitrator.2. the facts which are discernible from the order of the learned trial judge, the memorandum of appeal and other documents brought on record and are necessitous to be stated are that the respondent no. 1 is a company registered under the indian companies act, 1956 and the respondent no. 2 is a subsidiary concern of respondent no. 1. the respondent no. 2 is engaged in manufacture of cement and as widespread business throughout the country. it carries on business through its agents and one category of agent is called consignment agent. the appellant was appointed as consignment agent on stock transfer basis in lucknow area on 23-1-1997 by the respondent no. 2 and an agreement was signed between both the parties and as put forth the said agreement was only for a period of 10 days, i.e., up to 31-3-1997. the claimant was called upon to furnish a bank guarantee worth rs. 30 lacs under the said agreement. no business transaction were conducted during the said period. the claimant had not furnished any bank guarantee under the said agreement and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT