.....been heard and reserved for order, this day, the court pronounced the following: order all these petitions broadly having common questions of law & facts inter alia seek to lay a challenge the coercive recovery measures of housing loans by the respondent – lending agency i.e., punjab national bank housing finance limited (hereafter ‘pnbhfl’). they have also sought for a writ of mandamus directing the said bank to refund the payments already made by them 60 in terms of orders made by the adjudicating officer of rera and to issue a ‘no due certificate / no objection certificate’, by rectifying their individual cibil scores and removing the entries in the loan records which show outstanding amounts of money against their names.2. after service of notice, the respondents are represented by their respective advocates. the answering respondents have filed their statements of objections opposing the writ petitions. their advocates make submissions resisting the petition prayers, mainly contending that dispute is contractual in nature and therefore, petitioners should be relegated to other civil remedy forum, writ court not being appropriate for adjudication of lis of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....or service shall be null and void, unless such transaction, not being a gift, is affected with prior sanction of the government. a perusal of the facts would show that prior approval was only in respect of 137 acres 19 guntas of land on the basis of which registered lease deed was executed on 20.04.1978. however, lease deed dated 23.07.1964 in respect of 143 acres, lease deed dated 14.09.1966 in respect of 257 acres 19 guntas and supplementary lease deed dated 21.3.1969 in respect of 2 acres 32 guntas were not preceded with any prior sanction. 8 though there is a note of the second secretary of the government that lease for 99 years would not amount to transfer of property, but such note is on the file of the government and had not been communicated to any of the interested parties.11. it is submitted that the lessee faced no issues till november 2006 when the previous mahant baba sagardas was unceremoniously removed. it was on 24.08.2007, a notice on behalf of sri arun das ji, mahant of the mutt, for delivery of vacant possession, was served treating lessee as an encroacher. it was later on 24.12.2007, the mutt wrote to the assistant commissioner (endowments) for eviction of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and (ii) the accused did not act in a cruel or brutal 7 manner taking advantage of the situation. hence the nature of injuries is an important factor in determining whether the death was caused due to a sudden fight.15. learned counsel referred to the judgment in manokaran v. state of t.n.2, wherein this court refused to entertain the case within exception 4 of section 300 of the ipc due to the nature of injuries, which showed cruelty and brutality meted out to injure a person on the root of the neck.16. in applying the said principles to the facts of the present case, it is submitted that there were eleven injuries on the vital areas such as skull, chest and abdomen leading to breaking of sternum as well as second, third and fourth rib to demonstrate that the appellant acted with brutality. hence, the present case cannot fall under the fourth exception to section 300 of ipc.17. learned counsel for the respondent also made a reference to section 86 of the ipc, which reads as under: “86. offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.—in cases where an act 2 (2010) 15 scc5628 done is not an offence unless done with a particular.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....substantial question of law, even if we construe what was framed, to be a substantial question of law. the above finding is actually a finding of fact. apart from that, the high court also went beyond the substantial question of law framed by it and proceeded to hold that the suit was not barred by limitation. the high court opined that the time for performance of the obligations under the agreement was fixed as 11 months from the date on which the defendant entered into an agreement with his brother’s wife for the purchase of a land to be used as pathway. however, the defendant did not enter into any agreement with his brother’s wife. on the other hand, the defendant chose to deny the very execution of agreement of sale in his reply notice dated 04.04.2007. therefore, the high court held that limitation started running from the date of refusal and that the suit filed in november, 2007 was within the period of limitation.11. the mistakes committed by the high court were manifold. first, the high court framed a question which was actually a 5 question of fact which involved appreciation of evidence and not a substantial question of law. as a consequence, the answer given by.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....being r.a. no.19c of 2008 in r.s.a. no.1206 of 2005 and r.a. no.18c of 2008 in r.s.a. no.1207 of 2005, filed by the appellantplaintiff.2. facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals are as under: the appellantplaintiff through its partner raj kumar, entered into an agreement to sell dated 29th october 1983 with the respondentsdefendants no.1 to 4 with regard to the suit property, which was situated in the revenue estate of chak salarpur, tehsil dadri, district ghaziabad (u.p.), at the rate of rs. 2900/ per bigha. though the suit property initially was in the state of u.p., vide notification of the 2 central government dated 15th september 1983, it became a part of the state of haryana. at the time of agreement to sell dated 29th october 1983, earnest amount of rs.50,000/ was paid by the appellantplaintiff to the respondentsdefendants.3. due to a dispute between the state of u.p. and haryana, the aforesaid sale deed could not be executed in favour of the appellantplaintiff. therefore, another agreement to sell was executed between the parties on 23rd august 1985. at the time of execution of the said agreement, an additional amount of rs.1,00,000/.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in part, followed its earlier order in declining the relief to the appellant.8. the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the fact that he was promoted to the rank of west bengal higher judicial service in the year 2003 by the proceeding dated 24.12.2003, has been overruled. it is only 6 an administrative act in posting him to function as a fast track court judge as there was no bar to posting to any other post in the cadre of a district judge. the mistake was that of the high court which was sought to be rectified by the impugned draft list which was published by the registrar (judicial service), high court, appellate side, calcutta, dated 29.11.2016 against the vacancies which were available from the year 2004 to 2008. no promotion whatsoever took place during that period. it is not as if all the promotees would get seniority on a particular date but the date on which a vacancy is made available against each of them is sought to be reckoned as the date of appointment. if that is so, the date of appointment of the appellant as a district judge (entry level) would be 01.03.2008. the direct recruits or the jump promotees were admittedly recruited and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....3 - wp no.101248 of 2022 2. respondent no.1 is constituted under the karnataka state commission for the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes act, 2002 section 8 of the enactment deals with functions of the commission and section 10 deals with powers of the commission. section 8 (b) of the act reads as under: “8. functions of the commission.- the functions of the commission shall be as follows,- a)***** b) to inquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguard of the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes of karnataka and to take up such matter with the appropriate authorities;” but the said clause does not empower the commission to direct the authorities concerned to withhold grants made in favour of an institution as in the instant case. the impugned order is in the nature of an interim order which has been passed without enquiring into whether the petitioner has been discriminated against because he belongs to a scheduled caste category. even otherwise if - 4 - wp no.101248 of 2022 respondent no.1 were to come to a conclusion the petitioner has been discriminated against because he belongs to the scheduled caste category, it.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....being exonerated.2. for the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per the ranks occupied by them before the tribunal.3. the brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the injured petitioner namely munivenkatappa in mfa no.3356/2017 along with his wife lakshmamma and other coolie workers were proceeding to seeganahalli village from mulbagal on 04.06.2012 as per the instructions of 1st respondent in his tractor and 5 trailer bearing registration no.ka-07-t-9602 and ka- 07-ta-970 along with a load of fertilizer bags. that the petitioner along with his wife was sitting in the trailer and at about 8.00 a.m the driver of the tractor and trailer drove it in a rash and negligent manner on nh-4 road, near seegenahalli tank and attempted to overtake a ongoing vehicle. as a result he lost control over the said vehicle. as such the tractor and trailer went in to road side ditch and fell down and due to the said impact, he and his wife fell down and both of them sustained grievous injuries. both of them were taken to r.l.jalappa hospital, kolar and wherein it is found that the claimant-petitioner munivenkatappa suffered open type iii supra condular fracture of left.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....tumkur in application no.10(4)(a) no.1/2017 produced at annexure-m. b. issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit, under the facts and circumstances of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity.2. the respondent-workman was appointed as a driver with effect from 04.07.2020. on 26.07.2015, while discharging his duty in a bus bearing registration no.ka-06-f-952 plying in route no.23/24 i.e., bengaluru to hosadurga at 11.45 hours near nelamangala on joss toll of national highway-4 after crossing white line of divider due to rash, high speed and negligent driving of the respondent-workman, the driver dashed against a two-wheeler which came from the opposite direction due to which the two- - 3 - wp no.24370 of 2019 wheeler rider expired at the spot and pillion-rider expired on the way to the hospital.3. it is alleged that this accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver-workman. the divisional controller submitted an accident report stating specifically that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the workman-driver. on the basis of the said report of the divisional controller, the disciplinary.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the quantum of damages from `3,66,156/- to `2,92,900/- i.e., by reducing the amount of damages by about 20% of the sum levied as damages. the facts are not in dispute. the writ petition is directed against the order modifying and reducing the quantum of damages levied by the statutory authority. 33. in support of her contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the ruling rendered by the hon'ble apex court in civil appeal no.2136/2012 dated 23.02.2022 wherein, the hon'ble apex court while examining the issue as to whether mens rea or actus reus is a sine qua non for fastening the liability on the employer under section 14b of the employees provident fund & miscellaneous provisions act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'act, 1952' for short) and after examining a series of it's own rulings has been pleased to hold in para 17 as under:-"17. taking note of three-judge bench judgment of this court in union of india and others v. dharmendra textile processors and others (supra), which is indeed binding on us, we are of the considered view that any default or delay in the payment of epf contribution by the employer under the act is a sine qua non for.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT