.....survey no.121/9 and 119/7, kottagaimedu village in the fourth respondent panchayat and consequently direct the first respondent to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent based on the petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2014, within the time limit prescribed by this court.) 1. the petitioner has filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents not to prevent the petitioner from using the pathway situates in adjacent to the petitioner's house comprising in survey no.121/9 and 119/7, kottagaimedu village in the fourth respondent panchayat and consequently direct the first respondent to take appropriate action against the fourth respondent based on the petitioner's representation dated 28.02.2014. 2. the petitioner submits that she is the owner of the land situated in survey nos.121/9 and 119/7 in kottagaimedu village within the fourth respondent panchayat and that the revenue records pertaining to the said lands stand in her name. 3. it is the further case of the petitioner that in the adjacent land, a pathway of 10 feet is situated and that her family members and all other adjacent villagers are using the above said pathway for reaching.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....backward classes and de-notified tribes welfare, st.george fort, chennai 600 006 is pending as on date without any disposal. as a matter of fact, the said appeal is filed against the order of the commissioner of most back-ward classes and de-notified communities welfare(fac), chepauk, chennai, dated 8.5.2015. 5. in view of the limited relief sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition i.e., to dispose of his appeal, dated 13.7.2015 pending before the second respondent/the commissioner of most backward class/de-notified tribes, chepauk, chennai 600 005, this court, at this stage, without dwelling deep into the merits and contents of the appeal preferred by the petitioner, simpliciter, in the interest of justice and fair play and also based on equity, directs the first respondent to take up the appeal preferred by the petitioner, dated 13.7.2015 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. thereafter, the first respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 13.7.2015 and to pass a reasoned speaking order on merits(of course after providing necessary opportunity to the petitioner and others.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....has allowed such application. there against, the present revision has been filed. 3. heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for first respondent. 4. this court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the order under challenge is not supported by reasons. all that the court below stated is that the order has been passed 'after careful consideration'. to state that the order is passed after careful consideration does not amount to informing reasons for its decision. the civil revision petition shall stand allowed. the order of learned principal district munsif, bhavani, passed in i.a.no.1133 of 2015 in o.s.no.344 of 2013 on 25.01.2016, shall stand set aside. the court below is directed to pass orders on merits informing reasons for its decision. the court below shall pass a reasoned order without in any manner being influenced by the observations herein above made. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the order-in-original no.15014/2011, dated 07.03.2011, passed by the second respondent under section 28(1) and 28ab of the customs act, 1962. 3. the facts, which are necessary for disposal of the writ petition, are that the petitioners are directors of m/s.tapan preci tek ltd., a company incorporated under the companies act, 1956. the said company was issued a epcg licence by the joint director general of foreign trade for import of capital goods under the epcg scheme vide customs notification no.160/92. the company imported the capital goods by availing the exemption on the condition to fulfil the export obligation within the time prescribed by the licensing authority. a bond was executed by the first petitioner in the capacity of managing director of the company undertaking to fulfil the export obligation as per the exemption notification. consequent upon the failure to fulfil the export obligation, show cause notice dated 08.01.1998 was issued to which there was no response and ultimately, an order was passed by the adjudicating authority, dated 07.03.2011. the amount ordered to be paid under the said order, is now sought to be recovered as government dues by attaching and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of increment for a period of twelve months without cumulative effect, besides recovery of loss, is under challenge in this writ petition. the facts: 2. while the petitioner was working as assistant engineer, in the office of the assistant executive engineer, dindigul, a charge memo was issued to him by the third respondent. the third respondent alleged that the petitioner, in connivance with the other officials, has manipulated records and affixed false signatures as if a subsidy amount of rs.6,66,248/- was given to 46 farmers for implementation of drip irrigation system. there is a specific allegation that the petitioner misappropriated a sum of rs.66,492/-. 3. the disciplinary authority appointed enquiry officer and on the basis of the enquiry report, passed the impugned order of punishment. 4. the order is challenged on multiple grounds including delay. 5. the first and second respondents filed a counter-affidavit indicating the nature of charges and the evidence collected by the disciplinary authority, which was the basis for passing the impugned order of punishment. 6. the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no direct evidence to connect the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....pleaded by the petitioner is true her right is only to seek remedy by way of suit under section 6 of the specific relief act or by amendment of plaint in the pending suit. though the petitioner alleges that the third party had taken possession with the aid of the second respondent, the petitioner has not even impleaded the subsequent purchasers so as to give an effective decision. further the facts stated in her representations are different from the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. different version of petitioner prompts this court to infer that she has not come to court with clean hands. 7. in view of the above reasons, this court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. hence, the writ petition is dismissed, with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the civil court for appropriate relief in accordance with law. no costs. consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....case of the petitioner that the sub-registrar cannot consider the objections raised by the third respondent as the provisions of the registration act and rules thereunder, do not contemplate any enquiry into the objections raised by the creditor or any other third party who may have right to proceed against the properties. hence, the petitioner is before this court. 5. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having only an extent of 1.5 acres of land. he further submits that the proposed sale is only in respect of extent of 3.0 acres which belongs to the petitioner's brother and that the petitioner is prepared to give an undertaking that he will not sell his property, namely, to an extent of 1.5 acres which lies adjacent to the property of his brother. 6. heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 7. the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is recorded. the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has no objection for passing an order directing the second respondent to register the document after recording the undertaking given by the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....village administrative officer, vellakovil village. he has stated that on 02.10.2012 p.w.2 came to his office at 07.30 a.m. and informed about the fact that d1 to d3 were lying dead at their house. however, on his part to confirm the same, he went to the place of occurrence and after verifying the fact he made a compliant to the police. p.w.2 was a farm worker under the deceased. he has stated that on 02.10.2012, in the usual course, at 06.30 a.m., when he came to the farm of the deceased to attend his work, he found d3 lying in a pool of blood with injuries at the entrance of the house. he further found d2 lying at varanda in a pool of blood with injuries. then, he found d1 lying dead near well with injuries in a pool of blood. he informed the same to p.w.1. 12. p.w.3 is the daughter of the d1 and d2. according to her, on 02.10.2012, she was informed about the fact that d1 to d3 had been done to death by someone and the dead bodies were found with injuries. on getting such information, she immediately rushed to the place of occurrence where she found d1 to d3 dead. she found that m.os.1, 3 to 5, 8 and 10 were found missing. later on she identified the same to the police. p.w.4.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....he may, under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 190 of the code of criminal procedure, make a report to the magistrate in writing of the facts which constitute such offence. (2) if there are persistent complaints against a particular individual, which legally fall under the category of a non-cognizable offence, the following action may be taken- (a) obtain orders of the competent court to register the n.c. case and investigate and / or (b) initiate action under section 110 cr.pc if there is persistent commission of non-cognizable offence by a given individual resulting in breach of peace.” 11 concededly, there was no other complaint against the petitioner and hence, clause 2(b) supra, is not attracted.12. in the case of anand singh vs. state of karnataka,(crl.p.no.3082/2007, decided on 22.10.08), this court has held, “that under s.155 of cr.p.c., the police officer has no authority to approach the magistrate with a requisition seeking permission to investigate the case.” 13. in mukkatira anitha machaiah vs. state of karnataka and another, ( crl. p. no.5934/2009 decided on 20.08.2013), the 2nd respondent - informant, having submitted a complaint, sho registered a.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....courts below and contended that, the respondents 1 and 2 are agreed to take any of the either side of the share, even though he did not dispute the fact that division made by the court commissioner not the court. therefore, he sought to dismiss the appeal. 8 8. while admitting the present appeal, this court framed the following substantial question of law: “whether the courts below justified in allowing the final decree proceedings mainly on the basis of the division made by the court commissioner in view of the provisions of section 54(amended) of the code of civil procedure?.” 9. i have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties to the lis. it is unfortunate case, where the decree was made as long back as in the year 1981. the suit filed in the year 1975. though the decree was passed in the year 1981 and affirmed by this court in rsa7271991, till today, the decree has not been implemented. it is the mistake committed by the court for not making division of the suit properties as contemplated under the amended provisions of section 54 of the code of civil procedure. 9 10. in view of the amendment of section 54 of the code.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT