.....court in rohit chauhan’s case referred to supra. though, the question, when exactly the children were born to b.m.raghotama rao is not raised, the fact remains that birth of children to b.m.raghotama rao before the properties were disposed of is not in dispute, at least as of now, therefore, it has to be said that prima facie item no.1 of plaint ‘a’ schedule was the joint family property in which children of b.m.raghotama rao had got share. hence, defendants cannot be permitted to alienate or deal with the said property treating them as absolute property of the defendants.13. 11 insofar as item nos.2 & 3 of plaint ‘a’ schedule, item no.2 is the property which is purchased by b.m.raghotama rao, item no.3 is the property in respect whereof occupancy rights have been conferred in favour of b.m.raghotama rao by the land tribunal. as there was nucleus in the family in the form of item no.1 of plaint ‘a’ schedule and in the light of the assertions made by plaintiffs, item no.2 was purchased out of income derived from item no.1, the matter deserves to be tried. when a serious question is raised in this regard, the trial has to take place to resolve the issue and until then.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to set aside the same and quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by the respondent-state, urging various legal grounds. the brief facts of the case are stated hereunder to appreciate the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties: the appellant nos. 1 and 2 are the mother-in-law and the sister-in- law of the deceased respectively. it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was residing with her husband and in-laws in a joint family at kodinar with a minor daughter. however, within 2 years of marriage, the deceased was allegedly tortured by her husband and her in-laws for not bringing dowry and not working properly. the deceased was also allegedly driven out of her matrimonial home and was forced to stay at kanta stri vikas gruh at rajkot. the deceased informed the complainant, who is her paternal uncle about the harassment and that her husband and in-laws were demanding an amount of rs.20,000/- from her. the maternal uncle of the deceased persuaded her to compromise with her in-laws and sent her back to her matrimonial home. thereafter, the deceased was kept well for a month but she was later allegedly beaten up and driven out of her.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....another subsequent constitution bench judgment of this court in the case of gurpreet singh v. union of india[2]. is hereby challenged.3. the brief facts of the case are stated hereunder:- various portions of rubber estate of the appellant situated in village kuttamangalam was acquired by the state government in exercise of its eminent domain power pursuant to the notification dated 10.10.1978 issued under section 4(1) of the act for the purpose of periyar valley irrigation project. in 1980 and 1981 awards were passed by the land acquisition officer awarding compensation, on the market value of land which were partly based on capitalization method of the yielding rubber trees for the planted area and partly based on the value of bare land on which there were no yielding rubber plantation. awards included solatium and interest on compensation including solatium. being dissatisfied with the compensation, the appellant filed land acquisition reference (lar) nos. 425, 427, 428, 429, 432, 434, 435, 456, 458 and 463 of 1988 before the court of iii additional sub-judge, ernakulam (the reference court) under section 18 of the act. the reference court after perusal of the record, by its.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and rajbhasa. no mileage can be drawn from the said communication either. in the judgment rendered by this court in the case of kokila devi (supra), facts were quite conspicuous as the entire recruitment exercise undertaken by the respondent state in the matters of appointment of assistant teachers, was quashed by the learned division bench of this court finding various irregularities and fresh recruitment exercise was directed to be completed within a stipulated period.7. in such circumstances, when there was a considerable delay in initiation of fresh exercise and many of those applicants who were eligible for exercise undertaken in 2011 which was quashed, were rendered ineligible on grounds of age limit on account of' delay in holding the examination despite direction passed by the learned division bench of this court, certain observations and directions 4. were issued in the case of kokila devi (supra). however, it is informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said judgment is presently under stay in letters patent appeal preferred before the learned division bench of this court.8. in view of the aforesaid discussions made, therefore this court does not find.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of sections 237, 247 and 250 of the companies act.” the operative part of the order, which follows immediately thereafter, is quoted: “in the facts and circumstances respondent no.1 is restrained from making any payment to respondent no.1 till the next date of hearing.” the appellants say that apart from the order being unsupported by any reasons, it is evident on a plain reading of the provisions quoted in the petition before the clb, that the clb did not have had the authority to pass either the direction for furnishing the old reports of the company or the substantive order of injunction restraining the company from making payment to another creditor of the company. the petitioners have relied on a judgment reported at (2007) 4 chn712 which was followed in an unreported order of october 24, 2008 passed in t no.108 of 2008 (birla corporation limited versus rameshwara jute mill company limited).a division bench judgement reported at (1998) 4 comp.lj299and a supreme court judgment reported at (1994) 4 scc225have been placed for the proposition that the relevant provision must confer authority on a tribunal to pass an ad interim order for such an order to be sustained. in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2.2. a brief reference of the factual position would suffice because essentially the dispute has to be adjudicated with reference to the scope and ambit of section 125 of the code. this is a classic case of an old father claiming maintenance against one of his own old son and the factual position as projected by the present opposite party no.2, who was petitioner before the principal judge, family court, was that the present opposite party no.2 after his retirement from c.c.l. from the post of storekeeper in the year 1995 got financial benefits and from that, he constructed a house in village hosir in the district of bokaro on an investment of approximately rs.50,000/- and had given rs. 50,000/-to his eldest son mithlesh 2 prasad, who is petitioner here, for opening a medicine shop so that he can stand on his own leg. the two other sons of the present opposite party no.2 were then students. further case is that the present petitioner was earning almost 20,000/- per month and from that income, he was looking after the entire family but in september, 2011, the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT..... vrajraj ispat limited), a company incorporated under the provisions of companies act, 1956 having its factory at palgam, kandra chowka road, chandil through one of its director, shri gopal prasad, son of late shyam bihar prasad, resident of ashiana gardens, po and p.s. sonari, town jamshedpur, singbhum (east) ... ... petitioner versus 1. jharkhand urja vikas nigam limited (earlier known as jharkhand state electricity board), office at engineers bhawan, hec, dhurwa, ranch through its chairmancummanaging director, dhurwa, ranchi 2. the general managercumchief engineer, singbhum electric supply area, jharkhand urja vitran nigam limited, office at cooperative bank building, po and p.s. bistupur, jamshedpur, dist east singhbum 3. shri s k kashyap, working as ese, apt, ranchi engineers' bhawan, h e c, po and p.s.dhurwa, district ranchi .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....submits that the distributorship agreement was entered into following compliance of all formalities and submission of required documents. in fact the plaintiff by a letter dated 20th march, 2012 expressed his intention and desire to do the distribution of entire products of the brand for darjeeling district, coochbehar and entire sikkim. the plaintiff approached the defendant and submitted the required documents. the defendant by a letter dated 3rd april, 2012 confirmed that the plaintiff would act as an official distributor for aforementioned territory for the entire basket of air conditions refrigerator and thereafter the said distributorship agreement was executed. in the affidavit in opposition it is submitted that the distributorship application form annexed to the petition has no relevance and/or connection with the agreement and that the plaintiff was not appointed pursuant to the aforesaid distributorship application form. the said distributor application form relates to set of products different from the products to which the said agreement relates and also for a territory different from what was part of the confirming letter of appointment dated 3rd april, 2012......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....police station that apprehension of breach of peace is still existing between the parties over the land in question, the court below considering the evidences available on record and the fact that title and possession of the first party had earlier been adjudicated and settled by a competent court of civil jurisdiction, affirmed till the hon’ble supreme court, rightly restrained the petitioners from going over the land in question. the direction to maintain peace for one year on execution of bond of rs.5,000/- each is also in consonance with the provision of sub- section (6) of section 116 of the code. i do not find any illegality or impropriety in the order impugned. learned counsel for petitioners has not pointed out any plausible ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the two courts below.11. in view of the above discussion, i do not find any merit in this revision application. it is, accordingly, dismissed. however, the court of sub-divisional magistrate, ramgarh shall be at liberty to initiate a fresh proceeding as and when required. (r.n. verma, j.) jharkhand high court, ranchi dated, 14th september, 2015 ritesh/n.a.f.r.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and still, there is opposition from the people in the locality in reclaiming the portions of the other paddy land.4. having regard to the aforesaid factual situation, we are of the view that this writ petition concerns only the construction of w.p.(c) no.15496 of 2015 -:3. :- the pond, which is only in an extent of two cents out of the entire 'padashekaram'. if there is any obstruction in regard to the construction of the pond, of course, the police will have to ensure maintenance of law and order and also ensure that no obstruction is being caused by any person. however, this judgment shall not be read as a permission to the petitioner or any other person/owner of the property in filling up of the paddy field/'padashekaram'. as far as respondents 4 to 9 are concerned, if they have any objection regarding the filling up of 'padashekaram', their remedy is to approach the competent authorities and obtain appropriate orders. reserving the said right of respondents 4 to 9, we dispose of the writ petition directing the police to ensure that no obstruction is caused in the matter relating to construction of pond in an extent of two cents of land allotted in favour of the petitioner.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT