.....in the matter of allotment or not.6. reply has been filed by the khb and the khb has made a submission that the pil is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner cannot seek cancellation of a registered document in exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india and the petitioner has to take shelter of the provisions of the specific relief act. the reply of the khb is silent in respect of the procedural rules relating to allotment i.e., khb (allotment) rules, 1983 and it has been stated that respondent no.3 has approached khb for allotment of civic amenity site with a noble cause. therefore, the site was allotted. it has also been stated that there was some litigation in respect of some other sites and therefore the matter was delayed and they have executed a fresh sale deed in favour of respondent no.3 subsequently in the year 2020, meaning thereby all attempts have been made by the khb to justify their illegal allotment. respondent no.3, in the present case has also not brought on record the procedure adopted by the khb. 77. it is true that some reference has been made to writ petition i.e.,38128/2009.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the assignment of new land use to the petitioner on account of failure to perform its legal duty under section 69(3) and (4) of the act.4. the facts culled out from the pleadings are as follows:- the petitioner purchased an agricultural land measuring 1 acres 20 guntas in sy.no.39/1 of chikkahalli village, varuna hobli, mysore taluk (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petition schedule property’) by a registered sale deed dated 21-08-1992 from the hands of one sri jawarappa and smt. mahadevamma. it is the claim of the petitioner that all the revenue records are in his name and are appended to the petition as well. 55. the 2nd respondent/mysore urban development authority (‘muda’) the planning authority of mysore district, in terms of powers obtaining under section 4-c of the act, prepares master plan under section 9 thereof. the revision of master plan, as prepared by the planning authority, is undertaken every 10 years in terms of section 13-d of the act. accordingly, the master plan for mysore-nanjangud planning area 1961 (revision-ii) was proposed and approved by the 1st respondent/ government under section 13 of the act. the approval comes about on 12-01-2016.6......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in the matter of allotment or not.6. reply has been filed by the khb and the khb has made a submission that the pil is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner cannot seek cancellation of a registered document in exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india and the petitioner has to take shelter of the provisions of the specific relief act. the reply of the khb is silent in respect of the procedural rules relating to allotment i.e., khb (allotment) rules, 1983 and it has been stated that respondent no.3 has approached khb for allotment of civic amenity site with a noble cause. therefore, the site was allotted. it has also been stated that there was some litigation in respect of some other sites and therefore the matter was delayed and they have executed a fresh sale deed in favour of respondent no.3 subsequently in the year 2020, meaning thereby all attempts have been made by the khb to justify their illegal allotment. respondent no.3, in the present case has also not brought on record the procedure adopted by the khb. 77. it is true that some reference has been made to writ petition i.e.,38128/2009.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....fir no.88/2017 registered on 6-04-2017 for offences punishable under sections 465, 468, 469, 471, 420 120-b read with section 34 of the ipc.2. brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:3. the petitioner is chief executive officer of m/s edurays india which is a company dealing with e-governance, skill development, finance, education consultancy, manpower consultancy, higher education and institutions and claims to have expertise in aadhaar enrolment. the petitioner enters into a service provider agreement on 1st april 2015 with utility forms private limited, mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘utility’ for short) for providing services mentioned in the contract. on 30th march 2016, the contract between the petitioner and the utility was extended for a further period of two years.3. it is the claim of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent - deputy director, unique identification authority of india (hereinafter referred to as the ‘uidai’ for short) in the ministry of electronics and information technology had addressed a permission letter for on boarding utility as enrolment agency for uidai, particularly for the purpose of carrying out.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of re-t as a general line teacher. absorption of re-t is made on the basis of recommendation made by the village level committee regarding the satisfactory performance of the teacher.5. upper age limit notified in the advertisement for appointment as re-t is 35 years as on 01.01.2002 which is the cut-off date for determining eligibility of a candidate who has applied in response to the advertisement dated 29.11.2002. admittedly, the date of birth of second respondent is 28.12.1965 and, therefore, she was more than 35 years on 01.01.2002. the learned single judge relied upon sro30of 2003 by which the upper age limit was relaxed from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2004. thereafter, rule 17 of the jammu and kashmir civil services (classification, control and appeal), rules 1956 was amended and upper age limit was relaxed from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2004. as the second respondent was less than 37 years as on 5 01.01.2002, the learned single judge held that she was eligible to be considered for appointment as re-t. the division bench of the high court held that respondent no.2 was not entitled to seek benefit of sro30of 2003 as she completed 37 years of age as on 01.01.2003. we are in agreement.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the high court of judicature at allahabad upholding the reinstatement with full back wages awarded by the tribunal dated 14th september, 2006.3. the facts in brief which are relevant for the purpose are that the respondentworkman was an employee of the appellantbank 1 and for the alleged delinquency which he had committed on 12th january, 1988 in discharge of his duties, a chargesheet dated 27th january, 1988 was served upon the respondentworkman with the allegation of drunkenness within the premises of the appellantbank and for manhandling and assaulting the senior officers and also hurling abuses at the management. the relevant portion of the chargesheet dated 27th january, 1988 reads as under: “you are aware that the hearing in the court case no.5887/83 was fixed for 13.1.88 in which you are also a party. on 12.1.88 during office hours mr. bachchoo lal mishra and mr. p.k. seth, officer of the bank tomorrow there is a court case so do not mark me late as i will go the court direct from my house. mr. seth told you and mr. mishra that you should first come to the bank, sign the attendance register and only thereafter you should go to court. in the evening again at.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of 2021 in c.a. nos.10674-10675/2013 i.a. nos.64951 and 64954 of 2021 in c.a. no.1202/2011 i.a. nos.64961 and 64963 of 2021 in c.a. no.1203/2011 order i.a. no.64951 of 2021 in c.a. no.1202 of 2011 and i.a. no.64961 of 2021 in c.a. no.1203 of 2011 seeking change in the name of the applicant/appellant and appropriate amendment to the cause title are allowed. i.a. no.64307 of 2021 in civil appeal nos.1045-1052 of 2011; i.a. no.64291 of 2021 in civil appeal no.10676/2013; i.a. no.64512 of 2021 in civil appeal nos.10674-10675/2013; i.a. no.64954 of 2021 in civil appeal no.1202 of 2011; and i.a. no.64963 of 2021 in civil appeal no.1203 of 2011 have been preferred by the applicants/appellants seeking liberty 2 to withdraw the instant appeals for the reasons indicated in the applications. the applications are not opposed by the learned counsel for the revenue. consequently, the applications seeking withdrawal are allowed. the civil appeals stand disposed of as having been withdrawn for the reasons mentioned in the respective applications, with no order as to costs. ........................j.(uday umesh lalit) ........................j.(s. ravindra bhat).....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the same was not complete as against respondent no.2 (the applicant before the high court) in slp (crl.) no.5618 of 2021. but considering the fact that his application stood ultimately rejected and in this judgment we are considering the legality of the order containing certain directions upon the high court administration, we chose to consider the appeal on merit. 6 otherwise also, the impugned orders have outlived their duration specified by the learned single judge. substantial relaxations have also been made by the authorities on restrictions in the covid-19 protocol. but we decided to address legality of the orders under appeal for two reasons. first, the impugned orders did not concern themselves with the applicants for bail, but general directions were issued on the registry of the high court and the police authorities. secondly, the respective orders in substance impacted operation of legislative provisions giving right to an accused to apply for bail, suspension of sentence and other aggrieved parties to institute appeals under the schedule castes and schedule tribes (prevention of atrocities) act, 1989. the “in rem” character of these orders raise question of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and consequential pensionary benefits keeping in view the judgment of this court in union of india and others vs. vipinchandra hiralal shah 1.3. the facts in brief which are relevant for the present purpose are that the 1st respondent was the member of state forest service of up cadre and after clubbing of the earlier year vacancies of 198496, promotions were made to the ifs cadre with effect from 6th september, 1996 by an order dated 16th september, 1996 that came to be challenged by filing of an original application before the central administrative tribunal(hereinafter being referred to as the “tribunal”) on the premise that clubbing of vacancies is not permissible and it is in violation of regulation 5 of the ifs(appointment by promotion) regulations, 1966(hereinafter being referred to as “regulations 1966”) based on the judgment of this court in union of india and others(supra). the tribunal allowed 1 1996(6) scc7212 the application and quashed the order of promotion dated 10th september, 1997 as follows: “30. in view of the foregoing discussions, we have no manner of doubt that it was incumbent upon the respondents to prepare separate year wise vacancies.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....2000. it was only after the auction was so undertaken, that he preferred the application under order ix rule 13 of the code. the high court, therefore, rightly observed in its order dated 21.04.2006 that respondent no.1 was not vigilant. yet, the high court proceeded to grant relief in favour of respondent no.1.21. in the light of the features indicated above and the fact that the auction was allowed to be undertaken, respondent no.1 was disentitled from claiming any relief as was prayed for. further, after completion of proceedings in auction, sale certificate was also issued in favour of the appellant.22. we, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the orders dated 21.04.2006 and 18.10.2019 passed by the high court and dismiss the application preferred by respondent no.1 under order ix rule 13 of the code. no costs. ……………………………..j.[uday umesh lalit]. ……………………………..j.[s. ravindra bhat]. new delhi; september 29, 2021.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT