.....(a) of sub-rule (1), that means he would be deemed to continue to draw the military pension or gratuity on discharge of military service. in the facts of the present case, the petitioner has not been able to show that he had exercised his option within three months period from the date of issuance of the order of substantive appointment i.e. on 12.05.1977. sub clause 2(a) appears to be mandatory in nature in view of the expression used therein 'shall' as the consequences of non exercise of such option is also indicated in sub-rule 2(b). therefore, the exercise of option becomes a mandatory requirement for availing of the military service as qualifying service on re-employment on a civil post. as noticed hereinabove, counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any document on record that such option was ever exercised by the petitioner. the reasoned order though does not deal with the provisions of rule 87 on that point but the petitioner does not seem to have produced any documents before the respondent no. 3 either to show that he had exercised his option. if the petitioner had not exercised such option, the question relating to counting of his military service on.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....parties have been before this court on previous occasions. upon a previous petition under section 9 of the said act being disposed of to the dissatisfaction of the finance company, an appeal was carried from the relevant order. such appeal was disposed of on november 18, 2014 by the order impugned being substantially modified as follows: “we are, thus, left with the balance 15 excavators and/or tippers that are lying with the respondents. mr.banerjee would contend, he is running the excavators and is entitled to do so as, according to him, in case the accounts are properly reconciled and the 12 assets are sold that would square off the liability of the respondent. this question is to be decided at the appropriate stage. we do not venture to do so particularly, when the application for setting aside of the award is awaiting disposal. to strike a balance, we ask the receiver to take symbolic possession of all the 15 assets. the respondents are directed to render all necessary cooperation to the receiver. the receiver would, however, permit the respondents to use those equipments under his direct supervision provided, the respondents would make further payment of rs.5 lacs per.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....other prayers made in the writ petition which would be dealt with at appropriate stage. 2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that, the petitioner namely, babu lal marandi is kendriya adhyaksh of jharkhand vikas morcha (prajatantrik) which is a recognised political party by the election commission of india. in the assembly election for the 4th jharkhand vidhan sabha held in the year, 2014, 8 candidates who had contested on the party symbol of jharkhand vikas morcha (prajatantrik) were declared elected. the election commission of india vide letter dated 24.12.2014 intimated the constitution of new legislative assembly for the state of jharkhand. the name of 8 mlas namely, (i) randhir kumar singh, (ii) pradip yadav, (iii) janki prasad yadav, (iv) ganesh ganjhu, (v) amar kumar bauri, (vi) navin jaiswal, (vii) prakash ram and (viii) alok kumar chaurasiya, find place in the list .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT..... said post. thus, the second prayer in the writ petition has become infructuous. 2. briefly stated, the facts narrated in the writ petition are that, the petitioner who was appointed as director, rims vide notification dated 23.12.2010, successfully completed his tenure of three years on 23.12.2013. the tenure as director, rims was however, extended vide notification dated 26.12.2013, till further orders. the petitioner claimed that his tenure should have been extended for further two years because on the date when he completed his three years' tenure as director, rims, he was below 60 years. it is asserted that, respondent no. 5 is not borne in the teaching cadre of rims and therefore, he is not eligible to hold the post of director, rims. 3. mr. anil kumar sinha, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was pursuant to decision of the selection committee and .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for the offence punishable under section 39/44 of the i.e. act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. factual matrix, as emerges from the record, is that the petitioner was owner of m/s s.k. rubber udhyog and m/s j.m.o. oils pvt. ltd. at premises bearing kh. no.46/8, village khera kalan. a joint raid was conducted by the electricity department at the said premises where two electricity meters were found installed. on 29.04.1998, during inspection, it was observed that service line of one connection was found tapped in changeover switch before meter and electricity was being used by connecting the load directly with changeover switch. a joint inspection report was prepared, photographs of the spot were taken and material was seized. a complaint was made on 01.05.1998 and then the fir no.276/1998 was registered in ps s.p. badli for offence under section 39 of the i.e. act.3. on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. charge under section 39/44 of i.e. act was framed against the petitioner. the petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge framed.4. to prove its case, prosecution examined 8 witnesses......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of witnesses would not justify the case being thrown out of board. the prosecution was successful in proving the identity of the petitioner; the factum of accident occasioned by the rash and negligent driving by the petitioner in a public place and the death of a person consequent to such an accident. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the mlc of deceased (ex. pw8/a) did not bear the signature or the name of manish sharma pw7. there is no evidence with respect to the fact as to who took the injured/deceased to the hospital. in the absence of any evidence having been adduced on behalf of the prosecution, mere absence of the name of pw7 in the mlc (ex. pw8/a) would not lead to the irresistible conclusion that pw7 was not an eye witness to the occurrence. it has also been submitted that relevant and material witness namely ravi srivastava has not been examined and no explanation has been offered for his non-examination. it was, in the last, canvassed that the vehicle namely the bus was being driven backwards. it is a matter of common knowledge that while reversing a vehicle rashness cannot be shown by any driver. accident took place while the vehicle was.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....caution. 29.2. when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure: (i) ends of justice, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. while exercising the power the high court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. crl.m.c.no.2580/2015 page 3 such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the prevention of corruption act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender. 29.4. on the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of rs. 10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of 3 rd addl. sessions judge deoghar, in connection with. s.c no. 23 of 2006 arising out of sarwan (sonaraithari) ps case no. 93 of 2005 ( gr no. 559 of 2005) subject to the deposit of fine amount as imposed by the court below. ambastha/- ( r. n. verma, j.) in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi cr. revision no. 687 of 2015 rahul gope .... petitioner versus state of jharkhand ... opposite party coram : hon’ble mr. justice ravi nath verma for the petitioner/ appellant (s): mr.gautam kumar for the opp. party/ respondent : addl.p.p. 01.07.2015 the sole petitioner has preferred this revision application under section 53 of the juvenile justice (care & protection of children ) act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' ) against the order dated 21.4.2015 passed by the learned sessions judge, west singhnhum at chaibasa 28 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the prayer for bail of the petitioner which was rejected by the principal magistrate, juvenile justice board, chaibasa, by order dated 19.3.2015 passed in g.r. case no. 762.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to the petitioner to institute the suit from the date of accrual of the right to sue and the ascertainment of such date would be an issue on facts that cannot be decided on affidavit evidence. the substance of the submission on behalf of the petitioner is that it cannot be said that the substantive claim is ex facie barred by limitation. since the petitioner has invoked section 25(3) of the contract act and it is a plausible argument that the letter dated may 6, 1991 has to be regarded to be a promise to pay a debt which is barred by limitation law, notwithstanding the quantum of debt not being specified in the document, the petitioner may be entitled to the benefit under section 46 of the contract act. as a consequence, the substantive claim of the petitioner, which is to be carried to the arbitral reference, does not appear to be ex facie barred by the laws of limitation. the petitioner has relied in this context to an unreported judgment of september 5,2008 rendered in ga no.3551 of 2003, cs no.269 of 2003 (berger paints india ltd.v.ashish chattopadhyay).pargraph 29 of the judgment has been placed for the distinction recognised therein between an acknowledgement of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....w.p.(c).no.14029 of 2010-c ------------------------------------- dated this the 01st day of july, 2015 judgment the petitioner-society seeks satisfaction of the obligation as per exhibits p1 and p2.2. the petitioner was in occupation and possession of a property, wherein was situated a guru mandiram, with a nursery school, vayanasala and a godown. when a project for construction of a bridge between aazhikal - ayiramthengu, crossing the kayamkulam backwaters, was approved by the government, the community members obstructed the construction work, insofar as there was an apprehension that it would destroy the guru mandiram and render useless the property itself. in such circumstances, considering the religious feelings of the community members, a committee was formed by the district collector on the instruction of the government, chaired by the tahsildar, karunagappilly. certain decisions were arrived at in the said meeting, which are evident at exhibits p1 and p2. the petitioner seeks implementation of the same and asserts that, in wp(c).no.14029 of 2010 - 2 - fact, the petitioner should be assigned with 15 cents of land somewhere in the locality, so as to re-construct guru.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT