.....by ext.a16 provisional registration certificate. there is nothing to disbelieve the claim of the appellants as regards the deceased's business activity. considering the various aspects including the future prospects of the deceased, we fix an amount of rs.5,000/- as monthly income for the purpose of assessing compensation. since the claimants are three in number 1/3rd of the said amount will have to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. as she was aged 27 the multiplier will be 17.7. the learned tribunal has granted only rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. for pain and suffering the amount granted is rs.5,000/-, for funeral expenses it is rs.3,000/-, rs.2,000/- is granted towards ambulance charges, rs.1,000/- is further m.a.c.a.no.1130 of 2008 -4- granted towards damage to clothing and articles and other incidental expenses. the total amount awarded by the tribunal including for loss of dependency is rs.3,19,000/-. we are of the view that for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection the claimants are entitled at the rate of rs.1,00,000/-. in the light of the judgment of the apex court in rajesh v. rajbir singh.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by ext.a16 provisional registration certificate. there is nothing to disbelieve the claim of the appellants as regards the deceased's business activity. considering the various aspects including the future prospects of the deceased, we fix an amount of rs.5,000/- as monthly income for the purpose of assessing compensation. since the claimants are three in number 1/3rd of the said amount will have to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. as she was aged 27 the multiplier will be 17.7. the learned tribunal has granted only rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. for pain and suffering the amount granted is rs.5,000/-, for funeral expenses it is rs.3,000/-, rs.2,000/- is granted towards ambulance charges, rs.1,000/- is further m.a.c.a.no.1130 of 2008 -4- granted towards damage to clothing and articles and other incidental expenses. the total amount awarded by the tribunal including for loss of dependency is rs.3,19,000/-. we are of the view that for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection the claimants are entitled at the rate of rs.1,00,000/-. in the light of the judgment of the apex court in rajesh v. rajbir singh.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by ext.a16 provisional registration certificate. there is nothing to disbelieve the claim of the appellants as regards the deceased's business activity. considering the various aspects including the future prospects of the deceased, we fix an amount of rs.5,000/- as monthly income for the purpose of assessing compensation. since the claimants are three in number 1/3rd of the said amount will have to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. as she was aged 27 the multiplier will be 17.7. the learned tribunal has granted only rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. for pain and suffering the amount granted is rs.5,000/-, for funeral expenses it is rs.3,000/-, rs.2,000/- is granted towards ambulance charges, rs.1,000/- is further m.a.c.a.no.1130 of 2008 -4- granted towards damage to clothing and articles and other incidental expenses. the total amount awarded by the tribunal including for loss of dependency is rs.3,19,000/-. we are of the view that for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection the claimants are entitled at the rate of rs.1,00,000/-. in the light of the judgment of the apex court in rajesh v. rajbir singh.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by ext.a16 provisional registration certificate. there is nothing to disbelieve the claim of the appellants as regards the deceased's business activity. considering the various aspects including the future prospects of the deceased, we fix an amount of rs.5,000/- as monthly income for the purpose of assessing compensation. since the claimants are three in number 1/3rd of the said amount will have to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. as she was aged 27 the multiplier will be 17.7. the learned tribunal has granted only rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. for pain and suffering the amount granted is rs.5,000/-, for funeral expenses it is rs.3,000/-, rs.2,000/- is granted towards ambulance charges, rs.1,000/- is further m.a.c.a.no.1130 of 2008 -4- granted towards damage to clothing and articles and other incidental expenses. the total amount awarded by the tribunal including for loss of dependency is rs.3,19,000/-. we are of the view that for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection the claimants are entitled at the rate of rs.1,00,000/-. in the light of the judgment of the apex court in rajesh v. rajbir singh.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by government and hence the pension, he was getting from the sbt was not one liable to be deducted, under regulation 4(2)(ii) of the regulations; in fact the petitioner was entitled to get the entire amount which accumulated in the provident fund account, on his retirement. instead of that, that amount is deposited and it is out of those funds that pension is being paid. ext.p10 was forwarded to government by the psc along with a letter w.p.(c). no. 11560 of20125 dated 24.8.2011 - ext.p11 recommending the request made by the petitioner, pointing out that the petitioner was not getting a statutory pension. but that representation was also rejected by the government as per ext.p12 by 8.12.2011. it is in this background that the petitioner has approached this court.5. government have filed a counter affidavit reiterating the stand adopted in ext.p7 as well as ext.p12 stating that the case of the petitioner comes under regulation 4(2)(ii) and that the petitioner is drawing pension from sbt, which is evident from ext.p4 certificate issued by chief manager and it is based on that letter a sum of rs.12903/- [10,749/- towards pension drawn and 2154.11 towards gratuity drawn.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....these principles in mind, i shall proceed to examine whether the suit in the instant case is a suit which comes under section 92 of the code.7. the fact that the first defendant church is a public religious trust is not seriously disputed. even otherwise, in st. peters orthodox syrian church v. fr. abraham mathews (2011 (4) klt540, a division bench of this court, relying on the decision of the apex court in p.m.a.metropolitan v. moran mar marthoma (air1995sc2001, held that constituent churches of malankara church are public religious trusts and section 92 of the code applies to the said churches. the said judgment was rendered in the context of a similar dispute in relation to st.peter's orthodox syrian church, puthencruz. following rfa.no.574/2010. 7 the decision of this court in st. peters orthodox syrian church v. fr. abraham mathews (supra), a learned single judge of this court has also held in a.s.no.768 of 1998 that st.thomas orthodox syrian church, another constituent church of malankara church, is also a public trust of religious and charitable nature.8. as noticed above, the essence of the case set up by the plaintiffs is that the first defendant being a constituent.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....from the leasehold buildings even assuming that they have got some land obtaining pattas from the government or otherwise. so much so, in the given facts of the case, the question to be considered is whether the continuation of the suit while the execution proceedings is continuing in respect of the buildings under the occupation of the plaintiffs as tenants are yet to be surrendered, crops up for consideration. that question has to be considered by the trial court taking note of all the facts and circumstances involved in the case especially the order of the apex court under ext.p11 order, and, the undertaking given on the basis of that order by atleast two of the plaintiffs.5. suit for surveying and measuring of plaint 'a' and 'b' schedule properties and demarcation of its boundaries seeking an additional relief to restrain the defendants/the landlords from disturbing or dispossessing the plaintiffs/tenants, from 'a' and 'b' schedule properties and the buildings therein was instituted, admittedly, long after orders of eviction were c.r.p. no.444 of2012(c) ::9. :: passed against the tenants in the rent control proceedings. plaintiffs had obtained assignment of the land 'a' and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....these principles in mind, i shall proceed to examine whether the suit in the instant case is a suit which comes under section 92 of the code.7. the fact that the first defendant church is a public religious trust is not seriously disputed. even otherwise, in st. peters orthodox syrian church v. fr. abraham mathews (2011 (4) klt540, a division bench of this court, relying on the decision of the apex court in p.m.a.metropolitan v. moran mar marthoma (air1995sc2001, held that constituent churches of malankara church are public religious trusts and section 92 of the code applies to the said churches. the said judgment was rendered in the context of a similar dispute in relation to st.peter's orthodox syrian church, puthencruz. following rfa.no.574/2010. 7 the decision of this court in st. peters orthodox syrian church v. fr. abraham mathews (supra), a learned single judge of this court has also held in a.s.no.768 of 1998 that st.thomas orthodox syrian church, another constituent church of malankara church, is also a public trust of religious and charitable nature.8. as noticed above, the essence of the case set up by the plaintiffs is that the first defendant being a constituent.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to recover the pay already drawn by the petitioners is illegal. the petitioners have performed more onerous duties on the basis of the orders issued by the joint registrar and the consequential order of their absorption as full time sweepers. their request was for absorption in any of the last grade posts. they cannot be penalised for the absorption in nonexistent posts. moreover the joint registrar has issued an order reversing the order issued by another joint registrar, w.p(c) no.29614 of 2013-b5which is not permissible. therefore ext.p8 order is without any basis and without authority. hence the same is quashed. the consequential order ext.p9 also is therefore quashed. in case the petitioners have any grievance regarding their posting, they are free to approach the arbitration court under section 69 of the co-operative societies act. this writ petition is disposed of accordingly. sd/- (p.v.asha, judge) rtr/
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by ext.a16 provisional registration certificate. there is nothing to disbelieve the claim of the appellants as regards the deceased's business activity. considering the various aspects including the future prospects of the deceased, we fix an amount of rs.5,000/- as monthly income for the purpose of assessing compensation. since the claimants are three in number 1/3rd of the said amount will have to be deducted for personal expenses of the deceased. as she was aged 27 the multiplier will be 17.7. the learned tribunal has granted only rs.10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection and loss of consortium. for pain and suffering the amount granted is rs.5,000/-, for funeral expenses it is rs.3,000/-, rs.2,000/- is granted towards ambulance charges, rs.1,000/- is further m.a.c.a.no.1130 of 2008 -4- granted towards damage to clothing and articles and other incidental expenses. the total amount awarded by the tribunal including for loss of dependency is rs.3,19,000/-. we are of the view that for loss of consortium and loss of love and affection the claimants are entitled at the rate of rs.1,00,000/-. in the light of the judgment of the apex court in rajesh v. rajbir singh.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT