.....decree obtained by the defendant is a fraudulent act committed by son-in-law of the petitioner, who is the cousin brother of respondent. 2. the facts of the case are as under: the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant contending that the land bearing sy.no.250/1 measuring 4 acres 7 guntas situated at mallur village, kagadhal taluk, saundatti. the plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the defendant. defendant is the wife of the deceased basavaraddi bhimappa basuraddi. the deceased basavaraddi is the son of the plaintiff. the defendant led the marital life with the deceased basavaraddi for about one year and thereafter, the relation of the defendant strained with this plaintiff and the deceased basavaraddi and the defendant started to reside in her parental house at kagadhal taluk, saundatti. thereafter the plaintiff, her son - basavaraddi and elderly persons of the village went to the defendant's house and tried to bring her back in order to lead matrimonial life, but the defendant did not return to the house of the plaintiff's and the suit schedule property is under the ownership of the plaintiff-deceased basavaraddi......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the same, nor did they comply with the terms and conditions under the lease deed. in the circumstances, petitioner has filed this petition under sub-section (6) of section 11 of the act seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator in terms of clause 33 of the lease deed. 4. in response to the service of notice by this court, respondents 1 to 4 have not appeared either in person or through their representative. as far as respondent 5 is concerned, she resides at united states of america and service has been effected on her through courier. a memo was filed evidencing service of notice of the petition on her and by order dated 28-4-2015, this court held that service of notice on respondent 5 is sufficient. till date, there has been no appearance of the respondents. 5. in the circumstances, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the court may appoint an arbitrator in terms of clause 33 of the lease deed and the petitioner is willing to have a retired district judge as an arbitrator and enter upon the reference and arbitrate the dispute and that the petitioner is also agreeable to have the arbitration proceedings being conducted at the arbitration centre, kanija bhavan, race course.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....court below though had taken note of the contention put forth by the petitioner was of the view that no documents had been produced to establish the fact that a loan bad been obtained by the petitioner to purchase the vehicle and in that view, the order passed by the authorised officer was set aside and the matter was remitted for reconsideration for providing an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the documents before the authorised officer. the petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the said order is before this court. 4. learned counsel for the petitioner would refer to the petition papers to contend that even as per the documents made available, the fact that the petitioner had obtained loan to purchase the vehicle is evident. it is contended that even otherwise, the petitioner is a transport contractor and it is due to inadvertence of his driver, certain other persons have made use of the vehicle and these aspects in any event would be established before the authorised officer m the' said pending proceedings. it is contended that m the meanwhile, if the vehicle is allowed to remain in the custody of the authorised officer, the same would deteriorate and as such, the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or (b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 had not been enacted. explanation. ”for the purposes of clause (a), the expression son ?, grandson or great-grandson shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the commencement of the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005*. (5) nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of december, 2004. explanation. ”for the purposes of this section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the registration act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.] in interpreting the above section, the full bench of the bombay high court has held thus: it needs to be noted that clauses (b) and (c) of.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....decree obtained by the defendant is a fraudulent act committed by son-in-law of the petitioner, who is the cousin brother of respondent.2. the facts of the case are as under: the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant contending that the land bearing sy.no.250/1 measuring 4 acres 7 guntas situated at :3. : mallur village, kagadhal taluk, saundatti. the plaintiff is the mother-in-law of the defendant. defendant is the wife of the deceased basavaraddi bhimappa basuraddi. the deceased basavaraddi is the son of the plaintiff. the defendant led the marital life with the deceased basavaraddi for about one year and thereafter, the relation of the defendant strained with this plaintiff and the deceased basavaraddi and the defendant started to reside in her parental house at kagadhal taluk, saundatti. thereafter the plaintiff, her son - basavaraddi and elderly persons of the village went to the defendant’s house and tried to bring her back in order to lead matrimonial life, but the defendant did not return to the house of the plaintiff’s and the suit schedule property is under the ownership of the plaintiff-deceased.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of any creditor to proceed against the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be; or (b) any alienation made in respect of or in satisfaction of, any such debt, and any such right or alienation shall be enforceable under the rule of pious obligation in the same manner and to the same extent as it would have been enforceable as if the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005 had not been enacted. explanation. —for the purposes of clause (a), the expression “son”, “grandson” or “great-grandson” shall be deemed to refer to the son, grandson or great-grandson, as the case may be, who was born or adopted prior to the 16 commencement of the hindu succession (amendment) act, 2005*. (5) nothing contained in this section shall apply to a partition, which has been effected before the 20th day of december, 2004. explanation. —for the purposes of this section “partition” means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the registration act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court.]. in interpreting the above section, the full bench of the bombay high court has held thus : “ it needs to be noted that.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in the revision petition carefully, more particularly, ground (h) therein. ground (h) would reveal that the revision petitioner is not disputing the fact that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that mo1 series of cds were found from his possession. in this context it is relevant to refer to ground (h) which reads as follows:- "h. the courts below had not considered the case of the accused that he had not committed the offence as alleged. the court below also had not considered the version of the petitioner that the police had created a panic in the bus stand and the people who were waiting had ran away. the cds which were kept by somebody happened to be in the hands of the petitioner. this evidence had not been considered by the courts below" (emphasis added) grounds (a) to (k) raised by the revision petitioner in the revision petition would further show that he got no case at all that the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses were wrongly adverted to in the impugned judgments. it is true that the revision petitioner got a grievance that evidence on record were erroneously appreciated by the crl.r.p.no.2/2015 5 courts below. the said grounds would also reveal that.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the kunnathunadu police station registered for the offence under section 420 of ipc. the above said crime is initiated at the behest of the de facto complainant who is the petitioner in crl.m.c3321of 2015. the petitioner in crl.m.c no. 3320/15 is aggrieved by annexure 5 order dated 1.6.2015 rendered by the judicial first class magistrate court, kolenchery in cmp no.473 of 2015 in crime no.188 of 2015 to the extent the bail order is restricted with the condition that he shall produce two solvent sureties who are from the state of kerala having title deeds. the said accused contends that said bail order on executing a bond of rs. crl.m.c no. 3320 of 2015 & crl.m.c no.3311 of 2015 2 50,000/- with two solvent sureties may be enforced without the aforementioned restrictive conditions. the de facto complainant in the above said crime has filed crl.m.c3321of 2015 challenging the very grant of bail as per the said order dated 1.6.2015 by contending that the investigating officer could not effect the arrest of the said accused and that it was only after a series of consistent measures taken by constituting a special team of officers by the investigating agency that the accused could.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the award. all the persons together could not issue a cheque and that was the only reason why the cheques were caused to be issued by the 6th defendant alone for him as well as for an on behalf of other defendants also. crp no.13 of 2015 -:8. :- 9. by the mere fact that petitioners were given an opportunity to issue two cheques for the award amount of 3,75,000/-, the decree holders cannot be driven to the corridors of courts once again for initiating fresh civil or criminal proceedings for the recovery of the amount covered by the cheque. it seems that only part of the award is met, and an amount of 2,00,000/- happens to be the balance amount for the period from 01.12.2008. the decree holders are entitled to get the decree for the said amount with interest and costs, executed. the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. this crp is devoid of merits, and is only to be dismissed, and i do so.10. in the result, this civil revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. sd/- b.kemal pasha, judge ul/- [true copy] p.s. to judge
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....number is 5043. it is stated that the basic tax is being regularly paid at the village office, viyyur. possession certificate was also issued in favour of the petitioners. however, when the petitioners applied for an encumbrance certificate in respect of the aforesaid property, ext.p4 encumbrance certificate was issued. ext.p4 encumbrance certificate shows that the property is the subject matter of arbitration award no.10/2006 of the high court of kerala. names of several share holders are also shown in ext.p4 encumbrance certificate. however, the grievance of the petitioners is that in ext.p4 encumbrance certificate, it is shown that there is an encumbrance as per attachment orders in six suits on the file of the sub court, thrissur and munsiff's court, thrissur. according to the petitioners, the judgment debtor therein is only francis chirakkekaran. it is pointed out that ext.p5 attachment report as well as ext.p6 attachment application would show that only chirakkekaran francis is the judgment debtor and only his rights have been attached. still, the encumbrances would give an w.p.(c) no.11980 of2015(v) ::3. :: impression that the property belonging to the petitioners is.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT