.....it does not raise any presumption and even if the presumption can be raised, the same is rebuttable one which can be successfully proved from the fact that subsequent letters issued by the commissioner at kolkata does not contain any averments and/or statements 3 pertaining to the order passed under section 127 of the said act and, therefore, it is inconceivable and improbable that the notice issued under the aforesaid provision has returned with the remarks ‘not known’ whereas the other notices have been duly received and served upon the assessee/petitioner. the learned advocate for the respondent authorities submits that before passing a final order under section 127 of the said act, a notice was sent to the assessee/petitioner through a postal department and returned with the postal remarks ‘not known’. he further submits that the petitioner was all along aware of the initiation of a proceeding under the said provision and, therefore, the story of non-service of notice is concocted for the purpose of securing the interim order. he, however, says that the respondent should be afforded an opportunity to place all the materials in this regard and matter may be finally.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....there is only a nominal difference between m.ed (css) and m.ed (non-css) and the said difference exists only in wpc no.6188/2012 8 nomenclature. in fact the prospectus issued for m.ed (css) is distinct and not applicable to m.ed.(non-css) course. as already pointed out, relaxation of 5% marks would be available to a candidate belonging to sc/st community with reference to the marks obtained in b.ed and not in m.a./m.sc. it is also relevant to note that ext.p1 notification has been issued in consonance with the regulations approved by the academic bodies of the university. under such circumstances, the petitioner ought to have applied under m.ed (css) course of study, however, having applied under m.ed (non-css) course, she cannot escape the rigours thereof.10. it was argued by the learned standing counsel for the respondent university that the admissions of all candidates to particular courses were made provisionally and the candidates' eligibility to prosecute a particular course can be confirmed only after the qualifying certificates are verified by the respondent university. the mere fact that a candidate wpc no.6188/2012 9 has been admitted to a particular course will not.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement (amendment) ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2015 ordinance’). the facts are that a section 4 notification was issued on 04.06.2009. powers under section 17(1) and (4) of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1894 act’) were also invoked. on 11.09.2009, the declaration under section 6 of the 1894 act was made. possession of the lands pertaining to the present writ petitioners and under the said notification was taken by the land acquiring agency on 09.10.2009. however, the petitioners contend that there was non-compliance of the requirements of section 17 and specifically section 17(3a) of the 1894 act which, according to the petitioners, were conditions precedent for the acquisition. we need not, however, examine the matter from this perspective as the case ultimately argued before us was one based on the interpretation of section 24 of the 2013 act. on 14.09.2011 award no.5/2011-12 was made relating to the subject lands and other lands which were notified under section 4 on 04.06.2009. as stated above, it is an admitted position that the possession was taken over by.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement (amendment) ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2015 ordinance’). the facts are that a section 4 notification was issued on 04.06.2009. powers under section 17(1) and (4) of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1894 act’) were also invoked. on 11.09.2009, the declaration under section 6 of the 1894 act was made. possession of the lands pertaining to the present writ petitioners and under the said notification was taken by the land acquiring agency on 09.10.2009. however, the petitioners contend that there was non-compliance of the requirements of section 17 and specifically section 17(3a) of the 1894 act which, according to the petitioners, were conditions precedent for the acquisition. we need not, however, examine the matter from this perspective as the case ultimately argued before us was one based on the interpretation of section 24 of the 2013 act. on 14.09.2011 award no.5/2011-12 was made relating to the subject lands and other lands which were notified under section 4 on 04.06.2009. as stated above, it is an admitted position that the possession was taken over by.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....and boosts the morale to do quality work. it instills confidence, spreads harmony and commands respect among colleagues which is a paramount factor for good and sound administration. if the settled seniority at the instance of one's junior in service is unsettled, it may generate bitterness, resentment, hostility among the government servants and the enthusiasm to do quality work might be lost. such a situation may drive the parties to approach the administration for resolution of that acrimonious and poignant situation, which may consume lot of time and energy. the decision either way may drive the parties to litigative wilderness to the advantage of legal professionals both private and government. driving the parties to acute penury. it is well known that salary they earn, may not match the litigation expenses and professional fees and w.p.(c) nos. 20077 & 22195 of 2013 ..9.. may at times drive the parties to other sources of money making, including corruption. public money is also being spent by the government to defend their otherwise untenable stand. further it also consumes lot of judicial time from the lowest court to the highest resulting in constant bitterness.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement (amendment) ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2015 ordinance’). the facts are that a section 4 notification was issued on 04.06.2009. powers under section 17(1) and (4) of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1894 act’) were also invoked. on 11.09.2009, the declaration under section 6 of the 1894 act was made. possession of the lands pertaining to the present writ petitioners and under the said notification was taken by the land acquiring agency on 09.10.2009. however, the petitioners contend that there was non-compliance of the requirements of section 17 and specifically section 17(3a) of the 1894 act which, according to the petitioners, were conditions precedent for the acquisition. we need not, however, examine the matter from this perspective as the case ultimately argued before us was one based on the interpretation of section 24 of the 2013 act. on 14.09.2011 award no.5/2011-12 was made relating to the subject lands and other lands which were notified under section 4 on 04.06.2009. as stated above, it is an admitted position that the possession was taken over by.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement (amendment) ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2015 ordinance’). the facts are that a section 4 notification was issued on 04.06.2009. powers under section 17(1) and (4) of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1894 act’) were also invoked. on 11.09.2009, the declaration under section 6 of the 1894 act was made. possession of the lands pertaining to the present writ petitioners and under the said notification was taken by the land acquiring agency on 09.10.2009. however, the petitioners contend that there was non-compliance of the requirements of section 17 and specifically section 17(3a) of the 1894 act which, according to the petitioners, were conditions precedent for the acquisition. we need not, however, examine the matter from this perspective as the case ultimately argued before us was one based on the interpretation of section 24 of the 2013 act. on 14.09.2011 award no.5/2011-12 was made relating to the subject lands and other lands which were notified under section 4 on 04.06.2009. as stated above, it is an admitted position that the possession was taken over by.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in pay fixation with effect from the pay revision order, 1998. it is the contention of the petitioners that if the said yardstick is applied to the facts in the instant case, it would be clear that there was no irregularity in the stepping up of the pay scales of the petitioners, and the action of the respondents in seeking to recover amounts allegedly paid in excess to the petitioners cannot be legally countenanced.2. a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that, as per ext.p3 circular, the government have clarified that h.s.a (core subjects) and h.s.a (malayalam) are different categories for the purposes of the pay revision orders. it is stated that, since the government have not withdrawn ext.p3 circular or altered any of the conditions, the same would continue to hold good. it is contended that in as much as the sanction of the post h.s.a (core subjects) and post of h.s.a (malayalam) and language teachers are based on the available period for each subject, and the method of promotion of u.p.s.as as h.s.as is based on the subject requirements and the availability of the vacancies to the post of h.s.a in any particular subject,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....r.p.(fc) no.140 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------------ dated this the 21st day of may, 2015 order the revision petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent as well as father of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. the legality of entitlement of maintenance allowance and quantum of maintenance allowance determined by the court below in m.c.no.374 of 2011 are under challenge in this revision petition. according to the 1st respondent, her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 7/5/2000 and they lived together and the respondents 2 and 3 are the children born out of the said wed-lock. but the petitioner had neglected to maintain them by refusing to pay maintenance allowance to the respondents. according to the respondents, the r.p.(fc) no.140 of 2015 -:2. :- petitioner was having suspicious mind and he suspected her chastity and on that account, he harassed her mentally and physically. so also, he demanded dowry. when the harassment became intolerable, she was constrained to file a complaint before the police which culminated in a prosecution against the petitioner before the judicial first class magistrate's court, chittur......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement (amendment) ordinance, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2015 ordinance’). the facts are that a section 4 notification was issued on 04.06.2009. powers under section 17(1) and (4) of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1894 act’) were also invoked. on 11.09.2009, the declaration under section 6 of the 1894 act was made. possession of the lands pertaining to the present writ petitioners and under the said notification was taken by the land acquiring agency on 09.10.2009. however, the petitioners contend that there was non-compliance of the requirements of section 17 and specifically section 17(3a) of the 1894 act which, according to the petitioners, were conditions precedent for the acquisition. we need not, however, examine the matter from this perspective as the case ultimately argued before us was one based on the interpretation of section 24 of the 2013 act. on 14.09.2011 award no.5/2011-12 was made relating to the subject lands and other lands which were notified under section 4 on 04.06.2009. as stated above, it is an admitted position that the possession was taken over by.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT