.....counsel for the petitioner and smt.k.t.lilly, the learned government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.4. on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, i note that the area in respect of which the petitioner has not been granted exemption, under ext.p9 order of the government, is the area that is covered by the hospital run by the petitioner. there is a clear w.p.(c).no.2159 of 2010 3 finding in ext.p9 order of the government that those areas that were found to be used principally for education purposes, were entitled to exemption. it follows, therefore, that the area covered by the hospital run by the petitioner has been found not to satisfy the requirements of section 3(b) of the kerala building tax act for the purpose of exemption. it is admitted by the petitioner that it collects fees from the patients who visit the hospital for treatment. the only contention that is raised at the time of hearing is that the hospital itself forms part of the medical college and insofar as the medical college is engaged in education, the hospital must also be seen as forming part of the educational institution......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....that the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 act and the compensation has also not been paid. the necessary ingredients for the application of section 24(2) of the 2013 act as interpreted by the supreme court and this court in the following cases stand satisfied:(1) pune municipal corporation and anr v. harakchand misirimal solanki and ors: (2014) 3 scc183 (2) union of india and ors v. shiv raj and ors: (2014) 6 scc564 4. (3) sree balaji nagar residential association v. state of tamil nadu and ors: civil appeal no.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; (4) surender singh v. union of india & others: wp(c) 2294/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this court; and (5) girish chhabra v. lt. governor of delhi and ors: wp(c) 2759/2014 decided on 12.09.2014 by this court. as a result, the petitioners are entitled to a declaration that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 act in respect of the subject land are deemed to have lapsed. it is so declared.5. the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. there shall be no order as to costs. badar durrez ahmed, j siddharth mridul, j november18 2014 dn
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the principal question that is to be addressed is whether impugned charges levied by the mcd are authorized by law.3. briefly stated the relevant facts necessary for considering the controversy are adumbrated as under:3. 1 the petitioner is in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling apparels, footwear and accessories etc. under the brand name ‘lacoste’. the petitioner owns a three storied building at e-1, south extension part-ii, new delhi (hereafter ‘said premises’) and operates a retail outlet from the said premises. 3.2 the respondent, mcd, issued an order dated 16.04.2010 to the petitioner alleging that on an inspection conducted on 10.04.2010, it was found that the petitioner had put up a display of a size of 400 sq. ft. on the “two wall wrap” at the premises, without permission of the mcd and without paying any charges. it was further held that “financial loss caused to mcd needs to be realized” and the petitioner was called upon to deposit damage charges of ` 92,000/- for the month of april 2010. the said charges were computed in the following manner:“400 (size) x rs. 115/(approved rate for wall wrap in central zone) x 2 (penalty) =rs......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of the subject lands has been taken by the land acquiring agency, nor has any compensation been paid to the petitioner. the award was made more than five years prior to the commencement of the 2013 act. all the ingredients of section 24(2) of the 2013 act as interpreted by the supreme court and this court in the following decisions stand satisfied:- wp(c) 48442014 (i) pune municipal corporation and anr v. harakchand misirimal solanki and ors: (2014) 3 scc183 (ii) union of india and ors v. shiv raj and ors: (2014) 6 scc564 (iii) sree balaji nagar residential association v. state of tamil nadu and ors: civil appeal no.8700/2013 decided on 10.09.2014; (iv) surinder singh vs. union of india and ors.: w.p.(c) 2294/2014 decided 12.09.2014 by this 3. as a result the petitioner is entitled to a declaration that the said acquisition proceedings initiated under the 1894 act in respect of the subject lands are deemed to have lapsed. it is so declared.4. the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. there shall be no order as to costs. badar durrez ahmed, j november18 2014 sr wp(c) 48442014
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....court in in w.p(md)no.14229 of 2013 and m.p(md)no.1 of 2013, dated 26.8.2013, in para 5 and 6 had passed the following order: ?.5.considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission of the learned additional government pleader appearing for the respondents, the second respondent police is directed to pass appropriate orders granting permission to the petitioner to conduct the kabadi tournament at perumalkovil ground, ayankollankondan village, seithur, virudhunagar district on 31.8.2013 at 6.00 p.m.to 1.9.2013 to 2.00 p.m.subject to the following conditions: (i)the petitioner should ensure that sufficient medical facilities are available at the venue; (ii)there should not be any kind of play of communal songs praising any communal leaders.(iii)there should not be any kind of flex boards or hoardings during the said competition; (iv)it is open to the third respondent to impose other reasonable restrictions for the conduct of kabadi tournament in public interest and to ensure peace; (v)the said kabadi tournament should be restricted on 31.8.2013 at 6.00 p.m.to 1.9.2013 at 2.00 p.m.(vi)if there is any violation, the concerned police officer is.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in my considered opinion, till this exemption is not granted, the petitioner is governed by the provisions of this act.20. it is also admitted fact that the petitioner granted gratuity to some of its employees, after the order was passed by the controlling authority. if the plea of the petitioner is accepted that the respondent no.1 in all the petitions are not entitled for gratuity under the payment of gratuity act, 1972, then it tantamount to discrimination and inequality before law, which violates article 14 of the constitution.21. the petitioner is an educational institution and employing more than 10 persons. the exemption under section 5 of the payment of gratuity act, 1972, has not yet been granted to it. the payment has already been made to some employees of the petitioner under the payment of gratuity act, 1972.22. in view of the facts recorded above and legal position, i do not find any discrepancy in the orders dated 30.09.2013 and 02.04.2014 passed by the controlling authority and the appellate authority respectively.23. accordingly, the instant petitions dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.3. are admittedly, the issue raised in the present petition is.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....indian evidence act, 1872, which stood the test of time, is based on common knowledge, human experience, human conduct. to illustrate, we can notice section 112 of the act. the gist of the section 112 is so long as the marital bondage is in force as between the spouses and during such period if a child is born then there is conclusive proof that the child is born to that man. however, it can be negatived by showing that there is no possibility of having access to the wife. actually, this is based on human brilliance and realities of normal family life.17. the defendant did not deny that the first plaintiff is his wife. quarrel arose between them. the specific plea in the plaint is that first plaintiff was thrown out when she was carrying baby in her womb. then it was her 7th month. the specific plea of the defendant in the written statement is that the birth of the second plaintiff was not made known to him and he did not had the countenance of the child, so the child is not his child. but, at one part of the written statement he accepted that he is the father of her. only during trial, he says that it is a typographical mistake. it is a great blunder to make such a revelation......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of kimet ousting defendant no.4, bansidhar pradhan and defendant no.5, gobind ch. nayak from the trust board were legal and valid in view of the facts that the said resolutions have an evidentiary value under section 35 of the indian evidence act, 1872 and that no rebuttal evidence was adduced on behalf of the defendants to dislodge the value of the aforesaid resolution?. (ii) whether both the courts below committed gross error of law by coming to a finding that the plaintiff no.4, lambodar pradhan is no.a trustee of kimet and has no locus standi to file the suit in view of the order dated 30.07.2005 passed by the learned civil judge (senior division), angul in c.s. no.69 of 2002 wherein it was held that defendant nos.1 to 5 had ceased to be members of trust board by virtue of acceptance of their resolutions and ouster and that plaintiff nos.4, lambodar pradhan was legally accepted as a trustee in place of deceased, gundicha behera (plaintiff no.2). could the learned civil judge (senior division), angul reverse its own finding given in order dated 30.7.2005 while passing the final judgment even though the order dated 30.7.2005 was no.challenged by the defendants in any higher.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....not placed on record. however, it is pointed out that the same is placed on record of the present appeal. learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that for the procedural and technical lapse on the part of the appellant, he mat.app.40/2012 page 1 should not be made to suffer and an opportunity ought to be granted to appellant to file the petition for divorce in his own capacity. respondent was proceeded ex parte before trial court as well as before this court. in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal is disposed of while permitting the appellant to withdraw the divorce petition and this appeal with opportunity to file fresh divorce petition in his own capacity. the appeal and the pending applications are accordingly disposed of. (sunil gaur) judge november18 2014 sd mat.app.40/2012 page 2
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....23.08.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby, the applications filed by the respondent nos.2 and 4 under order i, rule 10(2) cpc have been allowed. facts in brief may be noticed thus : petitioner brij mohan chhangani filed a suit against his two brothers kripa shanker and satya narain and his sister smt. asha for partition of a house situated at goydani para, jaisalmer claiming the same as belonging to kishan lal, their father and having 1/4th share in the said property. the written statements were filed by kripa shanker, satya narain and smt. asha; while kripa shanker supported the version of the plaintiff qua share but opposed on the nature of property, satya narain and smt. asha opposed the same. an application was filed by satya narain under order i, rule 10(2) cpc seeking impleadment of his son narendra 2 chhangani as party to the suit with the averments that the suit property was in possession of narendra chhangani; there has been a family settlement dated 06.10.1984 between kishan lal j.and his children (plaintiff and defendants).wherein, the suit property fell to the share of kishan lal ji, who has executed will in favour of narendra chhangani, who is a necessary party.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT