.....the petitioner and respondent no.2 are present in person. copy of their aadhaar card (bearing nos. 536183003127 and 647308450124, respectively) have been seen. respondent no.2 submits that matter has been settled and she does not wish to prosecute the matter any further.7. taking into account the aforesaid facts, this court is inclined to quash the concerned fir as no useful purpose would be served in prosecuting the petitioner any further.8. for the reasons afore-recorded, the orders dated 28.11.2019 and 18.04.2016 passed by the learned sessions judge and order dated 30.08.2014 passed by learned metropolitan magistrate are hereby set aside.9. in view of the settlement and the fact that the petitioner and respondent no.2 are staying together as husband and wife, all the proceedings pending interse are hereby quashed.10. the petition is allowed accordingly.12. order dasti, under the signature of court master.12. pending applications stand disposed of. (suresh kumar kait) judge november14 2019 sm crl.rev p.116/2017 page 2 of 2
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....order passed.2. respondent had filed the subject eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide necessity under section 14(1) (e) of delhi rent control act, 1958 with regard to part of ground floor of property bearing nos. 600-601, kucha pati ram, bazar sita ram, delhi-110006, more particularly as shown in red rc.rev.604/2019 page 1 of 3 colour in the site plan attached to the eviction petition.3. learned counsel for the petitioner under instructions from the petitioner who is present in court seeks leave to withdraw the petition.4.... petitioner who is present in court in person, undertakes that he shall vacate and handover the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent on or before 30.11.2020.... petitioner further undertakes that he shall pay use and occupation charges at the agreed rate of rs. 5,000/- per month till the time he hands over the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent on or before 30.11.2020.5.... petitioner further undertakes that he shall clear all water, electricity and other dues/charges in respect of the tenanted premises before he vacates the premises. he further.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....category, for b.com. (hons.) course, the cut-off marks were pegged at 95%. 2.7. as alluded to above, the petitioners’ grievance emanated from the fact that the university instead of taking out a 6th cut-off admission list, as had been done in the past, albeit, without the exclusionary conditions, resorted to a device which obstructed the petitioners from seeking admission in srcc. 2.8. the obstruction or impediment occurred on account of the fact that though in their application forms they had declared that they fell in the obc- ncl category (and therefore made no mistake in that regard) they had already sought admission in colleges run under the aegis of the university, which remained intact on the date of issuance of the impugned press release. 2.9. the impugned press release and the special drive 6th admission list implicitly forbade the petitioners and those similarly circumstanced to seek cancellation of their admissions and re-apply for admission with srcc after the issuance of the impugned press release. w.p. (c) no.8623/2019 & cont. cas(c) no.796/2019 page 3 of 12 3. according to the petitioners what compounded the injury is that 7th and 8th admission lists were also.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the date when orientation was held, he had not qualified the ll.b. course?. background: in order to adjudicate on this issue, the following broad facts are required to be noticed. 3.1. in july-august 2016, the petitioner obtained admission in the 3-year ll.b. course with respondent no.1 i.e. the university of delhi (hereafter referred to as “university”). 3.2. each academic year comprised two semesters. the petitioner sailed through 5 semesters without a hitch. 3.3. however, in the 6th semester, the petitioner had trouble knowing from the university as to whether or not he had cleared one of the five papers i.e. paper bearing number lb-6031 concerning interpretation of statutes. this situation obtained on 31.07.2019 when the university uploaded online the 6th semester result. 3.4. in the interregnum, the petitioner sat for the all india law entrance test 2019 (in short ‘ailet2019) conducted by the nlud for academic session 2019-2020, which, inter alia, formed the basis of seeking granting admission to the 2019 ll.m. course. w.p. (c) no.9817/2019 page 2 of 10 3.5. although the petitioner, at that point in time did not meet the eligibility criteria for grant of admission.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....25.01.2016, challenging the deletion of additions made under section 68 of the act on account of unexplained cash credit has been upheld.2. the factual matrix of the case giving rise to the present appeal is that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the act was initiated by the investigation wing of the department on 12.01.2011 in respect of the ita1862019 page 1 of 6 saluja group. cash and jewellery belonging to the respondent (hereinafter referred to as „assessee‟) was also found and seized from the residence of the assessee‟s father – mr. vinod saluja, in whose name the search warrant of authorization was issued. the satisfaction note was recorded by the assessing officer in this regard and a notice under section 153c read with section 153a was issued and served on the assessee. in response thereto, the assessee filed his return of income, declaring an income of rs. 4,97,608,70/-. the assessing officer (ao) after considering the explanation of the assessee treated the unsecured loans, in the sum of rs. 11,90,57,300/- as unexplained credit under section 68 of the act and made an addition to that effect. the assessment was completed under section 153c.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....order passed.2. respondent had filed the subject eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide necessity under section 14(1) (e) of delhi rent control act, 1958 with regard to one shop measuring 13’9” x 21’3” with loft measuring 14’ x 11’3” and verandah at property no.24, community centre, ashok vihar, phase- i, delhi, more particularly as shown in red colour in the site plan rc.rev.288/2013 page 1 of 3 annexed to the eviction petition.3. learned counsel for the petitioner under instructions from the petitioner who is present in court seeks leave to withdraw the petition.4.... petitioner who is present in court in person, undertakes that he shall vacate and handover the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent on or before 31.12.2020.... petitioner further undertakes that he shall pay use and occupation charges at the rate of rs. 15,000/- per month, with effect from 01.12.2019 till the time he hands over the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent on or before 31.12.2020.5.... petitioner further undertakes that he shall clear all water, electricity and other dues/charges.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....case is different from the co-accused against whom the allegations are serious in nature and who had shown the katta to the complainant and committed the offence.... petitioner is in j/c since 13.06.2019. she is no more required in the present case for the purpose of recovery. chargesheet has already been filed. even the charges are framed against the petitioner. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner is released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the leaned trial court subject to the condition that she will not contact and approach the victims. the bail application is disposed of accordingly. copy of the order be sent to learned trial court. copy of the order be also bail appl. 2435/2019 page no.2 of 3 given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner. brijesh sethi, j november14 2019 ap bail appl. 2435/2019 page no.3 of 3
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the3d respondent and issue appropriate direction as this honble court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity. this petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following:-"order learned counsel for the petitioner, learned aga for respondent nos.1 to 3 and respondent no.4 smt. anitha, are present before this court. 3 2. in this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.04.2016 annexure-x passed by third respondent and she also sought for an appropriate direction to be issued to respondents in the interest of justice.3. it is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has been appointed on 14.07.1994 as assistant teacher in government high school, halesorba, sorba taluk, shivamogga district. subsequent to her appointment, she reported to the duty on 18.7.1994 after completion of ba., b.ed., course, on the basis of physically handicapped quota under category ii. the copies of the medical certificate issued by ent surgeon, govt. mc-gann hospital, shivamogga, dated 27.06.1994 and the appointment order dated 14.07.1994 is produced before this court for perusal as per annexures- a and b. 4 4. it is further stated in the writ petition.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....relies upon the definition of “good faith” in section 2(h) of the limitation act to submit that the school was always conscious of the fact that the defendant had taken an objection as to the plaintiff’s locus to institute the suit as it was not a legal entity which had ownership of the premises in question. he submits that the written statement was filed in the intital stage of the suit itself and it has taken 20 years for the plaintif to seek amendment/impleadment of the society, and hence the the same cannot be said to be in good faith. it is further submitted by the ld. counsel for the defendant that the suit was abated in april, 2001 for non-impleadment of legal heirs of the defendant, and the abatement was only set aside in 2014. this shows that the plaintiff has not been prosecuting the suit with due diligence as also with care and attention.4. on the other hand, ld. counsel for the plaintiff- school submits that the initial claim was between employer and employee as the employee’s services had been terminated. however, during pendency of the suit, the application under order i rule 10 cpc was filed in order to avoid any technical objections. cm (m).....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a family court to the high court both on facts and on law. (2) no appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the family court with the consent of the parties or from an order passed under chapter ix of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a high court or any order passed under chapter ix of the code of criminal procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the family courts (amendment) act, 1991. (3) every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the judgment or order of a family court. (4) the high court may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which the family court situate within its jurisdiction passed an order under chapter ix of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order, not being an interlocutory order, and, as to the regularity of such proceeding. (5) except.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT