.....the fact that the petitioners had failed in some papers and, to qualify in those papers, they were required to take the supplementary exam. 3.1. the fact that the petitioners sat for the supplementary exam qua the papers in which they had failed is not in dispute. it is also not disputed by the university that the petitioners have passed the supplementary exam. the university’s objection is that though the petitioners qualified the supplementary exam, they did so after the cut-off date i.e. 31.08.2019. 3.2. it is in this context that the university takes the stand that on the cut-off date i.e. 31.08.2019 the petitioners did not possess the basic qualification i.e. did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. it is pertinent to note that the university permitted even those candidates to sit for 2019 ll.m. test whose result qua the ll.b. course had not been declared on the date when the 2019 ll.m. test was held. w.p.(c)nos.10629/2019 & 10639/2019 page 2 of 10 3.3. as noted above, the petitioners who fell in this category were allowed to take the 2019 ll.m. test which they, concededly, qualified. 3.4. given this position, the petitioners state that the fact that they cleared their.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....submits that the misuse charges as also the arrears have been reflected in terms of section 126 of the said act. she submits that in terms of section 127 of the act, no appeal is entertainable unless deposit of 50% of the assessed amount.6. learned counsel for the petitioner, without prejudice submits that petitioner shall deposit the 50% of the assessed amount in terms of section 127(2) of the act. however he prays that four weeks time be granted to deposit the amount. he further seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue his appeal before the appellate authority. w.p.(c) 11832/2019 page 2 of 3 7. subject to petitioner’s depositing 50% of the assessed amount with the respondent-ndmc within four weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner and the appeal of the petitioner would be entertained in accordance with law.8. 9. in view of the above, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. it is clarified that this court has neither considered nor commented on the merits of the case of either party. all rights and contentions of parties are reserved.10. order dasti under signatures of court master. sanjeev sachdeva, j november08 2019 ‘rs’.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....that the respondents have no objections to an arbitrator being appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. he further submits that in fact names of three nominee arbitrators were also suggested vide letter dated 11th june, 2019.4. learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that he does not consent to any one of the three names suggested by the respondent and submits that the matter be referred to the delhi international arbitration centre, (‘diac’) for arbitration between the parties.5. the parties are accordingly referred to diac for adjudication of their disputes. parties will appear before the diac on 18th december, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.6. the arbitration will be conducted under the aegis of diac as per its rules and procedure. arb.p. 654/2019 page 2 of 3 7. the learned arbitrator so appointed shall give disclosure under section 12 of the act, before entering upon reference.8. fee of the arbitrator shall be fixed as per fourth schedule of the act.9. learned counsel for the respondents at this stage submits that the respondents are also open to an amicable settlement of the disputes between the parties.10. needless to state that it is open to the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....a nigerian national, seeking an order to restrain the respondents from deporting him and to release him. page 1 of 3 w.p.(crl.) 3144-2019 2. the facts as mentioned in the writ petition are that on 14th june, 2017 the petitioner first came to india on a medical visa. learned counsel for petitioner states that the petitioner was in the process of applying for his visa extension which he could not renew due to financial crunch caused by long term medication. he further states that if the petitioner is deported at this stage, it would result in separating him from his indian live-in partner whom he was planning to marry very soon.3. the petitioner was taken into custody by respondent no.2 and since 23rd october, 2019 has been kept in the foreigners deportation camp (seva sedan, lampur, delhi).4. learned counsel for petitioner submits that the respondents neither issued a speaking order directing his detention at the deportation camp nor produced him before any court or issued any show cause notice asking him as to why he should not be deported. he also submits that a coordinate bench of this court in a similar matter being kalivi awomi & anr. vs. union of india & anr., w.p.(crl.).....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....case but said petition has not yet been allowed and jd has not been declared as insolvent. in my considered opinion, considering the totality of facts and circumstances and the background and way of life of the jds, no case is made out for adjourning the matter sine die. jds are directed to pay the decreetal amount and on their failure to pay the same, let the jds be sent to civil imprisonment for a period of 30 days on filing of pf and subsistence allowance. put up for further proceedings on 19.07.2019.” 6. thus, as per the above order, the court noted that defendant no.1 was living in a posh colony of safdarjung development area in new delhi. he has two sons, one of whom is settled in the u.s. his daughter-in-law works as the deputy director in derc. the other partner, i.e., defendant no.3 lives in panchsheel park. his son is in the business of auto-parts and lives in greater kailash. thus, the court did not accept the stand of the defendants that they do not have the wherewithal or capacity to pay. accordingly, the defendants were directed to pay the decretal amount or face arrest for thirty days.7. subsequent to this order, defendant no.2, i.e., the second partner,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....if this court inclines to quash the fir in the present petition, heavy cost may be imposed on both the parties.5. respondent no.2 accused is a manufacturer of gold ornaments from the gold received from different parties. besides this, he has no other business. therefore, keeping in view his financial position, i am refraining myself to impose any cost upon him.6. the petitioner is present in the court and has come forward to contribute a sum of ₹5 lacs for welfare purposes. accordingly, he is directed to pay an amount of ₹5 lacs within four weeks from today.7. from the aforesaid amount of ₹5 lacs, ₹ 1 lac shall be paid in favour of blind school, amar colony, new delhi;₹ 2 lacs shall be paid to delhi police martyr fund; ₹ 1 lac shall be paid to the blind school sewa kutir, kingsway camp, delhi and remaining ₹1 lac shall be paid to deaf & dumb welfare centre, gurgaon (haryana). receipts of the above payments shall be deposited by the petitioner with the io of the case within a week from the date of payment. in case the receipts are not filed by the petitioner, the io shall inform the court through the learned app.8. it is further made clear that in case the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....that the respondents have no objections to an arbitrator being appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. he further submits that in fact names of three nominee arbitrator were also suggested vide letter dated 11th june, 2019.4. learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that he does not consent to any one of the three names suggested by the respondent and submits that the matter be referred to the delhi international arbitration centre, (‘diac’) for arbitration between the parties.5. the parties are accordingly referred to diac for adjudication of their disputes. parties will appear before the diac on 18th december, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.6. the arbitration will be conducted under the aegis of diac as per its rules and procedure.7. the learned arbitrator so appointed shall give disclosure under section 12 of the act, before entering upon reference. arb.p. 647/2019 page 2 of 3 8.9. fee of the arbitrator shall be fixed as per fourth schedule of the act. learned counsel for the respondents at this stage submits that the respondents are also open to an amicable settlement of the disputes between the parties.10. needless to say that it is open for the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the tribunal should adopt and follow. question of law is accordingly answered. the appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. there would be no order as to costs.” 7. similar orders have been passed in several other decisions of this court cusaa492018 page 2 of 3 including forech india pvt. ltd v. commissioner of customs inland container depot, tughlakabad, new delhi, cus.a.a. no.67/2017, decided on 13.12.2017 and vipul overseas pvt. ltd. vs. commissioner of customs & ors., cusaa no.57 & 58 /2017, decided on 20.11.2017. following the above decisions, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the cestat, which shall proceed to examine and decide the merits of the appeal. the respondent/assessee’s right to contend that the show cause notice issued in this case were legally untenable, in view of the decision of this court in mangli impex (supra), are kept intact. in other words, the tribunal may hear the parties on the merits of the case as well as with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, if necessary, on account of mangli impex (supra) and record separate findings.the findings with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, if any, based on the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....requests that one seat could be reserved for her as she was not able to attend the w.p.(c)no.10655/2019 pg.5 of 9 counselling on account of the fact that her uncle had passed away on 02.09.2019 in nagaland. furthermore, the petitioner goes on to state that she would be able to return from nagaland only on 09.09.2019. 19.5. given this position, it can be fairly assumed that the letter dated 06.09.2019 was delivered to the university on or before 09.09.2019. the other aspect which emerges is that when the letter was delivered and the endorsements were made, the persons making the endorsements were of the view, if not fully, partially that the request made by the petitioner for grant of admission had merit. there is no answer by the university as to why as late as on 17.09.2019, respondent no.2 i.e. the dean would endorse the letter and say that the petitioner’s request may be “considered, if permissible within rules”.20. to my mind, the dean, faculty of law would know that the counselling date, whichever it was, had been crossed and therefore, could have simply rejected the representation. notably, neither the first endorser not the second endorser rejects the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....could not have been given the remark of ‘below target’ on three counts, annually i.e. for the entire year 2014- 15. notice was also taken of the fact that in the next performance year, the respondent had achieved ‘exceeding target’ and that in his entire career of 27 years, the respondent had never been rated as low as ‘4’. for the detailed reasons set out in the judgment, the learned single judge quashed the apar of 2014-15 as being a ‘downgraded’ acr not having been communicated, before the holding of dpc. direction has been given by the learned single judge to the appellants to promote the respondent from salary grade ‘d’ to the salary grade ‘e’ with retrospective effect, after ignoring the rating ‘4’ given for the year 2014-15, with all consequential benefits.16. aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have filed the present appeal.17. at the outset, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the direction given by the learned single judge to promote the respondent is not sustainable in law as it is not for the courts to direct promotion of any employee. at best, in case it is found that an employee has been wrongly.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT