.....got power to appoint executive officer. he would further submit that the judgment in dr.subramanian swamy's case (supra), has no application to the facts of the present case, because that was a case relating to 'religious denomination', which enjoys a special status under article 26 of the constitution of india, whereas, the petitioner temple is not a 'religious denomination' temple. he would further submit that in dr.subramanian swamy's case (supra), the appointment of the executive officer came to be set aside on yet another ground, viz., the tenure of the enquiry officer had not been fixed. in this case, according to the learned special government pleader, the proposal is to appoint an executive officer for a period of one year. thus, none of the grounds in dr.subramanian swamy's case (supra) are available for the petitioner in the present case. therefore, according to the learned counsel, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.8. i have considered the above submissions.9. in my considered opinion, the issue relating to the power of the commissioner, hr & ce to appoint an executive officer is no more res integra in view of the elaborate judgment rendered by the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....criminal petition no.596 of2012order: this petition is filed to quash f.i.r. no.552 of 2011 of station house officer, meerpet, cyberabad.2. brief facts leading to this petition are as follows: second respondent herein filed a private complaint under section 200 cr.p.c. before ii metropolitan magistrate, cyberabad at l.b.nagar and the court forwarded the said complaint to station house officer, meerpet under section 156 (3) cr.p.c. for investigation and on that, concerned police registered it as crime no.552 of 2011 and issued f.i.r. aggrieved by the registration of f.i.r., a.3 filed this petition on the ground that averments in the complaint do not attract any of the offences referred in the complaint.3. heard both sides.4. advocate for petitioner submitted that the role of petitioner is only introducing the complainant to a.1, except that she had nothing to do with the transaction or the mortgage over the property. he further submitted that the petitioner is a close relative of complainant and as a known person, she has informed the complainant about the availability of plots at sri nilaya town ship, badangpet and there is no material attracting the offences under sections.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....to as the ("act") arising from the order of the tribunal dated 21.7.2004 in which following questions have been raised:â "1 -whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case the income tax appellate tribunal was correct in law not upholding the order of the assessing officer wherein the addition on account of under invoiced sales of kattha amounting to rs.1,24,300/- was made on the basis of material in the shape of loose papers found and seized by the department at the time of search? 2 -whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the income tax appellate tribunal was correct in deleting the addition made by a.o. on account of unexplained investment in plant and machinery and factory building amounting to rs.1,01,345/- and rs.3,77,982/- respectively, observing that no documents in this regard was found during the course of search ignoring the finding and observation of the assessing officer that information leading to undisclosed investment was very much in his possession? 3 -whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the income tax appellate tribunal was correct in deleting the additions made by the a.o. on account of unexplained investment in plant.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....(petition no. 593/2010). 5. as both the revision petitions, represented by the same set of lawyers, involve same question of law based on identical facts, for the sake of convenience and as agreed to by the leaned counsel, appearing for both the parties, i propose to dispose of both the revision petitions aforesaid by this common order. 6. the predecessor in interest of the respondents in both the cases instituted title suit no. 16/2007 against shri harendra ojha (i.e. the petitioner in c.r.p no. 150/2013) and shri kaushal singh, (i.e. the petitioner in crp no. 159/2013), seeking a decree for declaration of right, title, interest and for recovery of khaspossession by removing the defendants aforesaid, in respect of the suit land, on the ground that the defendants forcefully occupied the same. subsequently, the plaintiffs, by filing amendment petitions, amended the plaint in t.s. no. 16 of 2007 and the plaint in t.s. no. 17 of 2007 on 08.02.2010 and brought on record the challenge to the sale deeds no. 2192/1984 and no. 408 of 1979, alleged to be executed by the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land in favour of the defendants. 7. the defendants, by filing their respective.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....(petition no. 593/2010). 5. as both the revision petitions, represented by the same set of lawyers, involve same question of law based on identical facts, for the sake of convenience and as agreed to by the leaned counsel, appearing for both the parties, i propose to dispose of both the revision petitions aforesaid by this common order. 6. the predecessor in interest of the respondents in both the cases instituted title suit no. 16/2007 against shri harendra ojha (i.e. the petitioner in c.r.p no. 150/2013) and shri kaushal singh, (i.e. the petitioner in crp no. 159/2013), seeking a decree for declaration of right, title, interest and for recovery of khaspossession by removing the defendants aforesaid, in respect of the suit land, on the ground that the defendants forcefully occupied the same. subsequently, the plaintiffs, by filing amendment petitions, amended the plaint in t.s. no. 16 of 2007 and the plaint in t.s. no. 17 of 2007 on 08.02.2010 and brought on record the challenge to the sale deeds no. 2192/1984 and no. 408 of 1979, alleged to be executed by the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land in favour of the defendants. 7. the defendants, by filing their respective.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....market value of property in transaction of sale deed. it is also true that market value does not mean circle rate itself but it is only a guiding factor. the collector has to determine market value taking into account various factors. in the case in hand the collector has simply referred to circle rate and in a mechanical way, passed impugned orders. 7. the question, as to what would be a market value came to be considered by a division bench of this court in kaka singh vs. additional collector and district magistrate (f and r), air 1986 all. 107 and it held: "we are inclined to think that the object of the amending act being to avoid large scale evasion of stamp duty, it is not meant to be applied in a matter of fact fashion and in a haphazard way. market value itself as we already mentioned, is a changing factor and will depend on various circumstances and matters relevant to the consideration. no exactitude is in the nature of things possible. in working the act, great caution should be taken in order that it may not work as an engine of oppression. having regard to the object of the act, we are inclined to think that normally the consideration stated as the market value in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....under section 14(2) of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the act ) has been terminated. 2. background facts leading to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that a tender was invited on 17-1-2011 by the director general of police with a view to procure a software solution, namely, integrated data management system. the respondent submitted its bid, which was accepted, and a purchase order dated 4-10-2011 was issued by the assistant inspector general of police on behalf of the inspector general of police. thereafter, an agreement dated 9-11-2011 was executed between the governor of madhya pradesh and the respondent. the agreement was signed by the director general of police on behalf of the governor of madhya pradesh and the respondent. clause 21 of the agreement provides that any dispute between the parties to the agreement shall be referred to the arbitration of director general of police, madhya pradesh whose decision thereon shall be final and binding on the parties. a show cause notice dated 1-3-2013 was issued by the assistant inspector general of police on behalf of the director general of police to the respondent on.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....by additional sessions judge, neemuch in sessions trial no.60/12 framing charges for offence u/s.306 of the ipc against the petitioner. 2. brief facts necessary for elucidation are that on 01.01.2011 sarpanch radheshyam of village athawakala received an information that there was a dead body lying near the balaji temple near the jungle. the body belongs to an un known male person and merg was registered at no.21/11 under section 174 of the cr.p.c. the dead body was identified by the family members to be kamlesh s/o heeralal sharma; aged 40 years, resident of khajuria, police station ratangarh, district-neemuch. the merg intimation upon being investigated, it was found that the deceased kamlesh had a wife bhanvaribai, son sanjay, brother nandkishore and cousin prahalad sharma and gulab gurjer. the deceased kamlesh was a driver by profession and had a dispute with the owner of the truck radheshyam (present petitioner). the quarrel arose between his employer and kamlesh regarding the account at the petrol pump at ratangarh and the petitioner had issued threats, as a result of which, it was alleged that kamlesh committed suicide on 29.10.2011. the postmortem was conducted and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in none of these cases, plaintiff was bound by the deed. 13. counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the full bench judgment of this court in the matter of sunil radhelia and others vs. avadh narayan and others reported in 2011(1) jlj 71 but that does not deal with the fact situation existing in the present case, therefore, it is distinguishable on its own fact. counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance upon the single bench judgment of this court in the matter of farooq vs. prahalad and another reported in 2011 rn 313 but that is not a judgment on the issue of court fee, but it is a judgment relating to the right to transfer the land without permission of the collector. in this regard, the trial court has rightly observed that the validity of sale is subject matter of the trial of the suit . 14. in these circumstances, it is found that the order which is passed by the trial court, is just and proper and no case for interference in the present writ petition is made out. the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....this procedure is not unknown. this is an intra court appeal within the meaning of clause 15 of the letters patent. the decision was rendered under order vii rule 10 and 11 wherein the learned single judge dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. appellant filed the appeal treating it as an appeal from order that should have been an appeal from decree. the respondent would contend, they cautioned the appellant at the admission stage. yet the appellant was callous. the appeal appeared for hearing before us when the appellant realized their mistake and sought an adjournment to make the present application for amendment that was in effect, correction of such mistake. the appellant prayed for amendment of the cause title and the body of the memorandum of appeal limited to the mistake referred to above. the respondents contested the application by filing affidavits. mr. jishnu chowdhury learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended, he did not have any specific instruction as to whether the respondent cautioned the appellant at the admission stage. he frankly confessed, the counsel appearing for the appellants realized their mistake when appeal was listed for hearing......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT