.....to wp (c) no.1643/2017 page 2 of 5 take the respondent back in service, as pleaded in its written statement before the labour court overlooks the fact that in the very same written statement, the school also took a simultaneous plea that the respondent had already attained the age of 60 years and could, therefore, not be reinstated. the second plea of the petitioner is also equally unmerited as the petitioner was not able to lead any evidence before the labour court in support of its plea that the letters allegedly sent to the respondent asking her to rejoin service, were ever served on her. it is thus, evident that both the submissions of the petitioner are wholly unmerited and the petitioner was only trying to take these false pleas to somehow defeat the rights of the respondent as available to her under the law.6. in view of the settled legal position that a writ court, while exercising its power under article 227 of the constitution of india, is only exercising supervisory power and is not expected to reappreciate the evidence led before the labour court unless some perversity is pointed out. reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the supreme court in.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....paragraph nor elsewhere in the plaint is there any averment, of the property having been bought out of the known sources of the plaintiff. in fact, the plaintiff has not even pleaded his income of the year in which the property was purchased. though under section 3(2)(a) of the act as it earlier existed, the provisions of the act did not apply where the property was proved to be for the benefit of the wife but the legislature having made the change aforesaid, for a plaintiff to be entitled to make a claim in contravention of the law, it is essential for the plaintiff to make a specific plea, of the consideration of the property having been provided out of the known sources of the plaintiff.10. the legislature has sought to balance out the law prevalent since earlier time in india, of benami transactions, and the laws prohibiting concealment of income. thus, before a plea out of the net of benami property can be entertained, it is necessary for the plaintiff to plead and prove that, the consideration for purchase, though in name of wife, had flown from the known sources of income of the plaintiff.11. the senior counsel for the plaintiff has referred to manoj arora vs. mamta.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....for the balance amount of ₹6,00,000/- (rupees six lakhs) i.e. for ₹3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs) each are handed over to the respondent no.2 today in the court.8. the complainant is present in person with her counsel and has been identified by si – sumitra sharma and submits that matter has been settled and she does not wish to prosecute the matter any further.9. 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 petitioners any further. crl.m.c.4855/2019 page 2 of 3 10. for the reasons afore-recorded, the fir no.487/2015 dated 12.04.2015 registered at police station – rajouri garden and consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.11. the petition is allowed accordingly.12. order dasti, under the signature of court master. (suresh kumar kait) judge october01 2019 pb crl.m.c.4855/2019 page 3 of 3
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....had filed the subject eviction petition seeking rc.rev.603/2016 page 1 of 3 eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bonafide necessity under section 14(1) (e) of delhi rent control act, 1958 from one room/store on the ground floor along with right of entire inside wala dalan with kothri adjacent to the dalan on the ground floor and common open courtyard and common toilet situated at property no.2192, gali nal wali, pahari bhojia, bazar chitii qabar, turkman gate, delhi - 110 006, more particularly as shown in red 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 in person, 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 30.09.2020.... petitioner further undertakes that he shall pay rs. 5000/- per month as use and occupation charges till the time he hands over the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondent on or before 30.09.2020.5.... petitioner further undertakes.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....including the question whether it is maintainable or not. however, the proceedings initiated by the io under section 83 cr.p.c. cannot be stayed at this stage. the respondent is carrying out the proceedings as per law and no interference is required from this court in this regard. there are no grounds to quash the order of the ld. asj/special judge pc act-02 dated 26.09.2019 and notice dated 27.09.2019 issued by the io.5. in view of the above facts and more particularly the fact that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner stands dismissed by the hon’ble supreme court on 26.06.2019, the present petition for quashing of the order passed by ld. asj/special judge pc act- 02 dated 26.09.2019 and notice dated 27.09.2019 issued by the io in pursuance of the proceedings under section 83 cr.p.c. stands dismissed. brijesh sethi, j october01 2019 ak wp(crl.) 2830/2019 page 4 of 4
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....such dismissal becomes inoperative by virtue of contravention of section 33(2)(b), payment of full backwages is not automatic as the same depends on facts of each case and the industrial tribunal should also consider the reasons for awarding full backwages or for that matter lesser backwages and give its own reasons.20. the above discussions lead to the following discussions: i. payment of full backwages is not automatic on labour court/tribunal granting reinstatement of workman. ii. the same principle is equally applicable in case an order of dismissal is set aside by the labour court/tribunal on the ground of non-compliance of section 25f of the i.d. act. iii. the labour court/tribunal shall give reasons for determining the specified quantum of backwages. iv. the burden is on the workman to show that he is entitled to full backwages or to a reasonable backwages and he is not gainfully employed during the period he was not in service of the management. v. once materials are placed by workman on the above, the burden shifts on to the management to disprove such claim. vi. in the event, the labour court/tribunal fails to give any reason to quantify backwages, the high court can go.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....22nd september 2019.2. notice. notice is accepted by learned standing counsel for the respondent.3. given the urgency of the matter in light of the fact that the delhi judicial services (mains) exam is to be held on 12th and 13th october 2019, these w.p.(c) 10592/2019 and connected matters page 4 of 30 petitions have been heard finally today itself with the consent of the parties.4. the court straightway takes up for discussion the answer keys to 15 questions that have been challenged by these... petitioners. it must only be noticed at this stage that in a departure from the practice adopted earlier where before declaring the results of the djs preliminary exams the answer keys would be published on the website of the delhi high court and objections invited, this time with a view to adhering to a deadline of completing the entire examination and selection process before the end of february 2020 as undertaken by the high court before the supreme court of india in proceedings arising in civil appeal no.1867 of 2006 (malik mazhar sultan v. u.p. public services commission) the high court dispensed with the publishing of the answer keys prior to the declaration of the result.5. as it.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....no.2 with the intervention of their well wishers and relatives entered into an amicable settlement and settled all their disputes amicably.8. the complainant is present in person with her counsel and has been identified by si sanjeet singh of police station rajouri garden and submits that matter has been settled and she does not wish to prosecute the matter any further.9. 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 petitioners any further.10. for the reasons afore-recorded, the fir no.921/2016 dated 17.12.2016 registered at police station rajouri garden and consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed. crl.m.c. 5045/2019 page 2 of 3 11. the petition is allowed accordingly.12. order dasti, under the signature of court master. (suresh kumar kait) judge october01 2019 ms crl.m.c. 5045/2019 page 3 of 3
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....passed.2.... respondents had filed the subject eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioners, on the ground of bonafide necessity under section 14(1) (e) of the delhi rent control act, 1958, from shop no.1973, ward no.xi, ground floor, kant wali building, kalan mahal, darya ganj, new delhi-110002, more particularly shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the eviction petition.3. learned senior counsel for the petitioners, under instructions from the petitioners, seeks leave to withdraw the petition.4. learned senior counsel for the petitioners undertakes on behalf of the petitioners that they shall vacate and handover the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondents on or before 31.12.2020.... petitioners further undertake that they shall pay rs.3500/- per month as use and occupation charges with effect from 01.10.2019 till the time they hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the respondents on or before 31.12.2020. rc.rev. 584/2019 page 2 of 3 5.... petitioners further undertake that the petitioners shall clear all water, electricity and other dues/charges in respect of the tenanted premises before.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....that the... petitioner no.1 retired from the government services voluntarily with effect from 31.01.2013. it is also not in dispute that he is, in fact, running his clinic from the rear of the tenanted shops.40.... petitioners along with the other dependent family members are residing in the subject property and if they seek to open their commercial ventures from the subject property, the same cannot be denied. a tenant cannot dictate to the landlord that he must open his commercial venture from a place far away from his/her residence. the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and has full opportunity to decide as to in what manner and how the property is to be used and which property is more suitable for his requirement.41. further, it has been consistently held that non-disclosure of accommodation which is neither suitable nor alternative to the tenanted premises does non-suit the petitioner.42. with regard to the property at shivaji marg, it has been stated that it has always been rented and the rental from the said property is a source of income for the family of petitioner no.2. apart from this, it may be kept in mind that the need expressed is of six persons who.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT