Abraham Rowna Vs. Union of India and ors

Abraham Rowna vs Union of India and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Oct 10, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/921855

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/921855
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Decided On: Oct 10, 2011
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

C-101, Vasundhara Apartments, Dwarka, New Delhi was purchased by the defendant in the name of the plaintiff and for her benefit. Regarding property at L-4, Connaught Place, New Delhi, it is alleged that the plaintiff has no right in the aforesaid property which belongs to the defendant. Since the defendant is willin...

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abraham Rowna

Respondent

Union of India and ors

Excerpt

c-101, vasundhara apartments, dwarka, new delhi was purchased by the defendant in the name of the plaintiff and for her benefit. regarding property at l-4, connaught place, new delhi, it is alleged that the plaintiff has no right in the aforesaid property which belongs to the defendant. since the defendant is willing to give half of the rental income from the aforesaid house to the plaintiff after deducting the expenditure incurred on its upkeep and maintenance, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of rendition of accounts with respect to the rental income earned by the defendant from h.no.670, ajit singh nagar mohali phase-ii, punjab. .....earlier. learned counsel for the petitioner sought time. one week time is granted for filing supplementary affidavit. (prakash tatia, c j) (jaya roy, j)alankar/sudhir/-in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi cont. case (cv.) no. 89 of 2011 abraham rowna... ...... ... ... ..... petitioner respondentsversus the union of india & ors ..... ------coram:hon'ble the chief justice hon'ble mrs. justice jaya roy ----for the petitioner : mr. r.p. sinha for the respondent : m/s faizur rahman, c.g.c -----dated 10th october, 2011this court vide order dated 23.08.2010 in w.p.(s) no. 897 of 2010 directed the respondents to give serious thought to the case of the writ petitioner as and when his case come for consideration. the present contempt petition has been filed alleging that in spite of the order of this court, the case of the petitioner has not been considered. counter has been submitted with annexure-a conveying that the cases have been considered and it was found that it is not possible to consider any of the left over officers included in the zone of consideration for the select list year 2005 for promotion to the ias against one leftover vacancy due to nonappointment of pramod kumar sharma, who had retired from state civil service on the date of issue of notification in respect of said select list, particularly that vacancy has been made use of in the subsequent select list years as indicated in paragraph 4 of the communication annexure a dated8.12.2010 itself. since a decision has been taken and if the writ petitioner has any grievance then the proper course would have been to challenge the order dated 23.08.2010. no relief can be granted in this contempt petition.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 312 of 2008 Rookmania Devi... ...... ... ... ..... Petitioner Respondents

Versus Ideal Financing Industries & Anr. ..... ------CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ----For the Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Ojha For the Respondent : Mr. Order No. 03 -----Dated 10th October, 2011

The Office objection is that the petitioner has not submitted supplementary affidavit stating therein that he has not move restoration application earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought time. One week time is granted for filing supplementary affidavit. (Prakash Tatia, C J) (Jaya Roy, J)

Alankar/Sudhir/-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cont. Case (Cv.) No. 89 of 2011 Abraham Rowna... ...... ... ... ..... Petitioner Respondents

Versus The Union of India & Ors ..... ------CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY ----For the Petitioner : Mr. R.P. Sinha For the Respondent : M/s Faizur Rahman, C.G.C -----Dated 10th October, 2011

This Court vide order dated 23.08.2010 in W.P.(S) No. 897 of 2010 directed the respondents to give serious thought to the case of the writ petitioner as and when his case come for consideration. The present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging that in spite of the order of this Court, the case of the petitioner has not been considered. Counter has been submitted with Annexure-A conveying that the cases have been considered and it was found that it is not possible to consider any of the left over officers included in the zone of consideration for the Select List year 2005 for promotion to the IAS against one leftover vacancy due to nonappointment of Pramod Kumar Sharma, who had retired from State Civil Service on the date of issue of notification in respect of said Select List, particularly that vacancy has been made use of in the subsequent select list years as indicated in paragraph 4 of the Communication Annexure A dated

8.12.2010 itself. Since a decision has been taken and if the writ petitioner has any grievance then the proper course would have been to challenge the order dated 23.08.2010. No relief can be granted in this contempt petition.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2011 Same Parties Abraham Rowna vs Union of India and ors Same Subject Education

Education