| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1144103 |
| Court | Karnataka High Court |
| Decided On | Jan-21-2014 |
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) |
| Judge | ANAND BYRAREDDY |
| Appellant | V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others |
| Respondent | indira Viveknand and Others |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123](prayer: this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india praying to direct the trial court to take up lac 83/1987 vide annx-c) for early hearing to consider enhancement of compensation u/s 18 of the land acquisition act and dispose of the case on merits at the earliest with specified time limits.) 1. the limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed. 2. it is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of mahalakshmi residential layout under a notification of the year 1977. the amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard......Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court'include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:', (int) 4 => '<p> Judgment when pronounced.-', (int) 5 => '<p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 6 => '<p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 7 => '<p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.', (int) 8 => '<p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.', (int) 9 => '<p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:', (int) 10 => '<p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.', (int) 11 => '<p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)
1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:', (int) 4 => '<p> Judgment when pronounced.-', (int) 5 => '<p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 6 => '<p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 7 => '<p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.', (int) 8 => '<p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.', (int) 9 => '<p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:', (int) 10 => '<p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.', (int) 11 => '<p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:', (int) 4 => '<p> Judgment when pronounced.-', (int) 5 => '<p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 6 => '<p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 7 => '<p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.', (int) 8 => '<p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.', (int) 9 => '<p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:', (int) 10 => '<p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.', (int) 11 => '<p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:', (int) 4 => '<p> Judgment when pronounced.-', (int) 5 => '<p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 6 => '<p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 7 => '<p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.', (int) 8 => '<p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.', (int) 9 => '<p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:', (int) 10 => '<p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.', (int) 11 => '<p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:', (int) 4 => '<p> Judgment when pronounced.-', (int) 5 => '<p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 6 => '<p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 7 => '<p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.', (int) 8 => '<p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.', (int) 9 => '<p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:', (int) 10 => '<p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.', (int) 11 => '<p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Judgment when pronounced.-
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:', (int) 4 => '<p> Judgment when pronounced.-', (int) 5 => '<p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 6 => '<p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 7 => '<p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.', (int) 8 => '<p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.', (int) 9 => '<p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:', (int) 10 => '<p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.', (int) 11 => '<p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
(1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:', (int) 4 => '<p> Judgment when pronounced.-', (int) 5 => '<p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 6 => '<p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 7 => '<p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.', (int) 8 => '<p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.', (int) 9 => '<p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:', (int) 10 => '<p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.', (int) 11 => '<p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:', (int) 4 => '<p> Judgment when pronounced.-', (int) 5 => '<p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 6 => '<p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 7 => '<p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.', (int) 8 => '<p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.', (int) 9 => '<p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:', (int) 10 => '<p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.', (int) 11 => '<p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:', (int) 4 => '<p> Judgment when pronounced.-', (int) 5 => '<p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 6 => '<p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 7 => '<p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.', (int) 8 => '<p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.', (int) 9 => '<p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:', (int) 10 => '<p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.', (int) 11 => '<p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
(2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:', (int) 4 => '<p> Judgment when pronounced.-', (int) 5 => '<p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 6 => '<p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 7 => '<p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.', (int) 8 => '<p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.', (int) 9 => '<p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:', (int) 10 => '<p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.', (int) 11 => '<p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 9include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
(3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:', (int) 4 => '<p> Judgment when pronounced.-', (int) 5 => '<p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 6 => '<p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 7 => '<p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.', (int) 8 => '<p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.', (int) 9 => '<p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:', (int) 10 => '<p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.', (int) 11 => '<p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 10include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:', (int) 4 => '<p> Judgment when pronounced.-', (int) 5 => '<p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 6 => '<p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 7 => '<p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.', (int) 8 => '<p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.', (int) 9 => '<p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:', (int) 10 => '<p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.', (int) 11 => '<p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 11include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'V Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs Indira Viveknand and Others - Citation 1144103 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1144103', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Writ Petition No. 2705 of 2014 (LA-RES) ', 'appellant' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'V. Chandra Manikyavelu Since Deceased by Lrs and Others Vs. Indira Viveknand and Others', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Karnataka', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2014-01-21', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'ANAND BYRAREDDY', 'judgement' => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.</p><p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.</p><p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.</p><p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:</p><p> Judgment when pronounced.-</p><p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:</p><p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.</p><p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.</p><p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:</p><p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.</p><p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'indira Viveknand and Others', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $args = array( (int) 0 => '1144103', (int) 1 => 'v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/1144103/v-chandra-manikyavelu-since-deceased-lrs-vs-indira-viveknand' $ctype = ' High Court' $content = array( (int) 0 => '<p>(Prayer: This Writ Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 And 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Direct The Trial Court To Take Up Lac 83/1987 Vide Annx-C) For Early Hearing To Consider Enhancement Of Compensation U/S 18 Of The Land Acquisition Act and Dispose Of The Case On Merits At The Earliest With Specified Time Limits.)<p> 1. The limited prayer of the petitioners is to the effect that they have reached a ripe old age and it is one of the concerns on which the present petition is filed.', (int) 1 => '<p> 2. It is their case that they are land owners whose lands have been acquired for extension of Mahalakshmi Residential Layout under a notification of the year 1977. The amounts awarded as compensation were disputed and were resolved at a Mediation and an agreement was filed in that regard. Thereafter the award amount having been deposited, the petitioners have sought for enhancement of the compensation.', (int) 2 => '<p> 3. Insofar as the entitlement is concerned, respondents 1 and 2 have resisted the claim and the matter was referred to the Civil Court which has adjudicated on the matter and has, after a prolonged enquiry, reserved the case for judgment in case No. LAC 83/1987 on 26/3/2013. Thereafter on 7/6/2013, the matter was listed before the court for further hearing. After having heard the parties, the matter was again posted for judgment on 8/7/2013 and thereafter posted on the following dates consecutively: 20/7/2013, 29/7/2013, 5/8/2013, 16/8/2013, 7/9/2013, 12/9/2013, 27/9/2013, 10/10/2013, 21/10/2013, 25/10/2013, 6/11/2013, 19/11/2013, 2/12/2013, 10/12/2013 and to 9/1/2014. As on date, the fate of the matter, is not known. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court and would pray that there be a direction to the Court below that the judgment be rendered in the lifetime of these petitioners, as they are well past 90 and may not live to see the judgment, if it is delayed any further.', (int) 3 => '<p> 4. In this background, it is to be noticed that it is possible that the Court below is hard pressed for time, on account of the pressure of work, in rendering judgment. But it is to be kept in view that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which should guide the courts in their performance, specifically lays down at Order XX Rule (1), as follows:', (int) 4 => '<p> Judgment when pronounced.-', (int) 5 => '<p> (1) The Court, after the case has been heard, shall pronounce judgment in open Court, either at once or, as soon thereafter as may be practicable, on some future day, and when the judgment is to be pronounced on some future day, the Court shall fix a day for that purpose, of which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 6 => '<p> Provided that where the judgment is not pronounced at once, every endeavour shall be made by the Court to pronounce the judgment within fifteen days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do, the Court shall fix a future day for the pronouncement of the judgment, and such day shall not ordinarily be a day beyond thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case of the case was concluded, and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders:', (int) 7 => '<p> Provided further that, where a judgment is not pronounced within thirty days from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded, the Court shall record the reasons for such delay and shall fix a future day on which the judgment will be pronounced and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given to the parties or their pleaders.', (int) 8 => '<p> (2) Where a written judgment is to be pronounced, it shall be sufficient if the findings of the Court on each issue and the final order passed in the case are read out and it shall not be necessary for the Court to read out the whole judgment.', (int) 9 => '<p> (3) The judgment may be pronounced by dictation in open Court to a shorthand writer if the Judge is specially empowered by the High Court in this behalf:', (int) 10 => '<p> Provided that, where the judgment is pronounced by dictation in open Court, the transcript of the judgment so pronounced shall, after making such correction therein as may be necessary, be signed by the Judge, bear the date on which it was pronounced, and form a part of the record.', (int) 11 => '<p> 5. This court is also aware that the above provision is observed more in the breach. However, it ought not to remain the order of the day. Therefore it is requested of the Court below to expedite the delivery of the judgment at the earliest, in any event, within a period of two weeks, if not earlier, from the date of receipt of this order. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.', (int) 12 => '' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 13 $i = (int) 12include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109