Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR2004J& K74,2003(1)JKJ114
V.K. Jhanji, J.1. In this writ petition filed by the federation chamber of Industries, Kashmir, and the another, on behalf of as many as 1127 Small Scale and Medium Scale Industries Units situated in Kashmir, prayer made is to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, namely the Power Development Department of the State to the charge concessional rate of 4 paise per Unit from the Industrial Unit Holder of Kashmir in respect of Electricity supplied to them. The other prayer are that respondents be directly to supply electricity of requisite quantity quality on regular & uninterrupted basis, Charge rate for actual electricity supplied to and consumed by the Industrial Unit-Holders, charge electricity duty only on actual consumption and refund the excess amount charged, furnish monthly electricity bill and not charge interest on belated payments resulting from electricity department failure to furnish up to date monthly bills, not to charge higher/rent for Meter afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2004(1)JKJ187
Permod Kohli, J. 1. Through the medium of this application, condonation of delay of 382 days in filing review against the judgment dated 12.10.2000 passed in CSA No. 19/1994, is sought in the back-drop of following facts and circumstances:Applicant Smt. Rano Devi claims to be an illiterate poor lady belonging to backward area of village Makwal Tehsil Billawar, A suit for possession filed by Bodh Raj in respect to land measuring 57 kanals 13 marlas was decreed by Munsiff, Billawar on 28.8.1973. Execution Petition for execution of the aforesaid decree was contested on the ground of inexecutability of the decree. Plea of inexecutability prevailed with executing court resulting in dismissal of the petition on the ground of decree being against the provision of the J&K; Agrarian Reforms Act vide order dated 1.11.1975 of executing court. Appeal preferred by the decree holder succeeded before the District Judge, Kathua who remanded the case after setting aside the order of the executing court...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
1. A Preliminary Notification for acquiring land, including the lands of the; respondents, was issued on 24.02.1977. A final Notification for acquisition came to be issued thereafter on 02.08.1978. Consequent upon the acquisition of the lands, the Land Acquisition Collector rendered various awards for payment of compensation to the land-owners (including awards dated 26.02.1980. 25.05.1982 and 19.05. 1989).2. The respondents filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, before the Land Acquisition Collector, seeking enhancement of compensation. The Land Acquisition Collector, however, did not refer the applications filed by the respondents to the Reference Court. It is therefore, that the respondents approached the Reference Court directly by moving applications under Section I8(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. The said applications filed by the respondents were however dismissed purely on the basis of having been filed beyond the period of limitation.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The instant case has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 20.04.2011 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge(North), Delhi dismissing the Revision Petition and for setting aside the order dated 05.07.2010 passed in Criminal Complaint No.97/J/10 by the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.PC. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that, on 08.01.2008 Respondent No. 2, who is the elder son of the Petitioner, told the petitioner and his wife that he wanted to marry his first cousin, namely, Minakshi. The petitioner and his wife both opposed the alliance since Respondent No.3 is the daughter of the brother of the wife of petitioner, therefore, both fall within the "degree of prohibited relationship" as defined in clause (g) (iv) of Section 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. After about six months, Respondent No. 2 again repeated the same proposal. The petitioner was shocked that his own son h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 14th July, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No.8248/2009 and 8249/2011 in Arbitration Petition No.470/2009 and 471/2009 respectively. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is manifest that IA Nos. 5823/2011 and 5824/2011 have been jointly filed by the parties duly signed by them and their respective counsels supporting by the affidavit that the Court may allow payment of additional fee to the learned sole arbitrator in accordance with the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre (Arbitrators Fees) Rules, to be shared equally after deducting amount of Rs.2 lakhs which was the lump sum fee fixed by the Court in the two cases. After the joint applications were filed, the appellant herein sought to withdraw its consent and alleged bias against the learned arbitrator. 2. The learned Single Judge referred to the agreements entered into between the parties, the appointment of the arbitrator on 15.2.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~22 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 344/2019 Date of Decision:1. t April, 2019 DAVINDER SINGH DHINDSA ........ Petitioner Through: Mr. Siddhartha Shankar Ray, Mr. Abhik Kumar, Mr. Rinku Mathur, Advs. Mr. Suryadeep Singh, versus THE STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI) ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC, Ms. Jyoti Babbar, Adv with Insp. Pawan Kumar, PS IGI Airport. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL1 The present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.0196/2018, under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 registered at Police Station IGI Airport, New Delhi.2. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.04.2018 the petitioner along with his wife, son and sister was travelling from New Delhi to Canada; by China Southern Airlines bearing flight No.CZ-360 and W.P (CRL) 344/2019 Page 1 of 8 during the course of screening, One cartridg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision :29. 05.2019 + O.M.P. (T) (COMM.) 54/2019 & IAs 8116-8117/2019 G.S. DEVELOPERS & CONTRACTORS PVT.LTD. ........ Petitioner Through: Mr.Mohit Chaudhary, Mr.Kunal Sachdeva, Advs. versus ALPHA CORP DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. ........ RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Ayush Agrawal, Mr.Vikrant Singh, Mr.S.N.Samith, Mr.Debesh Panda, Mr.Mangesh, Mr.V.K.Verma, Advs. along with Mr.Praveen, AR. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J.(Oral) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for termination of the mandate of the Sole Arbitrator and for appointment of a Substitute Arbitrator in his place.2. The arbitration proceedings between the parties were earlier being conducted by the Arbitrator appointed by the respondent. The respondents unilaterally declared the mandate O.M.P. (T)(Comm.) Nos.54/2019 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 140(2007)DLT509; 2007(96)DRJ589
Anil Kumar, J. 1. The petitioners are the students of R.R. College of Pharmacy, respondent No. 3, and they have sought that Directorate of Distance Education, Institute of Advance Studies in Education, respondent No. 1, be approved by Pharmacy Council of India as the examination authority and direct respondent No. 1 to conduct the examination of the petitioners. 2. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 1 is Deemed University recognized by Ministry of Human Resource Development vide notification dated 25th June, 2002, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education in exercise of power conferred under Section 3 of University Grants Commission Act, 1956 declared Institute of Advance Studies in Education of Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Sardarshahar, Rajasthan as a Deemed University. By notification dated 17th July, 2003, respondent No. 1 was deemed to be a University with effect from 25th June, 2002. Respondent No. 1 was conferred the status of Deemed U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2000KAR277; 2000(2)KarLJ237
ORDER1. These matters involving common questions are heard together finally by consent, and disposed of by this order. In this order, the term 'Act' will refer to the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, the term 'Rules' will refer to the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1968, the term 'Market Committee' will refer to an Agricultural Produce Market Committee established under the Act, and the term 'Bye-laws' will refer to the Bye-laws framed by the respective Market Committees under Section 148 of the Act.2. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 31599 to 31628 of 1999 claim that they are licensed Weighmen under the Market Committee, Bidar. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 31629 to 31663 of 1999 claim that they arelicensed Weighmen under the Market Committee, Gadag. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 32573-32575 of 1999 claim that they are licensed Weighmen under the Market Committee, Mundaragi.3. The petitioners claim that the State Government formu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 134(2006)DLT225; 2006(92)DRJ346; 2006(112)ECC164; 2006LC164(Delhi); 2007(207)ELT55(Del)
S. Muralidhar, J.CM. No. 5803/20061. This writ petition was dismissed in default on 7.3.2006. The present application has been filed for the restoration of the said writ petition stating that matter was not noted in the list and since the learned Counsel for the petitioner was not present in Delhi, no representation was made on his behalf for seeking adjournment. An affidavit of the clerk of the learned Counsel has been filed. In view of the reasons stated in the said application, this application is allowed and the writ petition is restored.WP(C) 3906/19901. This writ petition challenges a notice dated 23.10.1990 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refund) requiring the petitioner to attend a hearing together with the documentary evidence in support of his claim for a refund of Rs. 1,13,293.20 along with interest.2. At the time of filing the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner was that Customs authorities had no power to demand proof from the petitioner for having...
Tag this Judgment!