Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Govt. of NCT of Delh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:9. h October, 2013 % + WP (C) No.4770/2012 & CM Nos. 9869/2012 (for stay), 11129/2012 (for impleadment), 16545/2012 (for intervention/impleadment), 16845/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment), 16882/2012 (for intervention/ impleadment) DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ANR. ......Petitioners Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Shyam Sharma, Mr.Mohit Gupta, Mr.Amit Saxena, Ms. Laxmi Chauhan, Advs. Mr.J.P. Sengh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Mohit Mathur, P-2 in WP (C) No.4770/2012 in person and Ms. Sandhya Gupta & Mr.Ritesh Singh, Advs. Mr. Amit Khemka, Adv. with Ms. Sanorita D. Bharali, Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Advs. for New Delhi Bar Association, Rohini Bar Association & Dwarka Bar Association for applicants in CM Nos.16545/2012, 16845/2012 & 16882/2012. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ......Respondents Through : Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Nakul Dewan, Mr. J.M. Kalia, Mr. Raghav Shankar & Ms.Bhawna Garg, Advs. for Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
R.M. Borde, J. 1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. The petitioner is seeking a writ, order or direction to the State of Maharashtra for refund of entire amount of court fees to such of the litigants including the petitioner who have presented proceedings in the Civil Court and those proceedings have been disposed of in adaptation of any of the modes prescribed under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner also seeks to quash notification dated 08.05.2013, issued by Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra, bearing No.HCA.2010/C.R.87/D19, issued under Section 43(2) of the Maharashtra Court Fees Act, 1959, on the ground that the notification is contrary to provisions of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 read with Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that Respondent No.2 has no authority in law to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. The petition is filed to challenge the order made on Exhibit 43 from Regular Civil Suit No.181/2012 which is pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon. The said suit is filed by the present petitioner for relief of partition of joint Hindu family property against brother-in-law and others. Husband of the petitioner is dead and so she has claimed the share of her husband from the joint Hindu family property. The application at Exhibit 43 was filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint on the ground that present petitioner, plaintiff has not paid requisite court fees on the claim. The petitioner has not paid court fees as she is claiming that she is exempted from the payment of Court fees in view of the Government Notifications issued in this regard. The trial Court has held that the subject matter of the suit, the relief of partition, is not covered by the said Government Notifications and so the application is allowed and the petitioner is directed to pay...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIA CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION CIVILAPPEALNO.14874OF2017 (ARISINGOUTOFSLP(C)No.19445of2004) REPORTABLE STATEOFUTTARAKHAND&ORS. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS KUMAONSTONECRUSHER ...RESPONDENT WITHC.A. No.14446/2017 @ SLP(C) No.3189/2012 C.A. No.14448/2017 @ SLP(C) No.1675/2012 C.A. No.14922/2017 @ SLP(C) No.8713/2008 C.A. No.14924/2017 @ SLP(C) No.10601/2008 C.A. No.14923/2017 @ SLP(C) No.9523/2008 C.A. No.14920/2017 @ SLP(C) No.6959/2008 C.A. No.14921/2017 @ SLP(C) No.6958/2008 C.A. No.14452/2017 @ SLP(C) No.950/2012 C.A. No.14453/2017 @ SLP(C) No.1031/2012 C.A. No.14464/2017 @ SLP(C) No.948/2012 C.A. No.14465/2017 @ SLP(C) No.1169/2012 C.A. No.14468/2017 @ SLP(C) No.1197/2012 C.A. No.14469-14476/2017 @ SLP(C) No.2213-2220/2012 T.P.(C) No.76/2012 T.P.(C) No.77/2012 C.A. No.14485/2017 @ SLP(C) No.1697/2012 C.A. No.14486/2017 @ SLP(C) No.2082/2012 C.A. No.14492/2017 @ SLP(C) No.2236/2012 C.A. No.14493/2017 @ SLP(C) No.2081/2012 C.A. No.14495/2017 @ SLP(C) No.2399/2012 C.A. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(4)ALLMR331; (2000)102BOMLR925a
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. The Petitioner has filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the Respondents to enter the correct date of birth of the Petitioner in the service record as 15.5.1934 instead of 15.5.1930. His request for correction of the date of birth was rejected by the Respondents on 14th February, 1990.2. The Petitioner was working as Mazdoor in the Bombay Housing & Area Development Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). He was employed in the Board in 1959 as daily-wage-mazdoor. Thereafter he was absorbed in work-charged establishment in 1963 again as a mazdoor. He was made permanent from 1.4.1970. He has studied upto Standard VII. He appeared for the Standard VII in 1952, but failed. He has done his schooling from Jeevan Shikshan Vidya Mandir, Vechle, Dist. Satara upto Standard IV and then from Zilla Parishad School, Kodoli, Dist. Satara and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(4)ALLMR831; 2000(4)BomCR624; 2000(4)MhLj492
ORDERA.M. Khanwilkar, J.1. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides.2. Briefly stated, the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 instituted suit before the Court of 6th Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nagpur, bearing R.C.S. No. 102 of 2000, praying for declaration that they are the owners in respect of the suit land and for mandatory injunction. A preliminary objection was raised before the trial Court, at the instance of the applicant herein. The trial Court, by order dated 17th February, 2000 held that the plaintiffs ought to revalue the suit as per section 6(iv)(d) of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 and affix the necessary Court fees on or before 24-2-2000. The Counsel for the respondents states that the respondents have complied with these directions. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the applicant disputes this position. It is, however, not necessary to examine this aspect of the matter.3. The respondents later on filed review petition before the trial Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2001(3)ALLMR51; (2002)104BOMLR220a
S.D. Gundewar, J.1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.8.1999 passed by the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Amravati, whereby respondent No. 2 has been held as senior to petitioner No. 2.2. A few facts insofar as they are relevant, may be stated as below:The petitioner No. 2 Gangadhar Sheshrao Dandale was born on 20.8.1945. He was appointed as assistant teacher in Shri Bahrain Maharaj Vidyalaya, Mardi, Tahsil Tiwsa, District Amravati, on 1.7.1972. At the time of his appointment as assistant teacher, the petitioner No. 2 was under graduate and while in service he improved his qualification and passed his B.S.C Examination on 13.7.1974 and B.Ed. on 26.5.1976.Respondent No. 2 - Shankar Manikrao Wankhede was born on 5.5.1946. He was also appointed as assistant teacher in the aforesaid school on 1.7.1972. At the time of his appointment as assistant teacher, the respondent No. 2 was untrained graduate. He also passed his B.Ed. Examination on 26.5.1976.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)104BOMLR111
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes himself as father of the detenu - Mohammed Rauf Yusuf Qureshi has impugned the order dated 25.5.2001 passed by the first respondent Mr. M.N. Singh, Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay detaining the detenu under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (No. LV of 1981) (Amendment - 1996).The detention order along with the grounds of detention which are also dated 25.5.2001 was served on the detenu on 29.5.2001 and their true copies are being annexed as Annexures A and B respectively to this petition.2. A perusal of the grounds of detention (Exhibit B) would show that the impugned order is founded on two C.Rs. and two in-camera statements. The C.Rs. referred to in the grounds of detention are C.R. No. 85 of 2001 under Sections 397, 342 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)104BOMLR303
Vishnu Sahai, J.1. Through this writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who describes himself as the brother-in-law of the detenu Shravankumar Vaishnav @ Kailash has challenged the order dated 17.10.1998 passed by the 2nd Respondent Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, (Preventive Detention) Mantralaya, Mumbai 32, detaining the detenu under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974).The detention order along with the grounds of detention, which are also dated 17.10.1998, was served on the detenu on 19.6.2000 and their true copies are annexed as Annexures 'A' and 'B' respectively to this petition.2. The prejudicial activities of the detenu prompting the 2nd respondent to issue the impugned order are contained in the grounds of detention (Annexure 'B').Since in our Judgment a reference to them is not necessary for the adjudication...
Tag this Judgment!