Court : Allahabad
1. The present special has been filed against the judgment and order dated 23rd September 2010 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the present appellants has been dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows: 3. Shri Ram Janki Inter College, situate in Sarokhanpur, Badlapur in district Jaunpur, is a recognised and aided institution, which is governed by the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Education Act) and U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (24 of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as the 1971 Act). It has a Scheme of Administration duly approved by the Deputy Director of Education on 08.12.1962. After the U.P. Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1980 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1981) was enforced, the Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi vide letter dated 25.01.1985 effec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
1) Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2) This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 19/03/2011 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, by which order the application for amendment of the plaint filed by the petitioners came to be rejected.3) The facts involved in the above petition in brief can be stated thus - The petitioner-Trust was created by one Ganpatrao Pande. The petitioner-Trust was having its properties at several places the said properties included the property known as Ganesh Bhuvan, Civil Lines, Nagpur. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents herein are not at all concerned with the said property, Ganesh Bhuvan. It is further the case of the petitioners that the respondents entered into the said premises of Ganesh Bhuvan and took forcible possession of an area of 3000 sq.ft. on 05/05/2004. This resulted in, the plaintiffs-pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Aurangabad
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this writ petition, petitioner takes an exception to the order dated 2nd May 2011 passed by 5th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hingoli wherein the objection raised by the petitioner/judgment debtor in Execution Proceedings No.3 of 2011 was rejected. 3. Petitioner has filed a Civil Suit bearing No.96/2010 on 6.8.2010 for injunction in which it is prayed that the respondent/defendant be restrained from evicting the petitioner, without due process of law. It is the case of the petitioner that in the month of February 2000, respondent let out his house No.7 for rent of Rs.500/- per month and since then he is residing there as a tenant by paying amount of Rs.500/- from time to time without any arrears. Respondent in 2010, started disturbing the possession of the petitioner and directed him to vacate the premises. Respondent had entered the house and asked him to va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal TDSAT
S.B. SINHA FOR HIMSELF AND P. K. RASTOGI, MEMBER By reason of this application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for amendment of the petition. The petitioner is an UASL licensee, the licence having been granted by the Department of Telecommunication in terms of Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (The 1885 Act). 2. The parties herein entered into an Interconnection agreement. An Addenda to the said agreement was inserted on or about 28.02.2006 with retrospective effect from 14.11.2003. 3. The petitioner has filed the petition for setting aside the bills dated 15.10.2004 and 21.3.2005 as also disconnection notices dated 05.3.2008 and 02.02.2009. The said bills were issued inter-alia on the premise that the petitioner has wrongly routed its international calls as local calls. The matter was heard by this Tribunal. By a judgment and order dated 24.5.2010, the said bills were set aside, directing:- “For the foregoing reasons, we are al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2012(3)KLT51; 2012(2)KHC876; 2012(3)ILR(Ker)57; 2012(3)KLJ94
This revision petition has been filed against the judgment of the Court of the Additional District and Sessions (Ad-Hoc) Judge, Mavelikkara in Criminal Appeal No.415 of 2009. There is concurrent verdict of conviction and sentence against the revision petitioners under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Pending the revision petition the revision petitioners and the defacto complainant, the person on whom hurt was caused, compromised the case that ultimately led to the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioners. The compromise duly verified by the parties is brought on record by filing Crl.M.A.No.2665 of 2012 which carries the prayer for permission to compound the offence under section 324 IPC. 3. The question is whether the said petition for permission to compound the offence under section 324 IPC is allowable after the coming into force of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 25 of 2005) from 31.12.2009. If the answer is in the affirmative it would s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
I.P. MUKERJI, J. BASIC FACTS Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI Act) 2002 is a much dreaded Act. Under it the bank or a financial institution has enormous powers to sell the assets of a defaulting borrower and realise their debt without recourse to a court of law. Such a borrower happened to be Uniworth Apparel Limited, the third defendant. The bank or financial institution was I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. Now, this Act empowers such a lender to transfer or assign their rights in, the property of the borrower, mortgaged or pledged with them or given to them otherwise as security for the loan, in favour of purchasers. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. had such a right over the properties mentioned in Schedule I to Annexure ‘A’ of the plaint, belonging to the third defendant.The properties included immovable properties at plot no. A/606, TTC Industrial Area, MIDC, New Mumbai, Maharashtra. It appears that this bank had the right to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
#11 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 1386/2010 DR.GURCHARAN SINGH THIND ..... Petitioner Through Ms. Panchajanya B. Singh with Mr. Mahavir Singh, Advocate versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS. Through ..... Respondents Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel for R-1/CBI. Mr. Saleem Ahmed, ASC with SI Vikas Kundu, PS Connaught Place for R-2/State. Mr. Jayant Tripathi, Advocate for R-3. Mr. Mansoor Ali, Advocate for respondent No.4-NDMC. Date of Decision:16. h November, 2012 % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN JUDGMENT MANMOHAN, J.(Oral) 1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. by a retired NDMC doctor, who claims to be a whistle blower. Petitioner states that he has filed the present petition to expose rampant corruption and criminal misconduct prevailing in NDMC.2. It is stated that in 2008, petitioner read newspaper reports regarding raids conducted by the Central Bureau of Investig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE:02. 04.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR CRP (NPD) No.1056 of 2013 Anthonysamy .. Petitioner ..Vs..1. Christoraj 2. Leela Mary .. Respondents Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 25.09.2012 passed in I.A.No.20 of 2012 in AS 1 /2011 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, dismissing the IA No.20 of 2012 filed by the petitioner seeking to amend the plaint filed in OS.No.9 of 2005 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Ariyalur. For Petitioner : Mr.Thirupathiraj O R D E R Being aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.20 of 2012 dated 25.09.2012 in A.S.No.11 of 2011 filed under Order 41 Rule 3 CPC and under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiff has filed the Civil Revision Petition. Provision, Order 41 Rule 3, CPC is extracted hereunder. "Rejection or amendment of memorandum (1) Where the memorandum of appeal is not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION1SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.24 OF2014In Re: Indian Woman says gang-raped on orders of Village Court published in Business & Financial News dated 23.01.2014 JUDGMENT P.Sathasivam, CJI.1) This Court, based on the news item published in the Business and Financial News dated 23.01.2014 relating to the gang-rape of a 20 year old woman of Subalpur Village, P.S. Labpur, District Birbhum, State of West Bengal on the intervening night of 20/21.01.2014 on the orders of community panchayat as punishment for having relationship with a man from a different community, by order dated 24.01.2014, took suo motu action and directed the District Judge, Birbhum District, West Bengal to inspect the place of occurrence and submit a report to this Court within a period of one week from that date.2) Pursuant to the direction dated 24.01.2014, the District Judge, Birbhum District, West Bengal along with the Chief Judicial Magi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Civil Revision No.2618 of 2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2618 of 2012 Date of decision: August 4th 2014. Ajit Singh Zakhmi ..Petitioner versus Smt. Nirmal Jindal ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON Argued by: Mr.P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent. *** Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. In this revision petition refusal to amend the written statement of the tenant, during pendency of the appeal preferred by him against his eviction, in an eviction petition which had been preferred by the respondent- landlord under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the 'Act').is under challenge. It has been claimed by the tenant that on the death of respondent-landlord, inter-alia, ground of personal necessity has become redundant and thus amendment in the written statement bringing all these facts was necessary and that the same has bee...
Tag this Judgment!