Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR49
The Mahomedan law does not regard the office of Kazi as hereditary, that is to say, no person can claim to be a proper Kazi merely because he is the son or other descendant of a previous Kazi. A custom by which certain Kazi families hereditarily officiate as the Kazis of a village is invalid, as being opposed to Mahommedan law, so far as regards any claim to hereditary and exclusive right to officiate as Kazi at marriaga contracts, divorces and religions ceremonies.Fawcett, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, as representative of the Kazi community of Pawas, sets up an exclusive right of officiating at weddings, funerals and other roligious ritos amongst the Mussalmans of Pawas. Recently there appears to have been a dispute in connection with the Darga of this village between two sects of Muhammadans there, namely the Kazis and Dakhanis, and admittedly, until this dispute arose, the Kazi community of Pawas has, for a large number of years, as held by the two lower Courts, exercised this r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1971SC22; [1971(21)FLR201]; 1971LabIC1; (1970)IILLJ416SC; (1970)3SCC259
G.K. Mitter, J.1. These five appeals are by special leave from the judgment and order of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab dated September 1, 1965. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's applications under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act for grant of permission to dismiss five employees of the company. They arose in the following circumstances.2. The appellant is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture of cement with its registered office at Charkhi Dadri, District Mohindergarh. The respondents are all workmen employed by the appellant. One of them, Murari Lal Bikaneria, respondent in Appeal No. 968 of 1966 was, suspended by way of punishment for four days from May 26, 1964 by the appellant on the ground of serious acts of misconduct relating to falsifying the records of the company. This was referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal Punjab and the appellant's action was upheld by an award dated May 24, 1965 published in the Punjab Government Gazette on J...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2007(5)KarLJ393; ILR2007(3)Kar3755; 2007(5)AIRKarR257; AIR2007NOC2234
ORDERV. Gopala Gowda, J.1. The first petitioner is the KSRTC Staff & Workers Federation and the 2nd petitioner is the Secretary of Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Fund and an employee of KSRTC. They have filed this writ petition seeking the following prayers:33. Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may, after calling for the records, be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other proper writ or order or direction quashing the Government Order dated 23/2/1997 bearing No. HTD 127 TRA 96 dated 22/2/1997 and RTD TRA 96 dated 7/8/1997 produced as Annexures-A and B respectively, and to direct the Government to take all other steps for improving the well being of the KSRTC, as pointed out by various Committees of Legislature. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue further direction quashing the Notification dt. 10/9/1997 bearing No. HTD 127 TRA 96; Notification dt.29/5/1999 bearing No. HTD 127 TRA 96 and the Notification dated 4/8/2000 bearing No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : AIR1999Raj22; 1999(2)WLC218; 1998(1)WLN88
ORDERA.S. Godara, J. 1. This Revision Petition has been preferred under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short 'the CPC') against the appellate order dated 7-2-96 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Rajsamand in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3/91 thereby setting aside the order dated 13-8-87 passed in Civil Misc. Case No. 10/87 by the then Munsif, Bhim in Civil Original Case No. 33/75. 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that the plaintiff Udai Singh (since deceased), whose sons, widow and daughter are petitioners before this Court, brought a suit for pre-emption of the agricultural land which was sold by the defendant-non-petitioner Vijay Singh to the defendant-non-petitioners Man Singh and Keshar Singh who are real brothers and are residents of Village Sadaran, before the trial Court on 10-2-75. The summonses were accordingly issued to the defendant-non-petitioners for their appearance on 8-8-75. The summonses so issued to the defendant-non-petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1975P& H265
Bal Raj Tuli, J. 1. The petitioner. Shri Baldev Rai Guliani. was recruited to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) as a result of his success in the competitive examination held in June, 1954. He was appointed as Subordinate Judse IV Class on February 27, 1956 and was conferred powers of Subordinate Judge I Class in 1957. He was confirmed as a member of the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial) with effect from October 26. 1957, vide order dated March 17. 1961. He was allowed to cross the Efficiency Bar with effect from February 27, 1964, vide order dated February 2. 1965.2. The petitioner was posted as Subordinate Judge-cum-Magistrate I Class. Amloh, District Patiala from May 28. 1964 to May 18. 1965, and the Bar Association of that place sent certain complaints against his integrity to the High Court which were entrusted to Shri Gurbachan Singh, District Judge, for a fact-finding enquiry by letter dated may 11, 1965. On the report of Shri Gurbachan Singh the High Court came to the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE20H DAY OF FEBRUARY20141ST PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 5001 of 2014 (A) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- 1. M.G.SURESH, AGED62YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN, MULLOTH HOUSE, CHAKKARAPARAMBU, THAMMANAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.2. K.S.LIJU, AGED35YEARS, S/O.SURESH, MULLOTH HOUSE, CHAKKARAPARAMBU, THAMMANAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REGIONAL OFFICE, (REGION IV), PADMABHAVAN BUILDING, OPP. KSRTC BUILDING, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER/CHIEF MANAGER.2. THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, KARIPUZHA BRANCH ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 690 103. BY ADV.SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.SATHISH NINAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2002-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWIN...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2013 20TH ASHADHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 16904 of 2013 (K) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- THOMAS JOHN AGED 7 YEARS S/O THOMMAN THOMAS, TADAPPANMAKEEL HOUSE ALAPPUZHA VILLAGE, CULLEN ROAD, ALAPPUZHA 011. BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. UNION BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MULLACKAL BRANCH KABEER PLAZA, CCNB ROAD, ALAPPUZHA 011. 2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, STATUE, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 001. R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP,SC, UBI BY SRI.NIDHI SAM JOHNS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16904 of 2013 (K) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE PHOTOSTATCOPY OF THE NOTIC...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ 63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision :29. h September, 2014 % + CS(OS) 1057/2011 M/S P.P. JEWELLERS ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms.Mamta Jha and Ms.Kritika Seth, Advocates versus PP GOLD CONSULTANCY PVT LTD Through ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair competition, dilution, rendition of accounts of profits, damages and delivery up.2. Summons in the suit and notice in the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, were issued on 04.05.2011, 22.07.2011 and 16.11.2011. Since the defendant could not be served in the ordinary way an application under Order V Rule 20 CPC was filed by the plaintiff, which application was allowed and defendant was served by way of publication. Despite service none appeared for the defendant, consequently defendant was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 13.02.2012 and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~ 63 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision :29. h September, 2014 % + CS(OS) 1057/2011 M/S P.P. JEWELLERS ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms.Mamta Jha and Ms.Kritika Seth, Advocates versus PP GOLD CONSULTANCY PVT LTD Through ..... Defendant CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANI, J.(ORAL) 1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair competition, dilution, rendition of accounts of profits, damages and delivery up.2. Summons in the suit and notice in the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, were issued on 04.05.2011, 22.07.2011 and 16.11.2011. Since the defendant could not be served in the ordinary way an application under Order V Rule 20 CPC was filed by the plaintiff, which application was allowed and defendant was served by way of publication. Despite service none appeared for the defendant, consequently defendant was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 13.02.2012 and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Eldred v. Bank - 84 U.S. 545 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Eldred v. Bank, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 545 545 (1873) Eldred v. Bank 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 545 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN Syllabus 1. The Court adheres to the doctrine that a judgment on a note or contract merges the note or contract, and that no other suit can be maintained on the same instrument. 2. Such a judgment, when binding personally, can be introduced in evidence and relied on as a bar to a second suit on the note. Page 84 U. S. 546 3. When a defendant has filed a plea to the merits and afterwards, by leave of the court, withdraws his plea, that does not withdraw his appearance, and he is still in court so as to be bound personally by a judgment rendered against him in the action. 4. Special circumstances of an alleged misleading of the court and opposite counsel by a statement of counsel considered as a reason for refusing to reverse a judgment manifestly erroneous and found to be...
Tag this Judgment!