Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1992Bom50; 1991(1)MhLj989
ORDER1. This is a caveator's Petition for reviewing the order dated 16th March 1990, under which probate was granted to the respondents who were the petitioners in the original Petition No. 233 of 1984 i.e. plaintiffs in Suit No. 5 of 1985. The parties will hereafter be referred to according to the position in Suit No. 5 of 1985. Suit No. 5 of 1985 (earlier filed as Petition No, 233 of 1984) was for probate of the propounded will dated 6th July 1982 of one Vishwas Vithal Tawade. Vishwas Vithal Tawade died on 31st August 1982 leaving behind his children as his heirs. Plaintiff No. 1 is the son of the deceased. The defendant (present applicant) is also one of the sons of the deceased. The defendant filed the Caveat and challenged the Will. The matter was heard ex parte on 16th March 1990 in the absence of the defendant and on evidence being taken the Caveat stood dismissed and probate was ordered to be issued to the plaintiff on his complying with the office requisitions of the Prothonot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2000(2)BomCR293
ORDERB.N. Srikrishna, J.1. These two petitions are in the nature of public interest litigation, the first at the instance of a journalist from Pune and the second at the instance of a Corporator of Pune Municipal Corporation. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution broadly challenge the action of the first respondent, the State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Pune Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'P.M.C') in grantingbuilding permission to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for construction of a building on Final Plot No. 110, Erandwana, Pune. The petitions also allege that the action of the Commissioner of P.M.C. was at the behest of respondent No. 5 who was the Chief Minister of the Government of Maharashtra at the material time and contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.R.T.P. Act'). It is contended that the said buildings permission is not only illegal, but also vitiated as it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2000)126PLR592
M.L. Singhal, J.1. Smt. Sardhi (widow of Harnama Jat) was owner of land measuring 49 kanal 18 marla situated in the area of village Dharamkot as entered in Jamabandi of 1977-78 and described in the heading of the plaint. Ramji Dass Chela Mahant Badri Dass alias Malha Ram of village Dharamkot filed suit for possession of this land as owner against Gurdwara Singh Sabha Dharamkot through its President Shri Kirpal Singh and Dera Ramdhan Lohgarh through Mahant Sant Ram Dass on the allegations, that Smt. Sardhi used to reside with him. He was serving her. He served her to the fullest. He was her Mukhtare-am. He used to manage the property of Smt. Sardhi. He had been paying her land revenue. Smt. Sardhi had executed a registered will in his favour on 12.4.71 constituting him as her sole heir while in sought disposing mind. Defendants in collusion with the revenue authorities got the suit land mutated in their favour. Smt. Sardhi had never executed and will thereafter nor she had cancelled the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2007(3)ARBLR194(Delhi); 2007(97)DRJ213
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 1996 Act) praying for the setting aside of the award dated 07.05.1998 published by the respondent No. 2 (Mr. H.C. Bhardwaj) who was the sole arbitrator.2. The applicant, Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (THDC) called for bids for the work of Coffer Dam, Package B for quarrying, transporting and placement of shell materials. The bids were received by THDC on 20.01.1994. Lanco Construction Limited (LCL) (respondent No. 1 herein) was one of the parties who responded to the tender. LCL's bid was accepted by THDC. A letter of Intent was issued to LCL by THDC on 10.11.1994. Thereafter, certain other letters were issued. The formal contract was entered into between the parties on 05.01.1995 for initial amount of Rs. 8.38 crores. The schedule of items covered under the contract included item 3 which was as under:3. Quarrying from Dobata borrow area, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2005)ILLJ1092Guj
H.K. Rathod, J.1. Heard learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza with Mr. Sunil K. Shah for the appellant and Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned advocate for the respondent. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged the oral judgment dated July 8, 1997 delivered by the learned Single Judge (Coram : S.K. Keshote, J.) in Special Civil Application NO. 4121 of 1984. Brief facts are as under:Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?2. Initially, the respondent bank called explanation from the appellant by letter dated November 24, 1978 in respect of the alleged incident. The appellant JAGDISHCHANDRA MAGANLAL TRIVEDI had received charge sheet dated January 24, 1981 when he was working as Branch Manager in State Bank of India, Borsad Branch. Alleged incident is dated October 7, 1978. In charge sheet, following charges were levelled against the appellant :'(a) A shortage of cash amounting to Rs.55,000.00 in the currency chest balance at the branch and its repl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2004(2)Raj867; 2003(4)WLC486
S.K. Keshote, J.1. This special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed by the appellants against the judgment dated 9th December, 2002 of the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3955/1999. Under that judgment the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner respondent in the matter of the disciplinary proceedings.2. The petitioner respondent in the writ petition prayed for following prayers,'It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to allow this writ petition and may further be pleaded:-(i) to quash the impugned orders dated 13.01.1999 and - 05. 1999 (Annexures & respectively) with all consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner;(ii) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service and to allow and pay him all consequential service benefits to the petitioner forthwith;(iii) to issue any other writ/order direc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.1. Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. 22263-22264 of 2012.2. These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2012 of the High Court of Delhi passed in Review Petition No.102 of 2012; and the order dated 1.2.2012 in Writ Petition No. 4207 of 2011. By way of this order the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the Union of India – respondent no.1 against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the ‘Tribunal’), raising a very large number of grievances. The appellant was running from pillar to post as he had been harassed and penalised for no fault of his own and has been awarded a punishment which is uncalled for. Thus, he had moved the Tribunal, High Court of Delhi and this Court several times.3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals and contempt petitions are as under:-A. The appellant, an IPS Officer of 1982 batch joined the service on 1.9.1982, promoted on the post of D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
J.N. Sarma, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act. It has been filed against the judgment dated 23-6-1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. Nagaon in Title Suit No. 19/1995.2. It is alleged that a 'will' was left by one Suryamal Hazarika and the beneficiary of that 'will' was the present appellant Rabindra Nath Hazarika. He filed an application before the learned District Judge at Nagaon for grant of Letters of Administration and in that case he did not make the heirs of late Suryamal Hazarika, party and accordingly the Letters of Administration was issued ex parte. Thereafter, the daughter of late Suryamal Hazarika filed an application for revocation of Letters of Administration issued by the Court that has registered as Misc (J) case No. 92 of 1992, that was allowed and the Letters of Administration which was granted earlier was revoked.Thereafter the present application was proceeded before the learned District Judge at Nagaon for gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 1998(3)KarLJ634
1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dated 6-4-1991 passed in O.S. No. 3 of 1987 on the file of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chintamani. In passing the said Judgment and decree the Civil Judge was pleased to decree the suit in part. 2. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri P. Subba Rao and the learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Padubidri Raghavendra Rao. I have also perused the case records including the case records of the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani, hereinafter referred to for convenience as the Civil Judge. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-- The appellants herein are the L.Rs of the original plaintiff by name K.R. Rajalakshmi Devi. The appellants 1 and 2 are her sons and the appellant 3 is her husband. The original plaintiff-Rajalakshmi Devi died on 26-12-1987 during the pendency of the suit. She had filed originally O.S. No. 5 of 1973 before the Court of Civil Judge, Kolar, as against h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : 2007(II)OLR780
A.K. Ganguly, C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed by Smt. Sadin Meher, wife of late Pahilman @ Chittaranjan Meher, praying for an investigation of the case arising out of death of her husband either by the Central Bureau of Investigation or by the Crime Branch. The case which has been made out is that the petitioner's husband was working as a mechanic in Niranjan Motor Garage. On 15.2.2001 the petitioner's husband Chittaranjan did not return from the garage at night and the petitioner thought that he might be busy in his work. Next morning the petitioner with her elder son went to Niranjan Motor Garage to find out what had happened and then came to know from the owner of the garage that her husband had been arrested by the police as he committed theft. On being so informed, the petitioner went to the Police Station, namely, Barapalli Police Station and asked the OIC of the Police Station about her husband, but she did not get any answer. Feeling helpless, she came back to her hous...
Tag this Judgment!