Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 2005(4)CHN1
bhaskar bhattacharya, j.1. this appeal is at the instance of a landlord in a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payments of rent, subletting, changing the nature of user of the premises and also on the ground of causing nuisance and annoyance to the landlord and the neighbours and is preferred against the decree of dismissal of the suit.2. the present appellant filed the aforesaid suit for eviction of the respondent on the ground of default in payment of rent from july, 1980. her further allegation was that the flat in question was let out to defendant exclusively for residential purpose but the defendant was using the said flat or a portion thereof for the purpose of photographic business for more than four months without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. the plaintiff further alleged that the premises were in occupation of the plaintiff herself and several other tenants and all of them used their respective portions only for residential purpose but as a business of photographic studio was being carried on in the suit premises, the frequent visit of the outsiders throughout the day was causing serious disturbance and inconvenience to the other tenants and the plaintiff herself. it was further alleged that after coming into operation of the west bengal premises tenancy act, the defendant had transferred or sublet the flat or portion thereof to one mrs. n. r. sengupta without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff.3. the aforesaid suit was contested by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice v.chitambaresh monday, the 7th day of january 2013 17th pousha 193 wp(c).no. 21841 of 2012 (e) --------------------------- petitioner(s): ------------- dr. bikky mammen, aged 3 years s/o.dr. mammen thomas, modayil house, devikulam idukki district-685613. by adv. sri.s.jiji respondent(s): -------------- 1. kerala state electricity board reprpesented by its secretary, vydyuthi bhavan pattom, thiruvananthapuram, pin-695004.2. the executive engineer electrical division, kerala state electricity board kattappana, idukki dist.685515.3. the assistant executive engineer electrical sub division, chithirapuram idukki dist.685565.4. the assistantg engineer electrical section, rajakumari, idukki dist.685619.5. the deputy thahasildar (rr) nedumkandom, idukki district-685553.6. the village officer pooppara village, pooppara p.o. idukki district-685619. by adv. sri.jaice jacob,sc,kerala state electricity board by senior government pleader sri. p.m. saneer this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on 07-01-2013, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c) no. 21841/2012 appendix petitioner(s) exhibits exhibit p1: true copy of the minimum guarantee agreement dated 27 8.1998 entered into between the 1st respondent and the manager of the petitioner exhibit p2: true copy of the provisional invoice card exhibit p3: true copy of the appeal dated 10 12.2003 exhibit p4: true copy of the installment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
..... she was also a resource person in archeology for the university of calicut and as question paper setter for archeology in m.g.university.4. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
..... this information should not only be in paper form in the nature of a plan, but should also be in the form of 3d visual information, in the nature of photographs, videos etc.22. ..... this information should not only be in paper form in the nature of a plan, but should also be in the form of 3d visual information, in the nature of photographs, videos etc.24. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
..... only those candidates who secure at least the minimum qualifying marks in the computer based examination (tier-i) and descriptive paper (tier-ii), as may be fixed by the commission at its discretion, will be called for typing test. ..... appeal respectively read as under: 13.3 typing test for ldc/ jsa and postal assistant/ sorting assistant: typing test will be conducted for those candidates who qualify in the computer based examination (tier-i) and descriptive paper (tier-ii). .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1997)(92)ELT692TriDel
..... bagasse is a residue when the cane is crushed to obtain cane juice.it is generally used as fuel although it had also uses in the manufacture of paper. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2000)(122)ELT881Tri(Mum.)bai
..... the appellant manufactures aseptic packaging made by laminating plastic with paper and aluminium. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... 280 the marshal to execute such warrants in respect to seizures made by him or by the officers of the customs and to prevent the enforcement of the process issued in this case, filed in the district court the following paper: "the united states" "v. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
..... this power, davis went to little rock, and on 3 march, 1843, put the receipt above mentioned upon the back of the bond for $1,898.25, paid in goods, and on the same day executed the following paper, viz. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1923All577; (1923)ILR45All548
pramada charan banerji and gokul prasad, jj.1. this is an application for the revision of an order of the subordinate judge of gorakhpur dismissing the application made by the applicants for leave to sue as paupers. the claim was one for recovery of immovable property by right of inheritance. one of the defendants disputed the title of the plaintiffs to maintain the suit and also denied that the plaintiffs were paupers. the court below took evidence upon the question of the plaintiffs' title, and after considering that evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit. it also was of opinion that the plaintiffs' pauperism had not been established. on these grounds the application was rejected. the first contention before us is that the court in proceeding to try the question of the plaintiffs' title exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law. in our opinion this contention is well-founded. order xxxiii of the first schedule to the code of civil procedure jays down the procedure to be followed upon an application being presented to the court for leave to sue as a, pauper. rule 5 of that order specifies the grounds upon which the application may be rejected, and one of those grounds, as mentioned in clause (d) of the rule, is that the allegations do noli show a cause of action. rule 6 provides that if the court does not reject the application on any of the grounds mentioned in rule 5, it should proceed to take evidence upon the question .....
Tag this Judgment!