Court : Jharkhand Ranchi
..... but the appointments made by the board on posts beyond 87 are held invalid. ..... therefore, strictly speaking, the board was not justified in making more than 62 appointments pursuant to the advertisement published on 02.11.1991 and the selection process which followed thereafter. ..... in the present case, as against the 62 advertised posts the board made appointments on 138 posts. ..... haryana state electricity board, reported in (1996) 4 scc 319 in paragraphs 23 to 26 as under:"23. ..... haryana state electricity board, (1996)4 scc 319. ..... but as the board could have taken into account not only the actual vacancies but also vacancies which were likely to arise because of recruitment etc. ..... the board through oversight had not taken them into consideration while a requisition was made for filling up 62 posts. ..... the vacancies which were likely to arise as a result of recruitment could have been reasonably anticipated by the board. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, i find that a passage in suit situated in between the houses of the plaintiffs in one side and the house of the defendant nos.1 & 2 on the other side is the subject matter of the suit. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
1. this petition was heard along with criminal writ petition no.1924 of 2010, which is being disposed of by separate order today. this petition has been filed by the son of co-accused nanki chellaram chellani. his mother is accused in crime registered as c.r.no.214 of 2009 at mahim police station for offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 470 r/w 120-b of the indian penal code.2. the petitioner states that his mother nanki chellani has since expired after she was released on bail. by this petition, the petitioner prays that the investigation of c.r.no.214/2009 be transferred to any other police station and to register criminal case against respondent no.4 inspector shri sunil chandugude and other police men and their associates who were investigating the crime registered as c.r.no.214 of 2009, as they are responsible for the death of his mother, who was falsely implicated, notwithstanding the fact that she was almost 84 years of age. this petition is another attempt to make false, frivolous and vexatious allegations against the police personnel who are investigating into the offence bearing c.r.no.214 of 2009. significantly, the petitioner's mother had filed criminal writ petition no.3226 of 2009 to espouse the cause of her grandson mahesh dua. the same was dismissed on 5th february, 2010 on the following terms: "1. in this petition, it is inter alia prayed that respondents 3 and 4 should direct production of petitioner's grandson mr.mahesh dua in the court. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. this application is directed against the order no.56 dated february 15, 1991 passed by the learned judge, city civil court, second bench, calcutta in misc. case no.993 of 1990 arising out of the title execution case no.120 of 1982. the short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the petitioners/decree holders obtained a decree for recovery of possession against the 8 defendants in respect of the suit properties mentioned in the schedule of the plaint of the title suit being title suit no.626 of 1979. that decree was put into execution by filing the execution application being title execution case no.120 of 1982. the opposite party filed an application under section 47 of the code of civil procedure contending, inter alia, that his father, narayan lal gupta, died 10 years back before the institution of the suit and so the decree obtained against the 8 defendants including narayan lal gupta is a nullity and the same is not executable. by the impugned order, the learned judge has allowed the misc. case accordingly. being aggrieved by such orders, this application has been preferred.now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.2. upon hearing the submission of the learned advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, i find that on april 6, 1979, the petitioners instituted a title suit no.626 of 1979 for recovery of possession on the ground of efflux of time of the lease granted for 21 years. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. this application is at the instance of the defendants / judgment debtors and is directed against the order no.15 dated july 27, 2010 passed by the learned civil judge (junior division), first court, bolpur in misc. case no.22 of 2009 arising out of title execution case no.2 of 2007 arising out of title suit no.75 of 2000.2. the short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of the application is that the plaintiff/opposite party herein instituted a title suit being title suit no.75 of 2000 against the petitioners for declaration of right, title and interest in the kha schedule property and also for recovery of khas possession of the kha schedule property and for other reliefs. while the opposite party put the decree obtained in the said suit for execution, the petitioners filed an application under section 47 of the code of civil procedure contending, inter alia, that the report submitted by the learned commissioner appointed in the suit does not tally with the suit property and as such, the same is erroneous and for that reason the suit property could not be identified. as such, the decree passed by the learned trial judge is unexecutable. the petitioners adduced evidence. thereafter, the learned executing court rejected the application under section 47 of the code of civil procedure. being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.3. upon hearing the submission of the learned advocate of both the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. this application is at the instance of the petitioner and is directed against the orders dated february 14, 2008 and march 13, 2008 passed by the learned civil judge (junior division), haldia in title suit no.235 of 1993 thereby granting the prayer for analogous hearing of this suit along with the other suit being title suit no.3 of 1994.2. the short fact is that the petitioner as plaintiff instituted a title suit being title suit no.235 of 1993 on october 7, 1993 in the court of the learned civil judge (junior division), haldia for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the opposite party in respect of 13 decimals of land out of 52 decimals of land in r.s. plot no.422/510, khatian no.108/1 within mouza-brajanath chawk under police station haldia. the petitioner has contended that the total 52 decimals of land in the plot in suit originally belonged to one himangshu sekhar maity who transferred the said land by a registered deed dated february 14, 1966 to one bijay krishna sahoo and the said bijay krishna sahoo subsequently transferred 26 decimals of land out of the said 52 decimals of land in the western side to the opposite party no.2 and he also transferred the rest 26 decimals of land in eastern part of the said plot in suit in favour of the opposite party nos.1 and 3 herein in equal share by way of registered deed of sale dated may 28, 1980. he delivered possession of the said land in favour of the vendees. thereafter, the opposite party nos.1 & 3 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
..... there is no dispute that the wife is, at present, residing at her fathers house. ..... the short fact is that the petitioner and the opposite party were married under the special marriage act in july, 1988. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. this application is at the instance of the defendant/respondent and is directed against the order no.9 dated february 4, 2011 passed by the learned additional district judge, seventh court, alipore in misc. appeal no.625 of 2010 thereby directing for demolition of the boundary wall alleged to have been constructed by the defendant/respondent/petitioner herein. the short fact is that the plaintiffs /appellants/opposite parties instituted a suit being title suit no.106 of 2010 before the learned civil judge (senior division), alipore against the petitioner praying for pre-emption under the mohammedan law, injunction and other reliefs. the petitioner is contesting the said application. at the time of filing of the said suit by the plaintiffs, they filed an application for temporary injunction and the learned trial judge did not grant any ad interim injunction as prayed for. the plaintiffs / opposite party filed a misc. appeal being misc. appeal no.625 of 2010 before the learned district judge and at that time, they moved an application for ad interim injunction. the learned district judge granted ad interim order of injunction and thereafter the said misc. appeal was transferred to the court of the learned additional district judge, seventh court, alipore. the plaintiffs contended that in spite of order of injunction passed by the learned district judge, the defendant/petitioner in violation of the said order, demolished the construction of the plaintiffs boundary wall, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. this application is at the instance of the defendant no.2 and is directed against the order no.150 dated september 10, 2008 passed by the learned civil judge (junior division), third court, medinipur, district paschim medinipur in title suit no.11 of 1986.2. the short fact necessary for the purpose of disposal of this application is that the plaintiff/opposite party no.1 herein instituted a title suit being title suit no.11 of 1986 against the petitioner and the opposite party nos.2 to 5 before the learned civil judge (junior division), third court, medinipur praying for a decree of declaration and other reliefs. the defendant no.2 entered appearance in the said suit and he is contesting the same by filing a written statement denying all the material averments made in the plaint. the suit proceeded accordingly. evidence on behalf of the plaintiff has been closed. thereafter, the d.w.1 was examined and discharged. at that stage, on march 5, 2008, the defendant no.2 filed an application praying for permission to file additional written statement. that application was rejected on contest. being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.3. upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record and the written notes of argument filed by the petitioner, i find that the plaintiff instituted the said suit over 18 decimals of land only in the year of 1986. since then, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata Appellate
1. this application is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against the order dated january 7, 2011 passed by the learned judge (senior division), second court at alipore, district south 24 parganas in title suit no.200 of 2008 thereby rejecting an application for amendment of the plaint filed by the plaintiff.2. the short fact is that the plaintiff instituted a suit being title suit no.200 of 2008 against the opposite party for a decree of declaration and other reliefs. the plaintiff has contended that there was an agreement for specific performance of contract in respect of a flat and a car parking space at a consideration money of rs.32,50,000/- and out of the said consideration money and an amount of rs.50,000/- only was paid by the petitioner to the opposite party as earnest money. the opposite party no.2 was a party to that agreement for sale but she did not sign thereon. the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and other reliefs at first. but, ultimately, he prayed for amendment of the plaint incorporating the relief for specific performance of contract and in consequence, the prayer for amendment of different clauses of the plaint. that application for amendment of the plaint was rejected by the impugned order. being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this application.3. now, the question is whether the learned trial judge was justified in rejecting the application for amendment of the plaint.4. upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and .....
Tag this Judgment!