Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2000]37CLA271(All); [2000]99CompCas262(All); (2000)1CompLJ42(All)
B.K. Rathi, J.1. I have heard Sri Kamal Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, R.P. Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1 and the learned A. G. A. for opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3.2. Opposite party No. 1 filed a complaint against the applicant under Section 630 of the Companies Act, 1956, on the allegation that the applicant was the employee of opposite party No. 1 and was given quarters in lieu of the same. That the services of the applicant have been terminated from May 23, 1999, but he has not vacated the quarters. That, therefore, the complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act was filed. The applicant raised two objections before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, where the complaint is pending.3. Firstly, he has alleged that the registered office of the company is at Calcutta and, therefore, the Calcutta High Court or the courts subordinate to it only have jurisdiction to try the complaint. The second contention is that there is an arbitra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : 2006(1)JKJ7
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.1. These appeals are outcome of an award passed by learned Presiding officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar in the claim petitioner titled as Abdul Qayoom Dar and Ors. v. National Insurance Co. and Ors., Safiya and Ors. v. National Insurance Co. and Ors., Mst. Raja Begum and Ors. v. National Insurance Co. and Ors., Mst. Jawa and Ors. v. National Insurance Co. and Ors., Mohammad Ayub Bhat v. Mohammad Aslam Khan and Ors. dated 29th November 2003, hereinafter, shall be referred as impugned award.2. The appellants have assailed the impugned award in all these appeals on the ground which can be aptly and precisely summarized as under:That the claimants/respondents have failed to prove that driver has driven the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No. 2166/JK04 rashly and negligently. That multiplier has been applied wrongly in all the claim petitions. The age of the petitioners/claimants should have been taken into consideration and not the age o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2005(1)BomCR58; 2005(101)ECC532; 2008[12]STR84; [2009]19STT203
Lodha R.M., J.1. By the order in original dated 31st October, 2003, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, petitioner's rebate claims were rejected. The petitioner received the said order in original on 20th December, 2003 and preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) on 28th April, 2004. By the impugned order dated 31st May, 2004 the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the appeal was not maintainable being barred by limitation prescribed under section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'Central Excise Act). The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).2. Mr. Hardik Modh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable by virtue of section 29(2) thereof to the appeal under section 35 of the Central Excise Act being special law and section 5 can be availed of for the purpose of extending the peri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(6)KarLJ43:2009(3)AIRKarR140:AIR2009N0C2181.
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.1. This appeal is by defendant, questioning the decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court, directing to vacate and hand over possession of suit schedule premises and to pay damages to the plaintiff.2. Facts which have given rise to this appeal, in a nutshell are:Respondent/plaintiff is a registered wakf. It owns a building complex at Ashoka Road, Mysore, consisting of shops, office accommodation, etc. It has leased shop Nos. 1 and 2 therein, on monthly rent of Rs. 75/- each, to appellant/defendant. Plaintiff had filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(a) & (h) of Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, against the defendant, which was disposed by holding that, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the petition schedule premises. Thereafter, terminating the tenancy of defendant, suit was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), at Mysore, to direct the defendant to deliver vacant possession of the schedule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2007KAR1175; 2007(4)KarLJ430; 2007(3)KCCR2118; 2007(3)AIRKarR50
ORDERS. Abdul Nazeer, J.1. In this case the petitioner has sought for an order directing the respondent to return all his belongings said to have been taken away by the respondent on 20.3.1999 from his house at Bangalore. He has sought for a further direction directing the respondent to deliver the said belongings to his present address or to his permanent address with an advance intimation to him to that effect.2. The brief facts of the case are as under;The petitioner had joined the respondent-Company in March 1980 as the Head of Personnel and Administration of Bangalore Complex. The respondent had transferred the petitioner from Bangalore to some other place. The transfer order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was terminated from the post of Deputy General Manager on certain charges. The said order was also challenged by the petitioner before this Court. Both the writ petitions were allowed by the learned single...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2002KAR2304; 2003(3)KarLJ505
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Respondents 1 to 6 were the petitioners and petitioners 1 and 2 were respondents 1(1) and 1(5) in HRC No. 10568 of 1994, on the file of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Respondents 7 to 13 herein were the respondents 1(2), 1(3), 1(4), 1(7), 1(8), 1(9) and 1(10) respectively in the said eviction petition. For convenience, respondents 1 to 6 will be referred to as 'landlords' and the petitioners 1 and 2 and respondents 7 to 13 will together be referred as 'tenants'.2. The said eviction petition was filed by the landlords against the tenants (the L.Rs of A. Rajagopal who was running Mercury Press in the petition schedule premises) under Section 21(1) proviso (h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short, the 'old HRC Act' or 'old Act'). The petition schedule premises is a non-residential premises, measuring more than 14 sq. nits. The said petition was allowed by order dated 17-11-2001 under proviso (h) to Section 21(1) of the said Act. Feeling aggr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2003)133PLR229
Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. Has the Executing Court erred in rejecting the objections filed by the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 357. This is the short question that arises for consideration in this revision petition. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.2. Smt. Parkash Rani Sharma filed a petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. It was decreed on August 27, 1994. She filed an execution petition for taking possession from Jiwan Ram, the tenant, in the demised premises, the present petitioner-Harkesh filed an application under Order 21 Rule 35 read with Section 151 on the ground that he was in possession of the property in dispute. He had not been made a party in the proceedings for eviction. Thus, he was not bound by the decree dated August 27, 1994. The claim as made by the petitioner was controverted by the respondent-landlady. Vide order dated January 18, 1996 the Executing Court rejected the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2006)144PLR529
S.S. Saron, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 14.6.2005 passed by learned Rent Controller, Chandigarh, whereby leave to contest the petition filed by the tenant-respondent under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (Act for short) has been granted. The landlord-petitioner assails the said order granting leave to contest.2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 13-A of the Act on 29.9.2004 seeking right to recover immediate possession of the premises in dispute on the ground that he is to retire from service of the Post & Telegraph Department 30.6.2005. Notice was issued and duly served on the respondent on 30.9.2004 for 8.11.2004. In the summons that were issued, it was mentioned that the tenant-respondent is required to get the leave to contest within a period of 15 days from the date of service of summons. The counsel for the respondent signed the power of attorney on 31.10.2004. However, since the report of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD137; 2007(4)ALT348; AIR2007NOC2064(FB)(AP)
G.S. Singhvi, C.J.1. On behalf of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Yethirajulu, the Hon'ble Justice G. Bhavani Prasad and himself).Issue under reference:Whether Section 32(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (for short, 'the Act') as brought into force by Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control (Amendment) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act') has effect on the cases pending on the date of its coming into force is the question referred for the consideration of the Larger Bench. The Background Facts:2. Section 32(b) of the Act, which exempted buildings constructed on or after 26-8-1957, was held unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court in Motor General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1984 SC 121. In order to fill up the void created by the said judgment with regard to provision for exemption of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2004(3)ALLMR867; 2004(4)BomCR725; 2004(3)MhLj378
A.S. Oka, J. 1. In both the petitions on 3rd July, 2003 notice for final disposal was issued. Accordingly both the petitions were extensively heard on 13th February, 2004 and the same were adjourned till today for Judgment.2. The facts of the case involved in both the petitions are more or less identical and therefore, both the petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common Judgment and Order. Since the facts in both the cases are identical, for the sake of convenience, reference has been made to the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 1971 of 2003.3. The petitioner is a tenant of the respondent No. 2 in respect of a shop premises at Karanja. The respondent No. 2 filed an application against the petitioner before the Rent Controller, Mangrulpir seeking permission to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner on the grounds set out in the said Application. By Judgment and Order dated 15th July, 2002 the said Application was rejected. It is the case of the petitioner that responde...
Tag this Judgment!