Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2436
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 6th February 2008, whereby the application filed by petitioner under Order VIII Rule I read with Section 151 CPC for taking two documents on record was rejected.2. According to the counsel for the petitioner, a suit for eviction was filed by the respondent No. 2-plaintiff before the Rent Tribunal on the basis of bonafide necessity and in reply to the said suit it was specifically mentioned by the petitioner- defendant that another shop situated in the same premises was vacated by his brother and at the time of vacating the said shop a receipt was given by the respondent No. 2-plaintiff for payment of rent but the respondent-plaintiff refuted his signature upon the said receipt, therefore, to prove his case that there is no ground of bonafide necessity left with the respondent No. 2- plaintiff, therefore, the petitioner filed an application for taking two documents; one, the Insurance Po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1974)IILLJ262Kant
Chandrashekhar, J.1. The following two questions have been referred by a Division Bench under Section 7 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961:(1) Whether the regulations framed by the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation regulating the conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of officers and servants of the Corporation other than the chief executive officer, or general manager and the chief accounts officer under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, have statutory force? and(2) Whether a writ in the nature of mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution to the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, to obey the regulations framed under Section 45(2)(c) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950?2. This writ petition had come up in the first instance before Malimath, J., who referred it to a Division Bench under Section 9 of the Mysore High Court Act, as his Lordship noticed conflicting decisions of this Court on the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1999)122PLR74
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. By this order, we are disposing of two Letters Patent Appeals filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.6.1993 dismissing Civil Writ Petition Nos. 9572 of 1987 and 4271 of 1986 filed by the appellants.L.P.A. No. 586/93:2. Agricultural land measuring 120 kanals 9 marlas situated in Village Darra Khurd, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra was leased out by the predecessors of the private respondents Kishan Chand and others to Shri Vasandha Ram (father of the appellants Gian Chand, Des Raj and Has Raj) and another on fixed rent of Rs. 800/- per annum along with 2.1/2 maunds of fruit. On 10.6.1974, the land owners filed an application under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short the 1953 Act) for directing the tenants to give 1/3rd of the crop to the applicants or to execute the Qabuliyat Nama for Rs. 500/per acre per year under Rule 9 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Rules, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1999)122PLR536
V.K. Bali, J.1. Challenge herein is to order dated 303.1999, Annexure P-9, taking over the petitioner's unit by resorting to provisions contained in Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by respondent-Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation, a Government of Punjab undertaking and State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The order, annexure P-9 is styled to be wholly illegal, without jurisdiction, wholly unreasonable, against the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, an outcome of obdurate attitude of the respondent Corporation and against the public policy, resulting into locking of a running concern, thus, rendering 700 employees jobless and 6000 farmers stranded, who had grown sugarcane under agreement with the petitioner concern on 25000 acres of land.2. The facts, as projected in the petition and which according to the petitioner concern, have resulted into choking of petitioner's industrial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1999(4)BomCR608
ORDERN. Arumugham, J.1. These three writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the Mandamus against the respondents who are the State of Maharashtra, the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, Mumbai, the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai, and other officials working under them and Coroner of Mumbai, (i) directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to furnish the particulars regarding the number of persons killed in last one year in police encounters, their names, addresses, the circumstances in which these persons are killed, the enquiries, if any, conducted with respect to the said killings and any other relevant information and the action taken, if any, by them: (ii) directing the respondent No. 1 to register offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other relevant enactments against the Police Officers, if found prima facie responsible for the violation of the fundamental rights and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and other rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1999)122PLR69
V.K. Bali, J.1. Petitioner/landlord lost his case on merits before the Rent Controllers his petition for eviction filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent/Restriction Act was dismissed on 25.1.1981. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred an appeal which has been dismissed being barred by time. It is against this order of the appellate authority dated 24.3.1982, that the present petition has been filed.2. It is the conceded position that learned Rent Controller dismissed the petition on 21.5.1981 and that the petitioner made an application to obtain certified copy of the order on 28.5.1981 and the same was supplied to him on 26.6.1981. It is again conceded position that Civil Courts remained closed from 16.6.1981 to 15.7.1981 and once again it is the conceded position that the appeal came to be preferred before the appellate authority on the next day i.e., 16.7.1981. Learned appellate authority held that appeal was barred by time on the basis of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Reported in : AIR2000J& K37
Kakru, J. 1. Salient facts are that an area measuring 3879 kanals and 12 marlas situated at villages Karwah, Damodhar, Kralpora and Wathora, TehslI and District Budgara, has come under occupation of the Army onwards 1952. Subsequently requisitioned against the rental compensation under the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act 1968 (for short the Act). The recommendation made by the Board of Officers for acquisition of the area aforementioned has prompted the petitioners to seek a writ of mandamus to place the Union under a direction to take a decision with regard to the proposed acquisition and in the alternative, eviction of the Army. 2. The writ petition came up for consideration and Mr. Anil Bhan appeared in compliance to the directions of the Court. The stand taken by him is stated by the Court in its Judgment and the relevant portion of the order is reproduced : 'Mr. Bhan, Sr. CGSC has admitted that the acquisition proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Himachal Pradesh
Reported in : (1999)IILLJ304HP
Kamlesh Sharma, J.1. The above writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as common questions of fact and law arise in all of them. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were engaged as daily waged workers on behalf of the Baba Balak Nath Temple Trust, Deotsidh, District Hamipur (hereinafter called 'the Trust') and all of them with the exception of a few, had completed 240 days in a year before their disengagement orally, without giving any notice or compensation. The case set up by the petitioners is that their disengagement is retrenchment as defined under clause (oo) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') but conditions precedent to it i.e. notice of one month and payment of compensation as provided under Section 25-F of the Act have not been followed, hence it is bad in law. As such, the petitioners have prayed for their reinstatement with all consequential benefits.2. The Trust is included in the Schedule to the Religiou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : ILR2011(1)Ker403
1. Parties hereto and the exhibits are referred as they are arrayed and exhibited in W.P(C) No.22707 of 2010. 2. Pappinissery Eco Tourism Society (for short, "the Society"), petitioner in W.P.(C ) No.22707 of 2010 is a Society registered in March, 2009 under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific & Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. It established and started operating a Mangrove Theme Park (for short, "the Theme Park") on the banks of Valapattanam river and its branch in Pappinissery Village, Pappinissery Panchayat in Kannur District. Alleging that the Theme Park is situated in Coastal Regulation Zone-I (for short, "the CRZ-I) classified under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 1991 (for short, "the CRZ Notification") issued by the Ministry of Environmental and Forest (for short, "MoEF") as per the Environmental Protection Act (for short, "the Act") and Environmental Protection Rules (for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : 2010(1)KLT891
R. Basant, J.1. How is the expression 'does not treat her equitably in accordance with the injunctions of the Quran' in Section 2(viii)(f) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to be understood in law? Whose standards are to apply and prevail? Is it the partisan standards of the polygamous husband to be followed? Is it the cold objective standards of the Court - an outsider, to be followed? Or is it the assessment and evaluation of the helpless wife to be reckoned as crucial? Should not that expression consistent with the humane socialist commitment of the Constitution in favour of the helpless and hapless receive a construction in favour of the wife in distress? Can the expression be understood divorced of the core Islamic approach to life and marriage that marriage is an arrangement to be enjoyed and not to be endured reckoning the same as indissoluble? Should not the true perception of the right to life, in all its dimensions, persua...
Tag this Judgment!