Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR105; 2007(5)BomCR680; 2007(6)MhLj589
.....by the petitioner. respondent no. 2 has also filed further additional submissions. though the parties have thus furnished elaborate pleadings, on facts there is hardly any dispute between the parties. the petitioner is, undisputedly, head master of the school at nagpur. respondent no. 1 runs another school at nasik. memorandum and articles of association of respondent no. 1 have been amended by decentralizing control and creating branch managing committees. it cannot be seriously disputed that shri kumar kale is chairman of the branch managing committee.4. dr. anjan de, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has been appointed as head master of the nagpur school by the general secretary of respondent no. 1 on 24.06.1999. the branch managing committee is a subsequent development. since the petitioner is head of the institution, as per rule 36(2)(b) of the meps rules the president of the management is required to be a member of the enquiry committee. the president of respondent no. 1 is shri ghatate and not shri kale. therefore, the committee is not constituted as per provisions of rule 36(2)(b) of the meps rules. according to the petitioner, the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007CriLJ4641
orderc.l. pangarkar, j.1. rule. returnable forthwith. heard finally with consent of parties.2. this is a revision by an accused. a few facts may be stated thus:the applicant is a police officer. at the relevant time he was working as in-charge of the police station civil lines, akola. on 2-12-96 the non-applicant no. 1 had lodged a report with the police station civil lines, akola. he had alleged that his daughter-in-law along with her relative had committed robbery, trespass and theft. the police refused to take cognizance of the said complaint of bhaurao i.e. non-applicant no. 1. non-applicant no. 1, therefore, filed criminal complaint case bearing no. 1280/01 in the court of judicial magistrate, first class. the judicial magistrate first class in the said criminal complaint passed an order under section 156(3) of the criminal procedure code and directed the police to investigate into the matter. on this an offence was registered by the police, initially the offence was investigated by p.s. 1. aney and later since the offence is of a serious nature the investigation was taken over by the present applicant. the present applicant filed an application under section 169 criminal.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2008[9]STR348
order1. on the question of law as formulated in para 4(a), we find that on a consideration of sections 76 and 80, there is discretion in the authority of not imposing penalty. in the instant case, the tribunal considering the facts on record has recorded a finding that the enhancement of penalty is arbitrary. this was within its discretion.2. this is purely an exercise in discretion based on a finding of fact which it was empowered. no question of law, therefore, arises.3. the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2008[9]STR226
order1. admit. heard forthwith.reliance was placed by the learned tribunal on the decision of the larger bench in ce, gurgaon v. machino montell reported in . that judgment was set aside by learned bench of the punjab & haryana high court .2. it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that in this case it does not involve excise duty but service tax and what the tribunal ought to have considered is section 80 of the finance act, 1994 which is not considered.3. in the light of that, the impugned order is set aside. the matter is remanded back to the tribunal for de novo hearing and more so for consideration of section 80 of the finance act, 1994.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2008(1)BomCR757
.....compensation payable to the claimants to rs. 12/- per sq. metre, in addition to other compensation payable for construction, etc., depending on the facts and circumstances of each case and also directed the state to pay solatium at the rate of 30 per cent with additional market value and also awarded interest under the provisions of the act.2. aggrieved from the judgment of the reference court, the state filed the above 24 appeals before this court. some of the claimants, claiming further enhancement of the awarded compensation, have also filed three cross-objections in appeals. consequently, we would be disposing of all the cases afore referred by this common judgment as common question of fact and law arise for consideration in the present cases.3. the learned reference court, after noticing the pleading of the parties, framed the following issues and answered them as follows:(1) do the claimants prove that having regard to the potential value of the land, the land acquired was ideal for residential complex?(2-a) are the claimants entitled to claim compensation at the enhanced rate per square metre, if yes at what rate?.(b) are they entitled to claim additional compensation?.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(6)KarLJ514; 2007(4)KCCR2236
.....appeals, the appellate tribunal has passed orders staying the operation of the adverse orders passed by the bangalore mahanagara palike.4. these facts are revealed not only in the joint memo dated 1-3-2007 filed by learned counsel for the parties and signed by both the petitioner and respondent 1, defendant and plaintiff respectively in the suit, but also forms part of the affidavit sworn to by one m.a. khalid, the joint commissioner (west), bruhat bangalore mahanagara palike dated 18-6-2007 to which affidavit is appended the copies of the stay orders issued by the tribunal in the pending appeals before it.5. sri ramesh babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri prasanna kumar, learned counsel for respondent 1 have requested the court to pass orders on the joint memo which, inter alia, indicates the above development and where under the plaintiff in the suit seeks permission of the court to withdraw the suit itself, the effect of which can be that the decree passed by the trial court falls to ground; that the parties are relieved of the judgment and decree of the court below against which the present appeal had been preferred and are left to work out their rights and.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(6)ALD327; 2007(5)ALT317; 2007(4)ARBLR219(AP)
.....learned counsel for the respondent, would agree that, in order to decide the questions raised in both these applications, it would suffice if the facts in arbitration application no. 15 of 2007 are noted.2. the applicant is the proprietor of m/s. able associates, (earlier a partnership firm), engaged in the business of manufacturing, assembling and trading in water treatment equipment, filtrations etc. applicant would submit that both he and the respondent, hitherto partners of the said firm having entered into a partnership deed on 18.04.2002, had decided to dissolve the partnership, that the respondent retired from the business of the partnership, that a deed of dissolution dated 03.11.2003 was executed between the parties whereby the partnership was held to have been dissolved on 31.10.2003,that the deed, which the respondent had signed in token of his acceptance of the terms stipulated therein, records that he was liable to pay a sum of rs. 1,37,000/-. applicant would contend that, despite his repeated demands, the respondent was avoiding making payment on one pretext or the other. the applicant, vide registered notice dated 18.10.1996, cailed upon the respondent to pay.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(5)ALD845
.....it was pointed out that the benefit under section 6 of the act enures to the co-operative society, in whose favour, the land was mortgaged.12. the facts of the present case are different. the petitioners are transferees from the society, in whose favour the lands were mortgaged. once the mortgage in favour of the co-operative society is exempted, the other consequential steps taken for, foreclosure of the same, would also stand exempted. the net result is that, if an assigned land comes to be sold, in pursuance of a mortgage, which is exempted under section 6, it looses the characteristics of assigned land, and the exemption continues to be available to the purchasers from the society or financial institutions, as the case may be.13. the ratio in harijana bazarappa's case (supra), has no application to the facts of this case. the prohibition contained in section 3 of the act, was reiterated and the exemption under section 6 of the act was, neither claimed, nor was dealt with.14. for the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are allowed, and it is directed that the properties purchased by the petitioners, in the sales conducted by the district co-operative central bank ltd.,.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(6)ALT209
.....issued by the plaintiff company to allow the assistant manager (legal) of the said company to depose as p.w.1 on behalf of its company.2. the brief facts of the case are as follows:the plaintiff company instituted a suit in o.s. no. 107 of 2005 on the file of junior civil judge, godavarikhani, for recovery of money against the respondents. as the plaintiff company is a private limited company, originally, the plaint was presented by the general power of attorney holder of godavarikhani branch of the plaintiff-company. thereafter, when the suit has come up for trial, the plaintiff company filed an application to receive its authorization letter enabling its assistant manager (legal) to depose on behalf of its company. however, the same was dismissed as stated supra and hence, this revision petition.3. despite the fact that the notices are served on the respondents, the respondents have not chosen to put in their appearance.4. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is of the view that the approach of the learned junior civil judge, godavarikhani is illegal.5. may be it is true that one j. bhasker, who was the g.p.a. holder of the said company, instituted.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2008(1)ALD192
.....held that the first respondent has to bear the major responsibility for the accident and held him liable to the extent of 80%. considering the fact that the first respondent was riding the motorcycle which is certainly a heavier vehicle than the bicycle, on which the deceased was going and also the fact that the first respondent had enough time and opportunity to see the deceased going on a bicycle, it is only reasonable to expect that the first respondent should have easily avoided the accident had he exercised due care and caution. the first respondent having failed to exercise the care and caution expected of him has to certainly bear the major brunt of the responsibility. it cannot, therefore, be said that fixing of his liability to the accident to the extent of 80% by the tribunal is on the higher side.13. the quantum of compensation assessed by the tribunal in a sum of rs. 1,21,600/- cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable, having regard to the fact that the deceased was aged only 45 years. according to the claimants, the deceased was earning rs. 3,000/- per month by doing fish business. in the absence of any evidence in proof of the claimed income, the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT