Latest Cases

Smt. Mamoni Choudhury and anr. Vs. Pradip Kr. Choudhury and ors.

Court : Guwahati

.....and prohibited, until disposal of the suit, from disbursing the said sum of rs. 6,56,090 to the defendant-respondent no. 1.7. in view of the fact that the suit needs to be expeditiously disposed of, the learned trial court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously and, preferably, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the lcr by holding, if required, day to day trial.8. before parting with this appeal, it may, however, be placed on record that mr. dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents nos. 3 to 5, has submitted that as retention of the terminal benefits of the said deceased amounting to the said sum of rs. 6,56,090/- would force these defendants to pay interest thereon, though these defendants are not inclined to keep the said sum of money with them, appropriate directions may be issued to enable these respondents to deposit the said sum with the court subject to such conditions as this court may deem fit. to the submissions, so made, on behalf of the defendant-appellant nos. 3 to 5, no objection has been made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned. this aspect of the matter may be raised by the.....

Hanumanthappa Vs. Ganapathi R. Kini and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2007ACJ2089; ILR2007(1)KarSN17; 2007(3)KLJ300; 2007(2)KCCRSN71; 2007(2)AIRKarR333; AIR2007NOC952.

.....the tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim for any further payment...6. it is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid observation that the facts in the said case disclose that the claimant therein had accepted the compensation from his insurer in full and final settlement of his claim without any reservation or demur and, secondly, that was the case where there was no material placed by the claimant to show that the claim paid by the insurance company was only a part of the total damage. whereas in the case on hand, a perusal of page 2 of the award goes to indicate that the appellant did take a stand before the tribunal that he was paid only rs. 60,000 by his insurer and, therefore, appellant had to prefer the claim petition claiming the balance amount from the insurer of the other vehicle. such being the nature of pleadings of the appellant, the tribunal, in my view, ought to have given an opportunity to the appellant to establish the above said fact and upon the evidence, if the tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant was paid compensation in full and final settlement of his claim, thereafter, the tribunal would have been justified in dismissing the claim.....

Union of India (Uoi), Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Financ ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2007(4)KarLJ210; 2007(4)KCCR2159; 2007(3)AIRKarR26(DB)

.....if the first petitioner considered it improper to give a premature transfer of the respondent to the place of posting of his spouse in view of the fact that he has not completed the tenure period of six years at bangalore, the decision of the first petitioner cannot be said to be wrong or illegal or arbitrary. hence the tribunal was not right or justified in finding fault with the decision of the first petitioner. we are also of the view that the health problem of the grand child is not a ground on which the respondent could have sought transfer under the transfer policy. the clause contained in the transfer policy regarding the children of the officer is not applicable to the grand children of the officer, hence the finding of the first petitioner that the guidelines issued by the department of personnel and training do not cover grand children is correct.6. it would appear that the tribunal was influenced by the fact that the petitioners had not challenged annexure-'b' order dated 1.2.2006 passed in o.a. no. 373/2005 and that the petitioner had accepted the said order. according to the tribunal, in the light of annexure-'b' order passed in o.a. no. 373/2005, the department.....

Teddu Jyothi and anr. Vs. Government of A.P. and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(2)ALD528

.....not issuing the copies of master plan, draft master plans, proposals for extensive modifications and finalized modifications to the master plan and zonal development plans along with annexures and plans in telugu, as unconstitutional and violative of g.o. ms. no. 420, dated 13.9.2005; and consequently direct the respondents to furnish the information sought by the petitioners in simple telugu and pass such other suitable orders.6. the said g.o. ms. no. 420, dated 13.9.2005 reads as hereunder.government of andhra pradeshabstract1966 andhra pradesh official language act - all the rules, regulations issued by state government shall be in telugu language as per section 3(2) ii of the actissued.general administration (ab 1) department g.o. ms. no. 420 dated 13.9.2005

A. Shankar Lingam Vs. Meharunnissa Begum and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007(2)ALD578; 2007(2)ALT475

.....the reasons recorded by the learned principal junior civil judge, warangal in la. no. 3057/2006 in o.s. no. 93/2003 and would contend that in the facts and circumstances instead of adopting a liberal approach in summoning the witness by name merugu yadagiri to examine him as a witness before the court, without recording proper reasons, the learned judge had dismissed the application and the discretion was not exercised judiciously. the earned counsel relied on several decisions to substantiate his contentions.4. per contra, sri ramakrishna, the earned counsel representing the respondents had taken this court through the reasons recorded in paras 6 and 7 of the order impugned in the c.r.p. and would maintain that in the light of the reasons which had been recorded, it is clear that the application is not a bonafide one and had been thought of only to drag on the proceeding and hence the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever and the c.r.p. is liable to be dismissed.5. the present c.r.p. is filed under article 227 of the constitution of india questioning the order made by the learned principal junior civil judge, warangal in i.a. no. 3057/2006 in o.s. no......

T. Deveswar Reddy, Area Manager, Nagarjuna Fertilizers Chemicals Ltd. ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007CriLJ2996

.....memorandum.(3) the authority to whom the analysis report is sent under sub-clause (2) shall communicate the result of the analysis to the dealer/manufacturer/importer/pool handling agency from whom the sample was drawn within 30 days from the date of receipt of analysis report of the laboratory.5(ii). a reading of the above clause clearly discloses that the authority to whom the analysis report is sent from the laboratory has to communicate the result to the dealer/manufacturer/importer/pool handling agency from whom the sample was drawn within 30 days from the date of receipt of analysis report of the laboratory. analysis report submitted to the accused from whom the sample was drawn have not complained any violation except petitioners until this court declared as referred to above.5(iii). further the judgment of the supreme court in t.v. usman v. food inspector, tellicherry municipality : air1994sc1818 , has not brought to the notice of the division bench of this court in district & sessions judge, guntur (supra), wherein their lordships while considering the rule 7(3) of the prevention of food adulteration rules, 1955 requiring a copy of analyst report to be provided to the.....

Pankaj Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2007(1)AWC684

.....requires the applicant to disclose the place for storage and the place of sale which means that the concerned authority must have knowledge of full facts regarding place of business for purchases and sale of seeds to be monitored in such a manner as to ensure the maintenance of quality of seeds which is necessary and essential for obtaining the object of the seeds act.8. thirdly, we find that if we accept the contention of the petitioner namely that the government notification dated 4.7.1985 stood revoked after the government notification dated 7.12.1995 came into force, the same will create problem and inconvenience to large number of those seed dealers who may be interested to carry on business within one district alone. it may be noted that with respect to one district alone, it is the district agriculture officer who will be in a better position to deal with the subject apart from the fact that it will ensure smooth and expeditious disposal of the applications.9. taking into account all the facts and circumstances, indicated above, and that the government notification dated 7.12.1995 itself clearly mentions that it is in continuation (in hindi 'kram') of earlier notification.....

Ralua Son of Sri Chiranji, Vs. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Through I ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR2007All104

.....under section 23(1-a) of the act is also part of the compensation, it would in all fairness fetch the interest as provided under section 28 of the act and the order of the court below not permitting such interest on that amount, is wholly misconceived and is against the law.4. i do not agree with the aforesaid submissions of sri jain counsel for the applicant.5. the two relevant provisions of sections 23(1-a) and 28 of the act are quoted below:section 23(1-a)(1-a) in addition to the market value of the land as above provided the court shall in every case award as amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1) in respect of such land to the date of the award of the collector or the date of taking possession of the land, which ever is earlier.explanation. in computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay oar injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded.section 28 collector may be directed to pay.....

Sanjay Shanker Manwal Vs. Lucknow University and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1460

.....has submitted that none of the witnesses had submitted before the enquiry officer that the petrol kerosene mixture was thrown by the petitioner. in fact, all the witnesses had deposed that they did not see the incident which took place on 9.5.2006 at 11.25 a.m. in the office of the registrar at lucknow university, campus. the petitioner has been implicated in this case, he was innocent. the witnesses of the prosecution were interested as they belong to registrar's office.7. petitioner, sanjay shanker manwal, has further submitted that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him. the petitioner's defence version was not taken into account and dealt with by the enquiry officer and the punishing authority. the order of punishment was illegal, unjust and improper. the departmental enquiry was not conducted in proper manner. the petitioner has also approached the vice-chancellor by submitting a representation but the same was not received. the office of vice chancellor, lucknow university, has declined to accept the representation. the order of penalty, removal from services has also been challenged on the ground that the petitioner was not a members of teaching staff. he.....

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Pushpa Mohan

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : [2008]301ITR421(All)

.....question of law under section 256(2) of the income-tax act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the act', for opinion of this court:whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was in law justified in upholding the deputy commissioner (appeals) action in cancelling the order passed under section 154 of the income-tax act, 1961, on february 27, 1989, for the assessment year 1982-83?2. the present reference relates to the assessment years 1982-83 and 1986-87.3. briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:(i) the assessee is a trust created by brig. kapil mohan, who had gifted 60,000 equity shares of m.m. ltd., for the benefit of beneficiaries, i.e., the first son of shri rakesh mohan by a duly executed trust deed dated may 22, 1973. at the time of creation of the trust, shri rakesh mohan was himself a minor and had no son. it was further provided in the trust deed that in the event of the first son of shri rakesh mohan expiring before attaining majority or in the event of shri rakesh mohan not begetting a son, the sole beneficiary of the trust was to be one out of various persons specified in the trust deed depending on.....