Reported in : 2007(1)ALD36; 2007(1)ALT147
.....due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases delay of very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. but it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. in such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower court.the supreme court also observed that the words 'sufficient cause' under section 5 of the limitation act should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. in so doing, the opposite party should not be forgotten. it is apposite to extract the following from the judgment of the supreme court: but when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(1)ALT558
.....the fundamental rights of the petitioners under articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of constitution of india. he also submits that section 31 of the police act and rule 57 of the traffic rules, 1962 do not empower commissioner of police to prohibit the use of a class of vehicles totally. he would urge that in all the metropolitan cities like hyderabad and chennai, though the restrictions on the movement of heavy vehicles were imposed and though such restrictions have been upheld by the courts, the total prohibition of movement of heavy vehicles was never imposed. he would contend that restriction of movement of lorries and trucks with reference to the places and timings cannot be equated to the total prohibition of such movement of vehicles, which would ex facie violate the fundamental right of the members of the petitioner association under article 19(1)(g) of constitution of india. according to learned senior counsel, it is only the appropriate authority under motor vehicles rules, who can impose such restrictions on the movement of vehicles. though the learned senior counsel has filed compilation consisting of xerox copies of as many as fourteen judgments, it is not necessary to.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2007(2)ALD393; 2007(1)ALT511
.....the marriage, he purchased a vacant site in the name of the respondent and constructed a house therein later and so the plaint schedule property, in fact, belongs to him and that the sale deed in favour of the respondent is only a benami transaction and that the respondent out of her own volition went away from the house and so she is not entitled to any relief.3. on the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed two issues for trial. in support of her case, the respondent examined herself as p.w.1. and another witness as p.w.2 and marked exs.a-1 to a-5. on behalf of the revision petitioners, the first revision petitioner examined himself as r.w.1. and two other witnesses as r.ws.2 and 3, but they did not adduce any documentary evidence on their behalf. the trial court held in favour of the respondent and decreed the suit directing the revision petitioners to vacate the plaint schedule property within two months from the date of the judgment. aggrieved by the said judgment, this revision is preferred.4. the main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that inasmuch as a suit under section 6 of the act has to be filed within a period of six months.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2007(112)FLR996]
.....bearing writ petition no. 25415 of 2001-krishna chandra agarwal v. state of u.p. and ors..3. we have considered the submissions. the admitted short facts briefly stated are that the petitioner-respondent was placed under suspension on 25.5.2001 in a contemplated enquiry. however, the petitioner-respondent served a notice under fundamental rule 56 (hereinafter referred to as f.r. 56), seeking voluntary retirement. he also in the meanwhile, approached this court challenging the order of his suspension/disciplinary proceeding by means of writ petition no. 25415 of 2001, which was though dismissed vide judgment dated 13.7.2001, but the authorities who were arrayed as respondents, were directed to conclude the disciplinary proceeding within six months and the order of suspension was kept in abeyance till then with the liberty to the competent authority to pass fresh order, if necessary, warranted under law, after service of charge sheet upon the petitioner-respondent. consequently, the petitioner-respondent was reinstated vide order dated 14th august 2001. however, appellants- respondents did not initiate departmental proceeding by serving charge-sheet as per observations of this.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : AIR2007All55
.....as misc. case no. 136 of 2006. the plaintiff submitted that the court-fee was not payable as per section 7(iv-a) of the court-fees act and, in fact, the court-fee was payable as per article 17(iii) of schedule ii of the court-fees act, and therefore, the court-fee paid by the plaintiff was correct and was in accordance with the provisions of article 17(iii) of schedule ii of the court-fees act. the plaintiff therefore prayed that the report of the munsarim be set aside.3. the civil judge by an order dated 14-8-2006 rejected the objection raised by the plaintiff and upheld the report of the munsarim and directed the plaintiff to clear the deficiency of the court-fee so that the suit could be registered. aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the writ petition under article 226/227 of the constitution of india praying for the quashing of the order of the civil judge dated 14-8-2006.4. heard sri b. b. paul, the learned counsel for the petitioner and sri g.k. khanna, the learned standing counsel.5. a preliminary objection was raised by the court with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of section 6-a of the court-fees act as applicable in the state of uttar.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2007(1)JCR447(Jhr)]; (2007)8VST236(Jharkh)
.....for assessment under c.s.t. in view of section 19 (2)(2a) of the central sales tax act and rule 12 of central tax (bihar) rules 1957.8. from the facts and circumstances noted above it is clear that the said notices were served for reassessment under b.s.t. and c.s.t. petitioner cannot challenge the impugned orders on the ground that no notice was served under c.s.t. for reopening/reassessment. petitioner accepts the receipt of the said notices (annexure-8 series). the orders of reassessment for the same financial year under b.s.t. and c.s.t. cannot be seen in isolation. thus it has to be held that the impugned orders are not without jurisdiction for want of service of valid notice under section 19 of the sales tax act for reopening/reassessment of the assessment order passed under c.s.t. the said judgments relied by dr. pal are of no help to him in view of the distinguishing facts noted above.9. on the question of alternative remedy, dr. pal submitted that tribunal is not functioning and, therefore, petitioner is not in a position to file revision under section 46 of the bihar finance act. mr. jhunjhunwala in reply submitted that petitioner can move before the commissioner.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2006(4)JCR676(Jhr)]
.....executed the agreement on behalf of the other co-sharers also, nor assured the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed by the other co-sharers. in fact, defendant no. 1 along with defendant nos. 2 and 3, negotiated to sell their share only.5. the suit was finally heard by sub-judge, chatra who in terms of judgment dated 21st july, 1999 decreed the suit. aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred appeal being title appeal no. 03 of 2003. at the appellate stage, the defendants-appellants filed an application under order vi, rule 17, cpc for amendment of the written statement. by the proposed amendment, the defendants sought to introduce the facts that the consideration amount was advanced in respect of their share in the suit property and not for the entire suit property. they also proposed to change the area of the suit land and further that there has been interpolation in the last portion of the deed and there has been forgery of the signature of defendant nos. 5 and 6 alleging that they never signed the agreement dated 12.2.1993. the defendants also proposed to introduce the fact that the agreement dated 14.2.1993 was not the original agreement rather.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2007(1)JCR412(Jhr)]
.....enable him to establish that the appointment was legal. admittedly; no such opportunity has been given to the petitioner by the authority concerned before concluding that the appointment was illegal. as pointed out by the supreme court, it is- well settled that any action taken by the department against the police constable must be fair, just and reasonable. if the opportunity has not been given before holding that his appointment is irregular and unauthorized, it amounts to (sic) of natural justice. therefore, we hold that both the orders, namely, orders of the superintendent of police, muzaffarpur, bihar as well as the order, which is the consequential order, passed by the superintendent of police, dhanbad, jharkhand, ought to be held invalid. therefore, we set aside the same l.p.a. allowed.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2007(1)JCR418(Jhr)]
.....with back wages. he further relied on : (1997)11scc396 ( rattan singh v. union of india) and submitted that in that case also in view of the fact that 22 years had passed after termination, reinstatement was refused. however, compensation was awarded instead of reinstatement and back wages.8. mr. atanu banerjee, appearing for respondent no. 2, relied on 2005 1 llj 552 (employers, management of central p & d inst. ltd. v. union of india) and submitted that supreme court observed that in normal course it would not have interfered with the order of reinstatement. in reply to this, mr. bakshi, submitted that before the said observation, in paragraph 7, the supreme court held that ft is not always mandatory for the courts to order reinstatement in cases where there has been violation of section 25-f of the i.d. act, which can be substituted for good reasons by awarding compensation.9. in view of the facts, circumstances and the judgments noted above, in my opinion, it would not be proper to direct the petitioner to reinstate respondent no. 2, who was admittedly a casual electrician and was disengaged more than 20 years back. moreover, there was/is noting on the record to show.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2007(3)JCR133(Jhr)]
.....cadre made representation for mutual exchange of the cadre before the principal secretary, road construction department, jharkhand, but till date no order has been passed and in the meanwhile the petitioner has been ordered to be relieved with effect from 5.11.2006 after handing over the charge. the grievance of the petitioner is that in the similar circumstance the exchange of cadre has been allowed to several employee, but without any reason the said respondent has not disposed of the petitioner's representation till date and the petitioner is still under threat of his release (relieving) by virtue of notification no. 4595(5) dated 20.10.2006.2. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state of jharkhand submitted that the principal secretary, road construction department, jharkhand has to pass order on the said representation and to send the same to his counterpart of the government of bihar. the petitioner has recently approached the said authority and without waiting for any order on his representation, he has filed this writ petition. it has been stated that the petitioner's representation shall be considered and appropriate order shall be passed by the concerned.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT