Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 2001 Page 100 of about 1,529 results (0.021 seconds)

Apr 03 2001 (HC)

Ashish Developers and Builders (P) Ltd. Vs. Appropriate Authority

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Apr-03-2001

Reported in : [2001]116TAXMAN749(AP)

nayak, j.this writ petition is directed against the order bearing no. aa/hyd/1(85)/4/98-99, dated 26-8-1999 of the appropriate authority under chapter xxc of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act) the 1st respondent herein refusing to grant no-objection certificate (noc) for transfer of property which the petitioners have agreed to purchase from the 2nd respondent herein.2. the land admeasuring acres 22.5 situated at elichibaiguda, bakaram, hyderabad, belonged to a family called chenai family. under a decree in o.s. no. 38 of 1967, dated 20-10-1967 passed by the chief judge, city civil court, hyderabad, the above land has fallen to the share of the 2nd respondent, viz., mrs. k.s. chenai. this land was given under perpetual lease to dbr mills ltd. (dbr). presently, the subject property is under the occupation of dbr. it appears that the dbr has filed a declaration under the urban land (ceiling & regulation) act, 1976 showing the subject land as belonging to it and later the said land was excluded from the hands of heirs of chenai family by the special officer & competent authority under the provisions of urban land (ceiling & regulation) act. it further appears that in the hands of dbr, the special officer and competent authority held that 16 acres of land as protected under section 4(11) of the urban land (ceiling & regulation) act and the balance of 6.5 acres was declared as excess out of the land in the hands of the dbr. against the said determination .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 07 2001 (HC)

Hyderabad District Co-operative Central Bank Vs. Co-operative Tribunal ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Sep-07-2001

Reported in : 2007(6)ALT63

orderr. ramanujam, j.1. all these writ petitions arise out of a common surcharge order made by the district co-operative officer and special category deputy registrar of co-operative societies, ranga reddy district (hereinafter referred to as 'the surcharging officer') in rc no. 4507/90-c, dated 28-12-1991. hence, all of them are disposed of by this common order.2. writ petition nos. 1757, 5698, 5699, 5770 of 1999 were filed by the hyderabad district co-operative central bank (hereinafter referred to as' the bank') while writ petition nos. 7714 and 8866 of 1999 were filed by its employees.3. during the month of july, 1988 an amount of rs. 12,26,400/- was sanctioned by the bank as loan under loan a/c no. 1010 to the a.p. housing board technical staff co-operative credit society (hereinafter referred to as 'the society'). when certain serious omissions and commissions in sanctioning of that loan amount by the officers of the bank came to the notice of the commissioner for co-operative and registrar of co-operative societies, hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the commissioner'), he ordered an enquiry under section 51 of the a.p. co-operative societies act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') by appointing one sri abdul haq, joint registrar in his office, as an enquiry officer to conduct a statutory enquiry. that enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and found that the then president and some officials of the bank and some of the employees of the society acted in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 13 2001 (HC)

Kari NaimuddIn Vs. Commissioner, Meerut and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-13-2001

Reported in : 2002(1)AWC516

r.r. zaidi, j.1. present petition arises out of the proceedings under sections 33/39 of the u.p. land revenue act and is directed against the judgments and orders dated 15.6.1999 and 4.1.2000 passed by the respondent nos. 3 and 1 respectively.2. it appears that in the mutation proceedings, the petitioner has applied for interim relief. application for grant of interim relief was rejected by respondent no. 3. consequently, the petitioner filed a revision before the commissioner against the order passed by respondent no. 3. the commissioner also declined to grant the interim relief. thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition no. 1286 of 2000 which was disposed of by this court by judgment and order dated 8.1.2000with the observation that the revisional court shall endeavour to dispose of the revision finally as early as possible. the commissioner although did not decide the revision, but rejected the application for interim relief by the impugned order dated 4.1.2000. hence, the present petition.3. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently urged that the revision filed by the petitioner is still pending disposal. therefore, there was no justification for the revisional court not to grant the interim relief. the order passed by the respondent no. 1 was, as such, liable to be quashed. on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed. thereafter, an application filed to recall the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 2001 (HC)

Likhi Ram Alias Moola and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Dec-20-2001

Reported in : 2002(1)AWC521

g.p. mathur, j.1. this writ petition under article 226 of the constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents (1) to recall the notification no. 4429/vii-101/84-86 dated 23.8.1986 and the letter no. 120/vii-dlrc/84-86 issued by the district magistrate and (2) to cancel the notification issued by the commissioner vesting the land in ghaziabad development authority and making amaldaramad (mutation) of the name of the ghazlabad development authority in the revenue papers, and also (3) to issue a writ of quo warranto calling upon the commissioner, meerut division, meerut to show under what authority he has issued the aforesaid notification.2. the writ petition was nominated to another bench on 8.11.2001, but as the said bench declined to hear it, the hon'ble the chief justice passed a fresh order nominating the present bench. the case was thereafter heard on 12.12.2001.3. the u.p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1950 (u.p. act no. 1 of 1951) (in short u.p.z.a. and l.r. act) was enacted to provide for abolition of the zamindari system which involved intermediaries between the tiller of the soil and the state in the uttar pradesh and for acquisition of their rights, title and interest and to reform the law relating to the land tenancy consequent upon such abolition and acquisition and to make provision for other matters connected therewith. the act was published in the gazette on 26.1.1951 and came into force at once. section 4 (1) .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2001 (HC)

Constable C.P. 117, Yad Ali and Others Vs. Superintendent of Police, C ...

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-10-2001

Reported in : 2001(1)AWC578; (2001)1UPLBEC356

o. p. garg, j.1. a fine point of controversy in this writ petition has come to be raised whether a 'police officer' within the meaning of u. p. police officers of the subordinate ranks (punishment and appeal) rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules of 1991') can be placed under suspension even before the receipt of report of the preliminary inquiry. this question naturally involves the interpretation of rule 17 of the rules of 1991, which reads as follows :'17. suspension.-- 1 (a) a police officer against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority or by any other authority not below the rank of superintendent of police, authorised by him in this behalf.(b) a police officer in respect of or against whom an investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending may at the discretion of the appointing authority under whom he is serving be placed under suspension, until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge, if the charge is connected with his position as a police officer or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his duties or involves moral turpitude, if the prosecution is instituted by a private person on complaint, the appointing authority may decide whether the circumstances of the case justify the suspension of the accused....................'2. the controversy has come up in the wake of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 10 2001 (HC)

Manoj Kumar Rana and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Jan-10-2001

Reported in : 2001(1)AWC694; (2001)1UPLBEC371

o. p. garg, j.1. an advertisement was published in the daily news papers on 10th august, 1998 inviting applications on or before 31.8.1998 for appointment to the twentythree posts of junior assistant in the pay scale of rs. 3,050-4,950 issued by the district magistrate, baghpat--respondent no. 2. out of these 23 vacancies, 12 were earmarked for other backward class communities, 1 for scheduled caste and 1 for scheduled tribes. a true copy of the advertisement has been enclosed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. the petitioners also applied for their appointment to the post of junior assistant. roll no. 000502 was allotted to the petitioner no. 1 and no. 000713 to the petitioner no. 2. both the petitioners were declared successful in the written test. thereafter, a typing test was held on 17.3.1999 and then the petitioners were called for interview. in the final result which was declared on 31.3.2000. the names of the petitioners did not find a place. it is alleged that though the number of vacancies were notified as 23 in theadvertisement dated 10.8.1998. only 18 candidates were selected whose names figured in the final result. it is also alleged that the calculation of marks of the petitioners was incorrect and if the marks are calculated accurately, the petitioners would have been declared successful. according to the petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 has secured 101 marks and petitioner no. 2 has secured 84 marks in the written examination. according to rule 5 of the u. p .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2001 (HC)

Anil Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Another

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-16-2001

Reported in : 2001(2)AWC1133; [2001(89)FLR749]; (2001)2UPLBEC1325

s. r. singh, j.1. impugned herein is the order dated 7.2.2001 (annexure-3 to the petition) whereby the petitioner-a reader in the court of tahsildar sadar moradabad, was placed under suspension with retroactive effect, i.e.. with effect from the date a criminal case, it being case crime no. 69 of 2001 under section 7/13 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988, was registered against him. a perusal of the first information report registered in case crime no. 69 of 2001 at police station kotwali, moradabad under section 7/13 of the prevention of corruption act, would evince that the petitioner was caught by the dy. superintendent of police. anti-corruptton/crime investigation branch moradabad, flagrante delicto on 2.2.2001 accepting rs. 1,000 asillegal gratification as a quit pro quo for getting the restoration application filed in a mutation case in the court of tahsildar sadar decided in favour of the complainant gulab singh.2. the main thrust of the submissions advanced across the bar by sri rajesh tandon, learned senior advocate is two-fold : firstly, that the first information report taken in its entirety, does not spell out a prime facie case under section 7/13 of the prevention of corruption act, 1988 and, therefore, the impugned order of suspension suffers from error of law being an order passed without there being any valid justification ; and secondly, that the impugned suspension comes in the category of a 'deemed suspension' which automatically petered out after .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 16 2001 (HC)

Corporal G.S. Tripathi Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-16-2001

Reported in : 2001(2)AWC1189; [2001(89)FLR804]; (2001)2UPLBEC1254

sudhir narain, j.1. the question is as to whether this court has jurisdiction to quash the order passed by the commanding officer, air force station, digaru district kamarup (assam) and the air force officer commanding-in-chief, headquarters, eastern air command i.a.f.. shillong.2. briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was enrolled into indian air force as airman in the trade of clerk pay accounts. disciplinary proceedings were takenagainst him. the charge-sheet was submitted and he submitted the reply. the commanding officer. air force station. digaru. district kamarup (assam) sentenced the petitioner to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and dismissed him from service and reduced his rank. the petitioner presented petition under section 161(1) of the air force act. 1950, to the air officer commanding in charge. headquarters eastern air command. a.i.f. shillong. he dismissed the petition but remitted to two months rigorous imprisonment vide order dated 14.10.2000. he has presented a petition dated 16th october. 2000, addressed to the chief of air staff air headquarter (vb). new delhi, respondent no. 2 which is still pending. the petitioner has in the writ petition, sought to quash the orders passed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 who are within the territorial jurisdiction of the state of assam and meghalaya. the relief claimed in the writ petition is as follows :(i) issue a writ of certiofari quashing the entire proceeding of district court martial .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2001 (HC)

Shamim Ahmad Vs. Rashida Begum and Others

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Apr-13-2001

Reported in : 2001(2)AWC1316

b.k. rathi, j.1. this second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.2000 passed by xiiith additional district judge. allahabad in civil appeal no. 88 of 1998. the facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows : 2. the suit was filed by the respondent no. 1 against the appellant and other respondents for the relief of declaration and cancellation of sale deed dated 20.2.1981 registered on 5.6.1981 executed by the respondent no. 4 in favour of the appellant regarding house no. 262 (new), 247 (old) situated in dondipur and house no. 150 johnstonganj. allahabad. in brief the facts of the case are as follows : 'one abdul khaliq had two sons, namely, abdul sadiq and abdul mazeed. the respondent no. 1 is the wife of abdul mazeed. maqbool alam was son of abdul sadiq. it is alleged by the plaintiff that abdul sadiq remained in india during his life time and died on 3.1.1961. maqbool alam along with his family migrated to pakistan in the year 1951 and died in pakistan in the year 1980, that abdul sadiq was living with his brother abdul mazeed. his family having been migrated to pakistan, he gifted the house in dispute to his brother abdulmazeed on 1.12.1960. a memo inwriting regarding it was preparedon 1.1.1961, abdul mazeed giftedthis house to his wife plaintiff on12.5.1974, that, therefore, theplaintiff/respondent no. 1 is theowner of the house.3. that a collusive sale deed dated 20.2.1981 has been obtained by the appellant from district magistrate, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 2001 (HC)

Ravi Saran Prasad Alias Kishore Vs. Smt. Rashmi Singh

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-30-2001

Reported in : AIR2001All227

binod kumar roy and u. s. tripathi, jj.1. in this appeal under section 19(1) of the family courts act, 1984. the husband assails validity of an order dated 5th march. 2001 passed by sri r. b. pandey. judge, family court, agra in suit no. 446 of 1998 allowing the application dated 3rd may. 1999 filed by the respondent-wife under sections 24/26 of the hindu marriage act. 1955 commanding the appellant to pay a sum of rs. 1,200 (rs. 800 per month for her and rs. 400 per month for their son) for maintenance with effect from the date of her application, besides a lump sum of rs. 1.500 towards litigation expenses.2. the office has raised an objection that in view of section 19(5) of the family courts act. this appeal is not maintainable.3. sri anupam kulshrestha,learned counsel for the appellant,contests the objectionaforementioned by submitting thattrue it is that the impugned order waspassed under section 24 of the hindumarriage act but in view of thedivision bench decision of themadhya pradesh high court inraghvendra singh choudhary v. smt.seema bai, air 1989 mp 259. holding that an appeal will lie against an interlocutory order, if it is a judgment and that the order passed under section 24 of the hindu marriage actis a judgment as it decides thequestion of maintenance during thependency of the suit, therefore, thereis a final adjudication.4. having regard to the provisions as contained in sections 28 of the hindu marriage act. 1955 and section 19(1) and (5) of the family courts .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //