Sadanand B. Panchal
19 September 2012 at 11:52
Respected Experts,
In the year 1973, I found Hon'ble Courts order at Mumbai City Civil Court under Rules 188, 189, 192 and 221 and got excited.
The said order is in brief as follows,
...with liberty to the said Defendants to bring on the said matter earlier for hearing on giving to the Plaintiffs Advocate 48 hours previous notice in writing AND THIS COURT DOTH ORDER THAT in the meantime and until the hearing and final disposal of the Notice of Motion, the Defendants, their agents be restrained from obstructing Plaintiffs to demolish the rooms of Defendant no.1 and 10."
Thus it was clear that the Plaintiffs therein were succeed to obtain the Ex party injunction from the Hon'ble Court against the Defendants who did not aware of the Suit and Notice of Motion filed by the Plaintiffs. In this way the Defendant no.1 and 2 were dis-housed by the Plaintiffs. Said order was used to passed by the Hon'ble Courts at that time under the Bombay City Civil Court Rules and it seems that these Rules are altra virus the constitution of India.
Kindly explain me what are the Rules 188,189, 192 and 221 of the Bombay City Civil Court? Are these Rules are still in force?
Best Regards,
Sadanand B. Panchal
valentine thakkar
11 September 2012 at 14:36
In a motor accident, the Police filed FIR and Court issued summons to the driver in a criminal case, but did not seize the vehicle nor surety was taken in respect of the offending vehicle. The Surety of the driver was contacted, but he said the driver had left the border of Gujarat and had run away to UP. No whereabouts. Two warrants returned unserved.
In the compensation case U/Ss 140 and 166 MVA, the borrower of the vehicle was joined as party U/O 1 R 6 and 7. However, the registered owner is absconding and address not traceable and hence summons could not be served.
In the criminal case, can the advocate ask the JMFC to issue orders U/Ss 451 & 452 CRPC to the police to seize the offending vehicle which is still plying in the city with a new registered owner? The trial in the CC is not started yet.
Dr Sangh Mittra
30 August 2012 at 13:40
Please refer:
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1137324/
E. Sreedharan vs Union of India
If u are aware of some other case Laws please provide the Link.
Dr Mittra
........................................
Sir,
I was serving in the Defence, Government of India on the post of Lt. Colonel and was 46 years old. I came across an advertisement of a registered society which had termed itself an autonomous body established under the Societies Act of 1860. Since the post had mentioned essential qualifications for the post to be D. Lit, MBA and LLB and age to be below 50 years I thought it fitted me as I have more qualifications than the essential.
I applied for the post. I was selected to be appointed on the basis of the interview Along with me there were others from all over India and also from the Registered Society itself, who as candidates could not make and the misfortune fell upon me.
Since I was asked to produce discharge certificate from Indian Army and was told could not come on deputation so prior to joining the said Society I was advised by some colleagues to put up the terms of acceptance of the offer of the job lest they later to harass me treat me as a reemployed military pensioner who normally do not have the qualifications which I had.
There was no reservation for ex servicemen, nor any concession in age nor in qualification I wrote to the President of the Society that in the event of my joining them I would be given the Pay of the post and that there would be no reference to my Pension and its DA elements which I would get from the Indian Army in other words the Pension from Army and other benefits would be fully ignored.
I was clearly assured of the same and was informed that since I was joining a Registered Society and not any Govt Department, Public undertaking autonomous body, local authority. I could be given any pay and any facility. I joined on 14.07.1997. On joining my Pay was fixed at the minimum of the scale of the post to which I had been selected.
After a few months the President of the Society changed and the new incumbent who was close to the internal departmental candidates who had not been selected , gave , unilaterally, the instructions to the account section that my military pension be deducted from the date of my joining them. And my pay be refixed in terms of reemployed military pensioners.
I was by then not in the receipt of the Military pension and it took about one year for the military pension to be fixed but even then the account section started deducting the pension provisionally worked out by them treating me as a Military Pensioner. Later on they have been deducting my Military Pension minus the ignorable amount as per the rules of reemployed military pensioners.
I requested that if they were to treat me as a Military Pensioner then my Pay ought to be fixed in terms of Government of India Orders in which the basic Pay last drawn by me for the rank of Lt Colonel, was required to be given to me as is evident from the
http://esic.nic.in/CIRCULARS/E3ccsrp-
140910.pdf where it is mentioned
"( Para 4(b) (ii) . In cases where the entire Pension and pensionary benefits are not ignored for pay fixation, the initial basic pay on re- employment shall be fixed at the stage as last pay drawn before retirement. However,he shall be granted the grade pay of the re-employed post. The maximum basic pay cannot exceed the grade pay of the re-employed post plus in the pay band of Rs 67000/- i.e the maximum of the Pay Band PB-4. In all these cases, the non-ignorable part of the pension shall be reduced from the pay so fixed"
Should I not have been given the Basic Pay in the new post last drawn by last drawn by me as Lt Colonel in the post if termed "reemployment"?
All have been telling me that the service in the Registered Society is not a Government Service. I am now not a Gazetted Officer after my retirement as Lt Colonel.
The Society gets donations, income from its assets and grants-in-aid from Government, State Governments and even foreign bodies. Some people call it as an NGO.
Can the service in a registered society be deemed to be a service where my military pension would be deducted without giving to me the basic Pay of a Lt colonel which I was drawing as a Lt Colonel as clarified in Govt of India letter No. 3/19/2009-Estt.(PayII) Govt of India , Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances& Pension, Department of Personnel &Training, Dated 05.04.2010?.
Further can this deduction of Military/ Civil Service pension be applicable in the cases of military/ civil pensioners who get selected to be appointed /re-employed to posts, where holding of a post under the Central Government is not a pre-requisite for such re-employment or where the Recruitment Rules of the post to which the pensioner is re-employed do not provide this as one of the qualifications?
Regards,
S Mittra
kasinath
26 August 2012 at 11:49
Sir,
Iam an advocate from warangal,
Can anybody pls tell me where the old Arbitration Act 1899 and also (OLD) Civil Procedure Code 1908 BOOKS are available in india
Thank you
abbas
23 August 2012 at 23:59
DEAR SIR
MY FATHER HAS FILLED A CASE AGAINST OUR TENANT IN 2008 AND THE MATTER IS ON CROSS EXAMINATION OF TENANT. I HAVE HEARD OR READ IN NEWS PAPER THAT SUPREME COURT HAS DIRECTED TO DISPOSE THE SUIT FILED BY SENIOR CITIZEN WITHIN 6 MONTHS. CAN ANY ONE LET ME KNOW FROM WHERE I CAN GET THIS JUDGEMENT COPY? I TRIED ON WEBSITE OF SUPREME COURT BUT UNABLE TO FIND IT OUR.
vasanthakumaran
22 August 2012 at 22:35
what is the eligiblity details for the post of an official receiver and what is the procedure for applying to the above mentioned post???
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Seeking advice for test of dual tenancy in bombay.
Respected Experts,
A temporary structure/shed was built upon on agricultural land by a lessee in the year 1933.In the year 1955 the lessee induced some rooms to persons as sub-tenants.In the year 1976 the lessee surrendered his lease and refused sub-tenants to accept rent.Whether the subtenant became lessee of land below room and thereby also became owner of the room? Kindly advice me.
Regards,
Sadanand B. Panchal