Sanjeevappa. L
28 June 2011 at 19:10
under what provision the court fee for HRC case in Karnataka to be paid. Please advise me, matter is very urgent
satish
28 June 2011 at 12:51
can a civil court grant interim orders for attachment before award u/s 9 of arbitration act against the property of the respondent even such personal liability was not covered in the terms and conditions of the agreement.
yogesh
27 June 2011 at 17:44
Eralier there was certain case state of haryana Vs Piara Singh, Workmeen case, Jaccob M Purumpathil case, etc etc which has stAted that
" If an employee has been working satisfactorily for fairly long spell, then the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided that his service record is satisfactorily and his appointment doesn't counter to the reservation rules"
With the passing of latest case by Uma devi which has gone aginst the interest of employee and now cannot claim regularisation
Now my question is there are many hundred of employees who had been working for several years more than 10-15 years and all of them is now age barred.
If the employer wants to evict them they can discharged them at any stage . These employees had their families and children which are dependent exclusively on them where they will go?
Its not the fault of the employee only as the purpose of the adhoc employee is meant for the exigencies of the services which may be for some months to 1-2 year but once they had been retained in the services for more than 10 years. Don't think that there is fault on the employer too who has exploited the situation and let the employees to continue for several years and lastly evade up by saying that thei appointments were illegal
Kindly suggest the remedy for an employee?
whether approaching before supreme court by the way of writ petition will solve the riddle as lowe courts High , CAT will not listen to the grievances as precedent of the UMA DEVI is binding on them
valentine thakkar
23 June 2011 at 12:53
Could anyone throw some light on the phrase "self-inflicted injury" in an accident case relating to RCT?
Amit bhardwaj
23 June 2011 at 11:42
Pls tell me the criteria of creamy layer in 2011.
dev kapoor
20 June 2011 at 17:30
I entered into partnership with my friend to run a Cyber Cafe & both executed a Partnership deed & got it registered at 50 :50 profit & loss.The business runs in my shop.A rent note was drawn & our firm paid Rs.2000/- p.m.Now the other partner has become greedy.Since two years there is no business transaction & the shop is locked by him.He threatens if I talk for settlement.Plz advise me if-
1.I can go in the civil Court/Rent controller for suit for eviction?
2.Whether I can serve a notice for (a) default in payment;(c) closure of shop for more than a year consecutively;(c)Whether notice is to be served to my partner or the fir through other partner or to myself also in my capacity as partner i.e does law permit me double role,a partner as well as a tenant?
please cite some relevant law & judgments on the subjects as my lawyers are 'confused' and I am not satisfied so far by their advice.
I shall be obliged.This shop is my only source of income,which has stopped since two years.
Thanks & regards,experts,law knowing people.
Montiah
20 June 2011 at 16:42
Hello
I have borrowed a loan from a person of different nationality in UAE. My understanding with him is that I will give the loan back within 2 years. The contract signed also says that the amount is payable in June 2013.
My question is
1. Since I have left UAE and come back to India, can the person lodge a case against me whether in UAE or India to return the money earlier since I do not reside in UAE anymore.
2. Can he create any kind of problem for me? Can he force me to sell my assets here in India to repay him back?
3. Am I obliged to give him any other documents legal or otherwise.
Please answer only if you know the legalities. I have been getting vague answers to my previous question. I feel I know more than those answering the question.
Anand Bala
20 June 2011 at 08:25
Union of India (UOI) moved the court for declaration of title and possession of a land owned by X. The land is situated within the boundary of Secunderabad Cantonment.
As UOI lost their case in the trial court and again their appeal was disallowed by the first additional chief judge,they closed the road leading to the land citing reference to security reasons. The X has no other access.
As no such restriction to the free movement on the road (Articles 19 & 21 of our Constitution) was imposed in the past, it seems reasonable to assume that UOI have done this purposely.
Though it was UOI appeal,where X was only respondents, can X make an Interim application to the same court for civil contempt for willful disobedience, interference or tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tends to obstruct, the administration of the judgment pronounced by the Honorable I Additional Chief Judge on 18th January 2011.
Further,the road is within the boundary of cantonment and subject to Cantonment Act 2006 and closing of roads under Section 258 is the duty and responsibility of the SCB. But the roads were closed by nominated Board members from the Army by their unilateral decision,contravening the Section 258. All elected Board members of the SCB, representatives of public, requested the General Commanding Officer of the Army (nominated President for the Secunderabad cantonment Board) to open these roads but unfortunately, he turned turned his deaf ears. Other 3 nominated Board members from the Army were also silent.The issue was referred in the local daily news papers.
This amounts to nominated Board members' irregular action in exercise of a statutory power or otherwise that are not consistent with or in accordance with the rules and procedures as stipulated in the cantonment Act 2006. They being the Public servants as per Section 36 of the Cantonment Act 2006 and as per Section 21 of Indian Penal Code, can X hold these nominated Board members from Army individually liable under Public Servants' Personal Liability Act 2006 for compensation.
will be grateful for your help and a quick response will be much appreciated as not only X is suffering but also all public including children going to schools are affected by this road closure.
raghavendra
13 June 2011 at 15:19
sir,
my mother was done love marriage with my father ,now my father is no more , but my fathers mother (grand mother)had one site which is gifted by my grand mothers father , now my fathers mother (grand mother) going to gift that site to her daughter , was my father is not entitle to get that portion of site ,now my fahther is no more , how long me and my mother is entitle to that site .
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Pay parity
Dear Sir,
Let me brief our case history we have joined in Air & Doodarshan in the year 2000 as Engineering Assistant in the pay scale of Rs 5000-150-8000. After joining it came know that those people who joined before 25/2/1999 are enjoying the higher scale of 6500-200-10500 even though the qualification ,recruitment rules , designation , nature of work , the value judgement,responsibilities,reliability,functinalneed etc are same but for this cut off date . That means we are denied the higher scale due to this cut off date only .
We went in the Honble Delhi CAT raising Equal Pay for Equal Job and got a favourable verdict in 2006. But instead of implementing CAT verdict the Govt went for review which was dismissed in the admission stage itself . Then the Govt moved 2 the Honble Delhi H C against the CAT verdict where the High Court dismissed the appeal directing the Govt to implement the CAT Verdict in 2010. Next the Govt moved to Honble S C against the Delhi High Court verdict . Here also govt stand was rejected by the Apex Court in the first hearing itself favouring the employees. The verdict was out on 14th Jan 2011 and almost 6 months has been passed .Till date the verdict is not implemented.
We got filed a contempt Petition and the hearing is on 19th July2011.
Now it is understood that the Govt is planning to file a review petion in the Apex court and also planning to withdraw the agreement of 25/2/99 which offers higher scale to the incumbent employees only and lower scale to those who joined after the so called cut off date.
My query is WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO FILE A REVIEW PETITION AFTER SUCH A LONG PERIOD.
WHETHER GOVT CAN TABLE NEW REASONS TO DENY HIGHER SCALE ,WHICH HAS BEEN CREATED AFTER THE APEX COURT VERDICT ie AFTER 14th JAN 2011 AND WERE NOT IN THE SCENARIO DURING THE TIME OF EARLIER ARGUMENTS
Pls Reply