Anonymous
01 August 2011 at 10:46
RESPECTED SIR,
PSE INTIMATE THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILLING THE CONTEMPT PETITION IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. SINCE THE HIGH COURT OF LUCKNOW BENCH HAS ORDERED( REG: COMPASSIONATE APPOINT UNDER DYING IN HARNESS RULE TO GOVT OF UP) IN W/P NO 1513/2007 THAT COMPLY THE COURT ORDER WITHIN TWO MONTH BUT LAPS OF ONE YEARS NEITHER STATE GOVT HAS COMPLY THE HIGH COURT ORDER DTD 11/08/2010 NOR ANY REPLY HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT.
COURT ORDER IS ATTACHED HERE FOR READY REF
PSE SUGGEST ME WHAT CAN I DO SIR AND WHAT IS THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILLING THE CONTEMPT PETITION.
THANKS YOU
RAHUL
FM UP LUCKNOW
Anonymous
01 August 2011 at 10:28
Dear experts i want to change my name.What should I do? How can i use this in my current job and my marksheet and other documents as well.
Anonymous
31 July 2011 at 19:12
can you give similar judgements or citations simar to this one:
CR No.2949 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2949 of 2006
Date of Decision: 20.11.2006
Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner
Vs.
Sumer Chand ...Respondent
CORAM Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vinod K.Sharma
Present: Mr.I.P.Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr.Rajinder Goel Advocate,
for the respondent.
Vinod K.Sharma, J. (Oral)
Present revision petition has been filed against the order of ejectment passed against the petitioner under Section 13 (3) (a) (iv) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973, which reads as under:-
"13(3)(a)(iv) the tenant has already in his own possession a residential building or subsequently acquires possession of, or erects, such a building reasonably sufficient for his requirement in the urban area concerned;" The learned Rent Controller and the learned Appellate Authority on the basis of evidence have recorded a finding of fact that the CR No.2949 of 2006 2
tenant-petitioner has purchased three shops in Sikka Market, Kaithal within the urban area of Municipal Committee, Kaithal wherein tenanted premises itself is situated and now enjoying possession of the same and running the business of spare parts which are sufficient for his business.
The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the courts below have wrongly placed reliance on the judgment of Harbilas Rai Bansal Vs. The State of Punjab 1996 HRR 1 for ordering the ejectment of the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the said judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court has only permitted the eviction of the tenant from a commercial building on the ground of personal necessity in the absence whereof no order of ejectment could be passed. This contention is totally misconceived.
The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amending Act) 1956 was quashed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding the same to be ultra vires. It was in the said Act that in sub-clause (iv) the word 'any building' was substituted by the word 'any residential building'. In view of the quashing of the said Act the original Act came into force and accordingly, the landlord became entitled to eject the tenant from any building in case the tenant acquires accommodation of his own in the area concerned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent-landlord had earlier filed a petition for eviction on the ground of personal necessity which was dismissed by the courts below and revision against the said order is pending in this Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, was that he was not entitled to file a second petition for ejectment of the petitioner.
This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is CR No.2949 of 2006 3
totally misconceived. Once a right is given to the landlord for eviction of a tenant under a statute the same has to be given effect to and the right cannot be defeated merely because a landlord has failed on other grounds.
No merit. Dismissed.
(Vinod K.Sharma)
20.11.2006 Judge
Sajid
31 July 2011 at 18:49
Sir,
Now-a-days in online Applications and in general Applications, Name should be mentioned as:
1. First Name
2. Middles Name
3. Last Name
Most of them have their Family Name as a initial in their name.
But, computer accepts Fathers Name as a initial to their name.
Whether it is compulsory to separate names as a first, middles, last.
Please advice.
Revantha Palande
31 July 2011 at 16:42
What happens when appellent does not follow the undertaking on "xyz"issue in the consent terms?Can an undertaking once given in the high court as a part of consent terms flouted?
Anonymous
31 July 2011 at 13:33
Respected Sir(s),
I will be thankful, if I could get following at the earliest if possible,
1995(4) Kar LJ 238 & 1989 (3) Kar LJ 497
Please,
Regards,
Anonymous
31 July 2011 at 12:04
What are the grounds on which the high court after hearing a matter can dismiss a suit?
Anonymous
31 July 2011 at 11:38
My wife receives sms messages and I strongly believe if I get to know these messages, they will reflect many of her wrong desertful actions. If she deletes all these messages can I still get them as evidence from the service provider. And what do I have to do to get them as evidence ??.
Thank you
Anonymous
31 July 2011 at 09:45
Due to business loss I have not been able to settle my credit card dues.The Bank has been sending its agents for more than 2 years to collect the dues but I could not pay it .Bank also stopped follow up for nearly one year.Now I got a letter from another Bank stating that they have taken over the Credit card from the first Bank and that I have to pay in full.My financial position is still very bad and I dont know how to face this situation.Can u give some tips/advice as to how I should handle the new bank Agent when he comes for settlement ?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
pls provide case law file
1993 BCJ 459
pls provide case law or equivalent case law
Thanx
Adev,B.P.Chavan