Raman
28 November 2011 at 23:57
Before Supreme Court There is Limitation period of 90 days for filing SLP against the order of High Court under Article 136 of the constitution of India. In case if writ petition is dismissed by any High Court and subsequent the petitioner files the review Petition which too get dismissed. In such case whether the Limitation period is to be reckoned from the order in writ petition or the review Petition??
I have read that unsuccessful representation don't extend the period of Limitation, Whether this is also applicable in orders.? I mean to say that petitioner writ petition has already been dismissed by the High Court and if he files the review petition which too get dimissed..whether he is entitled to extension of limitation if we calacluate the period of limitation from the order passed in review Petition??
Jameer
28 November 2011 at 21:02
Greetings sir as we know Kanimozhi and four others, who were on Monday granted bail by the Delhi high court in 2G spectrum case.what is the validity of their bail that means how long they will live outside of the jail.
Also the delhi high court granted the bail while the previous courts including supreme court fails to grant the bail,so why that happend?
Thank you
Member (Account Deleted)
28 November 2011 at 18:49
In broad day light a huge new construction on a Defence A1 land in one of the Army Unit at Secunderabad is going on without any approval , sanction of Plan . On my query under RTI Act on the issue I am now intimated that the great new construction on the Defence A1 land of that Military Unit is mere a modification to the already existing UNIT REGIMENTAL RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION and hence required no approval of its building Plan by anybody. It is also intimated that expenditure is being incurred from the donations received from the devotees and hence no approval was necessary to undertake such a huge new construction . On my query with respect to the construction company undertaking the huge construction on the Defence A1 land , the answer was - No construction company has been engaged , it is being done on votultary work , may be KAR sEVA , they are referring too. Is that in order?
Member (Account Deleted)
26 November 2011 at 22:05
During TV discussions on PRICE RISE I often encountered Congress spokes- persons blaming the BJP led NDA govt for diluting the law to prosecute HOARDERS. And therefore present govt at the centre is unable to catch the Hoarders & punish them. If those HOARDERS are punished , as per the Congress Spokes person price of essential commodity will fall.
What is that amendment? When it was passed? What was its stated aim? And why can't the Congress led UPA II revoke it or get it cancelled through another amendment if they are convinced that it will bring down prices?
Would somebody elaborates?
vishal dinkar kolhe
26 November 2011 at 11:13
sir i am a villagen. on one humen needs in our village. like water supply, street light, madical's .i am camplent to grampanchyat but they can't reply to my complient. pl. suggest which is the next step to complient againest grampanchayat?
Anonymous
25 November 2011 at 18:31
Suppose I am Umang Arora in this Case and wanna file an appeal against this appeal,should I file appeal in some other Court or should I file an application in this Court, whether I have some Locus Standi or not as now even the Defendant No. 15 is not with me.But mine objections are that defendant No. 15 gotten the benefit on our behalf, if the deal was not going to be given to us then why we were called even to place our bid as higher buyer.
O R D E R
09.11.2011
At the request of the parties, by order dated 03.02.2010 the matter
was referred to Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The
interim report of the learned Mediator was received and it was recorded
in the order dated 26.10.2010 that the parties had amicably resolved all
the disputes. Some more time was sought by the parties from the Court to
work out the modalities of the partition of the suit property.
In the order dated 02.02.2011, it was also recorded that the parties
had resolved their disputes regarding their shares. The proposed
purchaser Sanjay Malhotra of the suit property was present before Court
along with his counsel Mr G.P. Thareja on 11.05.2011. The directions
were also issued to the parties to the effect that the suit property can
also be mutated and converted from leasehold to freehold and the parties
may jointly sell the property to Sanjay Malhotra. The matter was
adjourned to 19.08.2011. On 19.08.2011, it was recorded that out of all
parties, fourteen parties had signed the agreement to sell barring
defendants 9 and 15. It appears that later on both the defendant No.9
had signed the agreement to sell.
The defendant No.15 sought one month?s time to look for another
buyer who was willing to give a higher price of the suit property, he
also made a statement before the Court that in case he was unable to
bring a purchaser for a higher price, he will sign the necessary
papers/documents.
On 10.10.2011, further time was sought by the defendant No.15 in
this regard and the same was adjourned for today. When the matter is
taken up today, the defendant No.15 has brought a buyer, namely, Umang
Arora, who is prepared to buy the suit property bearing No.E-28, Moti
Nagar, New Delhi, on a higher price as quoted by the other parties. The
defendant No.15 has also deposited the cost of Rs.2500/- with the Delhi
High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
The proposed buyer Mr Umang Arora makes a statement before the Court that he is prepared to purchase the suit property on the higher price.
However, he is not prepared to deposit the entire amount and he will only
deposit 10% of the total sale consideration as advance amount. The
remaining amount will be paid by him at the time of executing the sale
deed. On the other hand, the other fifteen co-sharers of the suit
property are agreeable that the earlier buyer Mr Sanjay Malhotra may
purchase the property as they have already received advance amount for
the same so as the defendant No.15 and they have already executed the
agreement to sell dated 30.07.2011. Mr Thareja, the learned counsel for
the earlier buyer Mr Sanjay Malhotra, is agreeable that the share of the
defendant No.15 shall be paid as per the higher price, as quoted by the
new buyer Mr Umang Arora, by way of cheque/bank draft on the next date of
hearing. The other parties are also agreeable with the suggestion
given by Mr G.P. Thareja. Under these circumstances, a request was made
by all the parties to defendant No.15 to sign the agreement to sell. The
learned counsel appearing on his behalf seeks some time to discuss the
issue with him.
List on 16.11.2011.
Anonymous
24 November 2011 at 10:49
case no. 142/2006 Viplav Sharma Vs UOI
matter : deemed universities derecognition
Please, can anyone give details of hearing or next date etc which was listed on 22nd NOV 2011 in Supreme Court.
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Pil
dear experts,
if one of the my client filing purely Public Interest Litigation, before the High court, the court not give order, same time put the with cost Rs.2lakhs, if my client not able to pay the said amount, next what steps court can take, my client is very poor man.what are the remedy from the cost, if court punish with imprisonment. give me section details