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.
sushil kumar
24 November 2011 at 16:25
what is meant by "Parliament adjourned sine die"
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.
Anonymous
24 November 2011 at 09:55
Please anyone can give me details regarding deemed university case which was for hearing on 22nd Nov 2011 in the supreme court; what is the result ?
Anonymous
22 November 2011 at 20:09
It is not the final order/it is an intermidiatary (interim) order of a Civil case in Delhi High Court.....
Anonymous
22 November 2011 at 17:28
Dear Sir,
Under CCS (CCA) Rules 1965, whether a Disciplnary Authority (DA) have powers to appoint a Inquiry Officer (IO) who is senior to him by scale ie DA is on Sc`E scale while IO is on Sc`F` scale. Incidentally DA is in Administrative cadre and functioning as DDG, while IO is in scientific cadre and working as Head of Department.
Can this be treated as right appointment or anamoly under above rules
Whether on the above basis the charged official can appeal for quashing the entire disciplinary proceedings or report submitted by the IO at any stage of enquiry, praying that appointment of IO by DA is not proper
Please clarify
AKHILESH SRIVASTAVA
22 November 2011 at 13:45
Hon'ble High Court directs appellants/accused persons for apply 'bail-application' before the court below for consideration & disposal of bail application in parameters of Amrawati Vs. State of U.P. & others.
Then what is need for 'surrender-application' before moving 'bail-application'? Whereas CrPC does not have provisions of 'surrender-application' under 44 CrPC.
Anonymous
22 November 2011 at 08:24
Dear Experts,
I am not able to recall exactly but I remember reading something like "any law that cannot be implemented in an unbiased and equal manner can be revoked/repealed" or something similar of that nature. Can anyone give me some pointers or some judgements in this regard?
Anonymous
21 November 2011 at 22:22
Age limit for posts that require phyisical endurance, strength and age of candidate like for soldier, policeman etc. is understandable.
But for posts that have absolutely no relation with phyisical endurance, strength and age of candidate having maximum age limit appears unreasonable. For example a clerk or peon or computer operator whether 25 years or 55 years can do same job equally well. Why this discrimination? Any grounds to contest this as discrimination or inequality before law?
Member (Account Deleted)
21 November 2011 at 21:19
Can Chief of Army Staff dispose of a Statutory Complaint made under AA section 27 addsd to Govt of India? If Yes under what provisions? If No what is the remedy if COAS has done it?
Do i have locus standi ??
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.