aman
18 July 2013 at 13:26
Dear experts,
our 4 cases are in dehradun court (uttarakhand) from which 2 case we have filed on the other party and 2 case they have file on us...and one case of 498a they filed on us in U.P. ..dat case is not in court yet..can we get that case transfrd to DEHRADUN..and how.?
Mukul
16 March 2013 at 07:50
I have got to get a service matter resolved. I am serving the air force and postd in jorhat. Any learned advocates, if could help filing the matter in the AFT GUWAHATI?. I hv got vry less tym. Plz reply wid ur phn numbr. Thanks in advance.
dhiru
09 March 2013 at 00:41
just before the dissmissal in RSA of land case get knowlegde of 37 new very important documents around 300 pages . Advocate was ill on last date, did not reached in court client asked for date, but case dismissed . Now what to do with 37 documents . -- go to review with all documents or to SLP .-- how and where i can produce the documents better.
ss.k
07 December 2012 at 07:53
Sir,
I submit that I want to file a probate petition in the probate court in delhi. Therefore, I want to know about the step-wise detailed procedure being adopted in the probate case in delhi and how much time will to take to grant me probate.
harshad
06 September 2012 at 00:37
accused is convicted by sessions court u/s302,447& sentenced for life imprisonment.high court accquited accused from charge of 302,447 & convicted him under 304(2)for 4 years.my question is wheather accused is liable to get bail during s.l.p.to s.c.& what are the possibilities that his appeal will entertained by s.c.his bail was reject by h.c.before conclusion of appeal accused is 80 years old
Dr Sangh Mittra
02 August 2012 at 21:32
Sir,
A judgment was delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 20 December 2006 in a Writ Petition filed by me praying for the quashing of the Order of my suspension dated 30 May 2003 and for the quashing of the Memo of charges dated 28 August 2003.
In the said Judgment the High Court quashed the Order of suspension and the Memo of charges on the grounds of mala fides but in the penultimate and final paragraph of the Judgment observed:
"Nonetheless, it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner did commit certain misconducts which could attract disciplinary action. It would not be proper to let the petitioner go scot free because the action taken has to be quashed for reasons of mala fides as detailed above..."
I , promptly filed a Review Application, on the opening of the Courts on 01 January 2007 that the Court had in earlier paragraphs used alleged misconducts but erred in this para and informed that the unintended observation of the Court was influencing the Disciplinary proceedings which my employer had re-initiated as the Court had given them the liberty to do so.
The employing Organization also filed a Review Application on 21 January 2007 praying for review of certain portions of the Judgment in which the Court had given findings against them.
The employing organization under the control of one of my Deputy Directors who had been officiating in my place during my suspension, issued to me Charge sheet signed by the said Deputy Director and wrote the undersigned with the approval of the competent authority proposes to hold an Inquiry under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965.
I kept contesting that the said Deputy Director had no authority A retired High Court was appointed as Inquiry Officer and was paid almost Rs 5,00000/- ( Five Lakhs for the Departmental Inquiry which he conducted ex Parte on the day of my sanctioned Leave on medical Grounds about which I had informed the Presenting Officer-an Assistant Director and Junior to me. I had informed the Inquiry Officer as well by post and Fax one day prior to the date he commenced ex parte.
In the ex Parte conducted on 08 July 2008- the Witnesses filed Affidavits dated 15 May 2008 by way of evidence. The intimation of the ex Parte was given to me after about 15 days. I knew it is over. Later the postage was controlled to reach me only when the date fixed at the Law Office of the retired High Court Judge was over. So I could not know anything nor could file any Defence, even if I wished to.
The Inquiry Officer appointed 27 August 2007 had sent to me the first Notice only on 26 September 2007- and for one month he kept meeting the Presenting Officer and the Witnesses- examining records etc.
I appeared before the Inquiry Officer only once to lodge my protest that the Charge sheet was signed by my Deputy Director in stead of Disciplinary Authority and that the Inquiry may please be conducted only in the office premises. While all others like the Presenting Officer and Witnesses got the Office car but I was expected to reach the Law office of the Inquiry Offier and that too in the evening at 6.00 Pm so after lodging my protest I stopped going to him and requested my employer to hold Inquiry in the Office premises.
The Inquiry Officer appointed on 27 August 2007 submitted his Report on 26 September 2008. I was not informed nor came to know.
Since the Review Application filed by me and my employer on the Judgment dated 29 December 2006 requesting the Court was pending I was awaiting the same.
In January 2009 I was handed over the Inquiry Report in which 8 out of 12 charges had been upheld by the Inquiry Officer in the ex Parte.
I wrote to the CVC and the Central Government. The CVC stated the First Stage Advice had not been obtained from them. They wrote to my employer to know why it was not taken and requested that the Second State Advice be taken.
The Department sent some papers on 20 September 2009 and after a protracted correspondence the Second State Advice of the CVC received in March 2010 recommended that I be served a Caution Memo and observed on their file ( known by me under RTI) that the element of retaliation against me for exposing financial irregularities is discernible and can not be ruled out.
My Organization served to me a Memo in August 2010 asking me to make a representation as to why the Major penalty of removal from service be not imposed upon me.
I approached a Lawyer of High Court on 21 August 2010, who I learnt later on was deeply in Collusion with the Officials of my Organization. I prepared and handed over the Writ to him but he insisted I must file the reply to the Memo dated 20 August 2010 which was filed by me on 07 September 2010.
I was issued another Memo dated 15 September 2010 that my demand for the provision of documents 9 which had been kept locked and sealed in a room in my Organization since 2003 cannot be met and these are either nonexistent, or irrelevant. I was informed final decision would be taken on my representation dated 07 September 2010.
My Advocate would not file the Petition. On 24 September 2010 he filed, finally the Writ Petition and said it was for objections. On 25 September 2010 he removed the Objections and refilled. The case came up for hearing on 2010 and the Advocate of my employing organization submitted that they had filed the final Order of my Compulsory retirement on 25 September 2010.
In the Order which they handed over to the Court on 27 September 2010 it was mentioned in hand Issue Today signed as 27;09.2010 it was mentioned that since the Judgment dated 20.12.2006 had become final as no adverse Order had been received by the Discilinary Authority till date the Disciplinary Authority, after consideration of my representation in which I had mentioned that the Review was pending, the Order of Compulsory Retirement with effect from 25 September 2010 with disqualification for any future employment in the organization was passed. It was stated that it is issued with the Approval of the Disciplinary Authority( the signatures of the DA were not there on this Order).
The Judgment dated 20 December 2006 was reviewed , the Judgment was reserved on 16 November 2009. The Judgment was delivered on 28 February 2011 . The Judgment read :
"there are good reasons to exercise that inherent power in this Court by giving some clarification in respect of the judgment"
"that this Court never intended to give any final view"
"The observations made by the learned predecessor Judge ..., however, can be understood by anyone to be the final findings of the Court"
"I am therefore of the view that this is a case where this Court should use its inherent power to do justice between the parties by giving the aforesaid clarification now"
"that none of the observations made in the judgment dated 20th December, 2006 was a final expression of opinion of the Court on the merits of any of the allegations levelled against the writ petitioner in the charge-sheet given to him"
I am in the Court- the Respondents have been served Notices and some of them have filed Counter Affidavits and I have filed rejoinder. Some of them , impleaded in person especially my Deputy Director have informed the serving clerk as I read in an inspection of the file that he has retired and go to the Office. The Union of India is yet to file Counter Affidavit.
After this long submission my humble query is as as written in the Order of my Compulsory retirement dated 25 September 2010
Could my Disciplinary Authority have treated the Judgment dated 20 December 2006 as final (as written in the Order of my Compulsory retirement dated 25 September 2010 issued on 27 September 2010, when the Review was pending?
The Judgment search reveals the final Order of disposal of the said Writ Petition as 28 February 2011.
I have been contesting the case myself after having been literally cheated by the Advocate.
Please advise in whatever way and answer my query in the penultimate para of this query.
Thanks,
BAALASUBRAMANNYAMM
27 July 2012 at 13:25
Respected Sir,
We have a SLP, which is pending before Supreme court. In the said case, on 16-03-2011, when we have mentioned the case, the Hon'ble Court had preponed the case from 02/02/2012 to 17/07/2011. But unfortunately, the case could not be listed from 22/11/2011.
I came to know from our AOR, that the court is not permitting for "Mentioning" the cases, now. So what I have to do next, if I want to early hearing of the case.
Plz. suggest me.
I am herewith attaching the earlier order.
ITEM NO.MM-C COURT NO.2 SECTION XIIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).10907/2005
(From the judgement and order dated 07/02/2005 in WA No. 1812/2001
of The HIGH COURT OF A.P AT HYDERABAD)
B. ASHOK RAO Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
JOINT COLLECTOR AND ORS. Respondent(s)
Date: 16/03/2011 This Petition was MENTIONED today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s)
Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
On mentioning, let this matter be taken on board.
In view of the order, which we had passed on 29th
November, 2010, let the date of hearing be preponed from the
month of February, 2012 and let the matter be listed for
final disposal on 12th July, 2011, at the top of list.
(Sheetal Dhingra) (Veena Khera)
Court Master Court Master
welcomeoncloud9
17 July 2012 at 03:23
Dear Sir,
We have ancestral Properties , Now one of our Brother out of 8 have executed a sale deed on one of the Property , with only mothers signature on sale deed. so we challenged the sale deed in lower courts and after defeating in this courts , our brother appealed in High Court and even in high court he lost the case and oral judgement and order was in our favour for cancelling the sale deed , as the sale deed was done without our consent. Now aggrieved with High Cour , our Brother has filed SLP for interim relief in Supreme court , SLP is just filed and Not yet admitted by SC. Now matter between all brothers have resolved and we are ready to give our consent to the sale Deed of that particular property and accordingly(in lieu of) he relinquishing all his rights and interest of whatsoever in all other ancestral properties from paternal and maternal side , in which he is legal share holder ( as one legal heir). our settlement basically is we giving consent to his sale deed and in lieu of which he is relinquishing all his rights to all the ancestral properties including ancestral house. so in view of above settlement , our brother wants to file our consent terms in SLP format before admission of SLP ( Without granting the leave), Note: our mother is alive and she too a petitioner in SLP, so i have following queries :
1) is SLP time bound after the High cour order?
2) Is filing of consent terms a correct procedure to settle this matter so that the fight between brothers ends and no one interfere with each other ?
3) what is SLP for interim relief means?
4) we are told by him and his lawyer that consent terms filed in SLP is the correct procedure to resolve the issue and once filed in SC , one cannot appeal any time in future.
5) Do u need to wait for the admission of special leave before filing consent terms in SC? cause we have not received the notices as yet from SC, as the HIGH court oral Judgement and order is dated 9 /12/2011.
6)one of our brother who was one of the respondent in high court is dead bachelor so do we require to mention his name in slp as he was alive when high court case was filed?
kindly suggest .......
rayu mahambare
25 June 2012 at 22:20
Sir,
Plz guide me whether CAVEAT can be filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Court? The criminal writ petition is decided in my favour in the High Court. As a precautionery measure, in anticipation of possibility of other side challenging the said order of the High Court in Hon'ble Supreme Court, can I file CAVEAT in SC? If yes, can I get a draft of Caveat to be filed, from you my friends. or any other remedy available to me to avoid any ex-parte order.
Member Strength 9,47,998 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Nmdcase - supremecourt causelists
IN SC daily causelist, earlier my case was mentioned as '1st listing', '2nd listing', likewise. But now it mentioned as 'nmd case'. What it means? What is the difference?