Tom
23 November 2016 at 06:25
One of the CC case is staus listed as:
Business on Date- 20/4/2016;
Hearing Date - 22/4/2016;
Purpose of Hearing- Order /Judgement.
Does it mean that the case is finally disposed off ? But the order /Judgement is not available in the e-court web site.
How do i get a copy of judgement, being not a party to the case !
ks
23 November 2016 at 06:19
My cousin is fighting a case of custody. There is one possibility that visitation right be given at child access room of court. Now, the question is :
Do they maintain any Log Book that whether custodian parent came with the child or not ?
Shah
23 November 2016 at 02:53
Plaintiff obtained injunction. Now defendant has raised objection on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. Issue framed. Can the court order that preliminary issue be decided at hearing of suit, and decide as preliminary issue.
Ranbir
22 November 2016 at 21:42
Dear sir ,
My cousin brother is a tenant and is residing in his rented house for more than 40 years and is regularly paying his rent to the owner of the house the owner of the house is building another house adjacent to my cousions rented house but while construction was going on and my cousin was out of house the owner demolished the portion of my cousins house and was trying to build the house including the land of my cousion my cousin immediately gave application to the sdo police and municipal authorities for the act of the owner following which the municipal authorities reached the spot and ordered the owner not to go beyond the plan approved by them and not to demolished the house without the court orders but the owner forcefully constructed the house in the land of my cousin now my cousin wrote several letters to the municipal authorities to demolished the illegal construction of the owner and also to direct the owner to give back the property to my cousin but no response is received from the concerned department can my cousin file writ petition in high court against police sdo and municipal authorities for taking no action regarding the same
Shruti Shruti
22 November 2016 at 20:58
i am about to approach a lawyer to quash my FIR. I just got AB. Meanwhile is there anyway to stop Inspector from filing charge sheet?
Shruti Shruti
22 November 2016 at 20:56
I got AB for my FIR in Sessions court. The order says "Anticipatory bail is granted wrt to crime no.". It doesnt say anything about that we A1,2,3 should appear in person to sign in any police stations. So i feel i am fleed from this case as of now.
Also charge sheet is pending & i heard that defecto complainant is yet to submit the documents for witness & any documents. I guess they wont turn up to provide all.
Can I free myself from this case thoughts?
Pls suggest me.
Ranbir
22 November 2016 at 20:44
Dear sir
If a person files a FIR in the concerned police station and gives the copy regarding same to the concerned SDPO and the SP of the district but no step is taken from the police what are the legal rights of that person for his safety
ASHWANI GAGNEJA
22 November 2016 at 20:20
As per instructions by expert R.K. Nanda,I am stating detailed facts. I have filed a recovery suit against a Gurgaon based company in 2001, in Tees Hazari Court. The defendant filed Written Statement without any authority by Board Resolution.At the cross examination their representative carry any P.O.A and told the court that he will submit it later, which he never did.
Both my lawyer & Judge ignored. Now the case is in arguments stage.
1. Can we raise this point & can the ex-party proceeding can be initiated against defendant.
2. If not, there is a doubt of the bar of limitation as the last bill comes under limitation time but is on plain paper & is un receipted but never acknowledged or disputed by the Defendant
Thanks
Ashwani Gagneja
sachin
22 November 2016 at 20:01
No.36012/11/2016-EStt(Res)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block, New Delhi 110001
Dated the 30th September 2016
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Contempt petition (C) NO-314/2016 in SLP (C) N,o.4831/2012-Samta Andolan Samiti through its President vs. Sanjay Kothari & Ors.
Reference: 1. SLP(C) No.30621/2011
2. SLP(C) No.31735/2011
3. SLP(C) No. 35000/2011
4. SLP(C) No. 2839/2012
5. SLP(C) No.4831/2012
6. SLP(C) No.5859/2012
7. SLP(C) No.5860/2012
8. SLP(C) No.30841/2012
9. SLP(C) N0.6915/2014
10. SLP(C) No.8327/2014
11. SLP(C) No.16710-16711/2014
12. SLP(C) No.23344/2014
13. SLP(C) No.23339-23340/2014
14. SLP(C) No.21343/2015
15. SLP(C) No.33163/2014
16. Contempt Petition (C) No.314/2016 in SLP (C) No.4831/2012
The undersigned is directed to invite attention to this Departments 0M. No.36012/45/2005-Estt (Res) dated 10th August, 2010 (copy enclosed) on the subject reservation in promotion — treatment of SC/ST candidates promoted on their own merit
2. The OM No.36012/45/2005-EStt(Res), dated 10.8.2010 was challenged in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No.13218/2009 [Shri Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Ors Vs Jarnail Singh & Ors ] The Hon’ble High Court Punjab & Haryana vide its judgment dated 15.7.2011 quashed the O.M dated 10.8.2010.
3. Against the Order of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 15.7.2011, an SLP was filed by Jarnail Singh & Ors. The Union of India through Department of Revenue also filed SLP No.6915/2014 in this case.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.02.2015 passed the following interim order In SLP No.30621/011- Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs Lachmi Narain Gupta & Ors:-
“Let the matter be listed in the second week of March 2015 on a non- miscellaneous day. Status quo existing as on today in respect of the promotional matters that are covered by the impugned judgment shall be maintained till the next date of hearing.
3. Contempt Petitions were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against Department of personnel and Training and Railways alleging that 5 notifications issued by the DOPT and 5 Notifications issued by the Railways were contrary to the status quo order dated 03.02.2015 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore notice of contempt was issued. The matter came up for hearing on 29.9.2016 before the Apex Court.
4. In order to preclude any interim order in the contempt case, as desired by the Honble Supreme Court. the Learned Solicitor General has undertaken that till such time the main matter along with the Contempt Petition is decided, no further promotions of reserved category persons to unreserved posts will be made based on the DOPT 0M dated 10.8.2010 and Railway Board circular dated 14.9.2010.
5.In the light of the above, till such time that the SLP (s) are decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering promotion, the DOPT 0M dated 10.8.2010 and Railway Board circular dated 14.9.2010 are not to be relied upon.The main matter along with the contempt petition is likely to be taken up for hearing on 22.11.2016.
6. These instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned for information and necessary action.
sd/-
(G. Srinivasan)
Deputy Secretary
No.36012/45/2005-Estt. (Res.)
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
Department of Personnel and Training
North Block
New Delhi- 110001.
Dated the 10 thAugust, 2010
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Reservation in promotion — Treatment of SC/ST candidates
promoted on their own merit.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's
O.M.No.36028/17/2001-Estt. (Res.) dated 11 thJuly, 2002 which clarified
that SC/ ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and not
owing to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will be adjusted against
un-reserved points of the reservation roster and not against reserved points.
It was subsequently clarified by this Department's O.M. No.36028/17/2001-
Estt. (Res.) dated 31.1.2005 that the above referred O.M. took effect from
11.7.2002 and that concept of own merit did not apply to the promotions
made by non-selection method.
2. Central Administration Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A. No.900/2005
[S. Kalugasalamoorthy v/s. Union of India & Others] has set aside the O.M.
No.36028/17/2001-Estt. (Res.) dated 31.1.2005 and held that when a person
is selected on the basis of his own seniority, the scope of considering and
counting him against quota reserved for SCs does not arise. The High
Court of judicature at Madras in the matter of UOI v/s.
S. Kalugasalamoorthy [ WP No.15926/2007 ] has upheld the decision of the
Central Administrative Tribunal.
3. The matter has been examined in the light of the above referred
judgments and it has been decided to withdraw O.M. No. 36028/17/2001-
Estt. (Res.) dated 31.1.2005 referred to above. It is clarified that SC/ST
candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and seniority and not
owing to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will be adjusted against
unreserved points of reservation roster, irrespective of the fact whether the
promotion is made by selection method or non-selection method. These orders will take effect from 2.7.1997. the date on which post based
reservation was introduced,
4. These instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned.
(K.G. Verma )
Director
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT DOES THIS ORDER SAYS AS I AM NOT ABLE UNDERSTAND THIS LEGAL ORDER I SHALL BE GREATFUL IF YOU ALL EXPERTS GIVES THE ANSWER IN EASY TO UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE WHAT THIS ORDER HOLDS
THANKS
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
What is public intrest litigation in our constitution
What is public intrest litigation (PIL) in our constitution