surjit singh
13 August 2015 at 08:18
Beside a residence in a purely residential area there existed a industrial plant using generator set gor cutting scrap materials and also at times use to burn plastic wastes. My brother approached the Pollution Control Board in 2013. The Board took the matter and issue show cause notice and ultimately on 27.7.15 passed an order restricting the operation of the unit under section 31A of Air(prevention and control of pollution) ACT 1981. During the proceeding before the pollution board new indistrial small unit rose on the left and behind of a colour manufacturing unit and a saw mill. Both the units are using heavy machinery with gererator set creating loud noise. The earlier unit against which the Pollution Board passed the aforesaid order is still in operation and new unit has come out on the left and behind of the residence.
My question whether the SDO with application under 133(1)(b) cr.p.c. be approached or again the Pollution Board should be approached.
surjit singh
26 July 2015 at 07:25
In an earlier partation suit which was dismissed on 1998 for non prosecution the karta of the family was not made as a separate party in new partition suit we are making the karta as a party as HUF as well as kindividually. In the earlier suit there were some agricultural plot which were left out and some were wrongly mentioned because all the documents at that time was with karta.
Now in the new partition suit we are making the karta as a seperate party as HUF as well as individually. Since 1988 we are having seperate kitchen. Most of the land documents are still with karta i.e. eldest brother of my father, but we are now able to procure the correct plot numbers.
My query is (1) whether making karta of that time as party in new suit will affect the new partition suit?
(2) Since there will be difference in plots number in the schedule as compare to the earlier suit. Will it affect the suit.
surjit singh
26 July 2015 at 07:22
In an earlier partation suit which was dismissed on 1998 for non prosecution the karta of the family was not made as a separate pkitow in new partition suit we are making the karta as a party as HUF as well as individually. In the earlier suit there were some agricultural plot which were left out and some were wrongly mentioned because all the documents at that time was with karta.
Now in the new partition suit we are making the karta as a seperate party as HUF as well as individually. Since 1988 we are having seperate kitchen. Most of the land documents are still with karta i.e. eldest brother of my father, but we are now able to procure the correct plot numbers.
My query is (1) whether making karta of that time as party in new suit will affect the new partition suit?
(2) Since there will be difference in plots number in the schedule as compare to the earlier suit. Will it affect the suit.
surjit singh
21 June 2015 at 20:04
My father is 76 and till date there is no partition between the brothers of my father. There are all three brothers and two sister, all are above 80. Now all together major and minor members around 68 out of which 26 are major and 42 are minor in some are less than 5 years of age.
My question is can the partition suit be filed without making the minor parties, but it be mentioned in the suit that there are such and such minors but due to brevity they have not been made parties but all the biological as well legal guardians are made parties.
surjit singh
08 April 2015 at 13:05
Grateful if a very recent latest judgement under order 39 rule 2A cpc is provided.
surjit singh
03 April 2015 at 06:50
One was promoted twice in his service by upgrading the post he was holding.In the order upgradation of the post it was mentioned that the post has been upgraded for the incumbent and it will be reverted back to its original post as soon the incumbent leaves the post. The incumbent is going to retire very soon and there is a perseption that the incumbent will be shown to have retire for the origional post where the post will reverted. My querry is, whether it is so and whether it will have any effect on his pension calculation and future pension benefits.
surjit singh
23 March 2015 at 06:21
A student left the institution after completing the first semister and applied for withdrawal of his admission as asked for by the office of the institution. After submitting his application he asked for refund of the refundable caution money but the educational institution refused to refund the money saying that you have left the institution before the completion of the course. But in the prospectus there is no mention about not refunding the caution money in case the student leaves the institution before the completion of the course. Please advise where to approach for refund and what gor the caution money is taken.
surjit singh
20 February 2015 at 20:59
An civil appeal is filed in which the main respondent address was given as his permanent address. But in the civil suit where the main respondent was petitioner mentioned his permanent address as well his presently residing address where he reside.
My question is, the respondent by choosing to mention only the permanent address ignorong the presently residing address in the appeal filed, has got the stay order of the decree. Whether it can be vacated citing that the appeallant intentionally ignored the presently residing address of the main respondent where the notice was not sent.
Secondly, whether it is essential to file reply in the appeal against the ground mentioned in the appeal.
surjit singh
24 January 2015 at 07:39
A partition suit was filed in 1991. The case went on till 2000. Thereafter evidence from both side was concluded. As there was some possibly of amicable settlement both the parties left the case and it was dismissed for default. The amicable settlement did not materialized and quarrel broke out between the parties and several criminal cases was filed on one another. Some of the criminal cases are still pending. In the meantime one party has filled application for partition in the year 2011 before Director of land record under a new act. But there is a possibility of this application being dismissed because the section under which the application is filed before the Director is termed ultravirus by the high court.
My question is whether after the dismissal of the application the parties can approach the civil court for Restoration of the earlier partition suit. I may point out that in one case supreme court said while deciding condonation only technalities should not be seen, the delivery of justice be also seen.
Member Strength 9,47,372 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
officiating promotion
My query is a promotion was made 8 years ago as officiating promotion subject to approval by DPC. Whether an officiating promotion can be termed as promotion within the meaning of service law.