As regards the affidavits, copies of such documents cannot be taken in evidence. What 'evidence' means and includes is defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. Affidavits are not included in its definition. On the contrary, affidavits have be..
As the facts and the legal issues arising for our consideration in both these appeals are similar, we propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment and order. The contesting respondents herein got themselves admitted for a trai..
A. In the year 1972, the State of Madhya Pradesh conceived a dam to provide irrigation facilities to farmers of Khargone district. The dam, on filling upto full, would cause submergence of 1258.59 hectares of land, out of which 1037.715 is private an..
This interlocutory application for directions is filed in the special leave petition. The special leave petition has been filed against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 04.10.2005 dismissing the writ petition filed by way of Public Intere..
Since common questions of law and facts are involved in this batch of appeals, six of which have been filed by Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation'), and one has been preferred by Insurance Company..
Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are: A. The Public Works Department of the State of Rajasthan (hereinafter called “PWD”) decided in September 1997 to construct the Bharatpur bye-pass for the road from Bharatpur to Mathura, whi..
This is the second round of battle for the petitioners who happen to be in the Research Faculty as Scientific & Design staff with respondent No.3, namely, the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “IIT, Delhi”). Admitt..
The relevant facts are that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession, permanent injunction and damages against the petitioner and respondent no.1 herein in respect of the suit land alleging that she was the owner thereof having purchased it fr..
On 16th May 1995 it was directed by this Court that any appointment made will be subject to the result of the writ petition. Pursuant to an order dated 31st January 1996 an additional affidavit was filed by the Petitioners. The writ petition was ther..
Petitioner No. 1 Mr. N.K. Anand and Petitioner No. 2 Mrs. Usha Bhatia have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on 29th August 2000 praying for a direction to Respondent No. 3, National Physical Laboratory („NPL‟), and Respondent..
The facts very briefly are that the appellant, a general candidate not belonging to any reserved category, took the Civil Services Examination, 1998 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission and he secured 95th rank and was appointed to the IP..
This is a petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 against the order dated 25.01.10 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenant‟s application for grant of leave to defend the eviction petiti..
Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the land in dispute belongs to the State. It is averred by the respondents that they have occupied the land in dispute in the year 1947, measuring 2-1/2 kanals in Khasra No. 16693/6729 ..
Mr K.T.S. Tulsi, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has challenged the said order on three counts. The first ground is based on the doctrine of “Speciality” and specifically on Section 31(1)(c) of the said Act. It was ..
This is a petition under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control, 1958 against the order dated 4.12.2009 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking leave to defend the eviction pet..
Short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the Election Commission of India on 16th of April, 2008 notified its intention to hold General election to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly and announced the election schedule. According..
This is a petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 against impugned order dated 22.01.11 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenant’s application for grant of leave to defend the eviction ..
This is a petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 against impugned order dated 22.01.11 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenant’s application for grant of leave to defend the eviction ..
This is a petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 against impugned order dated 22.01.11 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenant’s application for grant of leave to defend the eviction ..
This is a petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 against impugned order dated 22.01.11 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby the petitioner-tenant’s application for grant of leave to defend the eviction ..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
