Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.68 seconds)
Documents citing The Registrar, University Of Madras And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Represented By Its ... on 19 December, 1994

Mary Chacko vs Jancy Joseph on 5 August, 2005

When a decree for money is sought to be executed under Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act by a Civil Court, necessarily Civil Court has to bear in mind Section 56 of the Code of Civil Procedure which states that the Court shall not order the arrest or detention in the civil prison of a woman in execution of a decree for payment of money. Therefore, when Civil Court is executing an order passed by the Forum it cannot order arrest of a woman for recovery of the amount. Section 27 of the Act also confers additional power upon the Forum to execute its order. When an order is sought to be executed under Section 25 by a Civil Court, woman cannot be arrested in execution of the order passed by the Forum since Section 56 is applicable in execution of the decree through a Civil Court. Same analogy could be applied when the Forum itself seeks to execute a similar order under Section 27 of the Act. Just like Civil Court, in our view, Forum should also bear in mind the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure when an application is made before it for arrest of a woman in execution of money decree. Madras High Court in Registrar, University of Madras v. Union of India and Ors., 1996 CCJ 668 has stated that the Forum should bear in mind the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure when powers under Section 27 are exercised. We also subscribe the same view when an application is made not only under Section 25 but also under Section 27 of the Act for execution of an order passed by the Forum for realization of money.
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 3 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Glocal Medical College Super ... vs Union Of India & Anr. on 5 September, 2019

The facts and circumstances of the instant case in relation to the aspect that the petitioner herein did not permit the assessors of the respondent no.2 to conduct the inspection on 03.01.2019 & 05.04.2019, are in pari materia with the facts and circumstances of the case in Shri Venkateshwara University through its Registrar and Another (supra) as relied upon on behalf of the respondent no.2.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Malhotra - Full Document

Cm Nos. 285 & 286/2023 vs Kuldeep Raj & Ors on 16 August, 2023

5. Sh. Jagpaul Singh, Ld. Counsel for respondents, has opposed the application seeking condonation of delay in filing instant LPA by strenuously articulating arguments, that the appeal is hopelessly time barred as there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of 275 days in preferring the appeal. It is argued, that the impugned judgment dated 11.02.2022 was passed in the presence of the counsel for applicants/appellants who was very much aware about the judgment impugned, applicants/appellants in their application have neither placed on record anything nor uttered even a single word as to the date when they received the copy of the judgment dated 11.02.2022 and as to the date when they sought legal opinion and when they applied for the sanction to prefer the above titled appeal before this Court. It is moreso argued, that immediately after the judgment impugned was passed by the writ court, a copy of the same was furnished to the applicants/appellants though with a request to comply the same, appellants did not comply the judgment whereof contempt petition bearing CCP (s) No. 22912022 dated 17.08.2022 was filed before the Ld. Single Judge who vide its order dated 23.08.2022 directed appellants to file compliance report, but instead of filing the compliance report the appellants preferred the instant LPA well aware of the date of passing the impugned judgment. It is urged, that the condonation of delay application suffers from delay and latches, there is no explanation of ―sufficient cause‖ for such delay, the law of limitation binds everybody including the Government department, there is absence of diligence by the department in prosecuting the instant LPA, there is no explanation offered as to why application for procuring certified copies of impugned judgment was not within prescribed period, unexplained delay has occasion at every stage though the authorities/Government were well aware of the issues involved including prescribed period of limitation. It is enthusiastically argued, that 5 CM No. 285/2023 in LPA No. 5/2023 the condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for Govt. departments and offering usual explanation, moving of file from one department/officer to other is not sufficient reason for condoning such an abnormal delay, no details of the delay of 275 days have been given as if the appellant has inherent right to seek condonation of delay by State Govt. and moreso the law of limitation apparently does not apply to State Govt. according to its conduct. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgments reported in, (i) (1997) 7 SCC 556 [P.K. Ramachandran Versus State of Kerala & Anr], (ii) (2012) 3 Supreme Court Cacse 563 [POST MASTER GENERAL AND OTHERS versus LIVING MEDIA INDIA LTD. AND ANOTHER], (iii) (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases 422 [STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANOTHER versus AMAR NATH YADAV], (iv) 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1314 [State of Bihar and Others---Petitioner(s) v. Deo Kumar Singh and Others---Respondent(s)], (v) 2020) 13 SCC 745 [Appellants: University of Delhi vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.], (vi) (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 654 [STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS versus BHERULAL] and also the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court viz; (vii) Union Territory of J&K and others vs Abdul Rehman and others [LPA No. 107/2021 CM Nos. 2561/2022, 7968/2021, 7969/2021] &
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Glory Saji And 5 Others vs Union Of India And 9 Others on 5 January, 2021

13. Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Institute/respondent no. 8 has argued that the Institute preferred a writ petition before the Apex Court numbered as Writ Petition(Civil) No. 445 of 2017, Shri Venkateshwara Institute of Medical Sciences through its Registrar and another Vs. Union of India and another, with the prayer to quash the order dated 31.5.2017 vide letter No. U-12012/27/2016-ME-I(3084749) by which the Institute was debarred from admitting students in M.B.B.S. course for the academic session 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 and further the Medical Council of India was authorized to encash the bank guarantee of Rs.2 crores with a further direction to the respondents to grant renewal of permission for the academic year 2017-2018 and further admit the students in the said session only. On 1st September 2017, directions were passed by the Apex Court in the said writ petition that the students who have been admitted in the Institute for the academic sessions 2016-2017 shall continue their studies there only along with other directions. In so far as the application for renewal for the year 2017-2018 was concerned the Apex Court directed that the said application may be treated as an application for the academic year 2018-2019. It was further directed that the bank guarantee which was deposited shall not be encashed and shall be kept alive. The operative portion of the said order dated 1.9.2017 passed in the matter is extracted herein below:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam Technical ... vs G.L. Bajaj Inst. Of Techn. And Manag. , ... on 6 January, 2023

2. Present special appeal has been preferred against the interim order dated 20.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ C No. 8770 of 2022 (G.L.Bajaj Institute of Technology and Management, Gautam Buddh Nagar, through its Registrar Vs. Union of India and others) allowing the respondent no.1- Institution to register/admit the students under 10% E.W.S. quota in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the University, as an interim measure.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next