HC held that The Central Government cannot direct the assessing officer to take a particular view of the matter as that would be a direct interference with his powers as an assessing officer. He has to exercise the powers in accordance with law.
If the facts of the instant case are examined, it is quite vivid that in the present case, the award was passed by the Facilitation Council on 12-3-2014, the respondent herein filed application for execution of award on 21-8-2014 and thereafter on 19-2- 2015, application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was filed […]
HC held that A female Government servant, who has begotten a child by procedure of surrogacy, is entitled for maternity leave under Rule 38 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Leave) Rules, 2010. 1. To become a mother is the most natural phenomenon in the life of a woman. Whatever is needed to facilitate the birth […]
This is an application for restoration of WPS No. 1501 of 2015, which was dismissed for want of prosecution for non compliance of the peremptory order passed by this Court on 29.04.2015 directing that if the petitioner fails to pay the process fee, as per rules, the petition shall stand dismissed automatically without reference to the Court.
Invoking provisions contained in Section 26(2) of The Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘Act of 1961’) read with Rule 19(2) of The Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Election Petition) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called as ‘Rules of 1962’), the election petitioner, petitioner herein has preferred this revision calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the District Judge, Bilaspur in M.J.C. No. 114/2015 by which learned District Judge/Election Tribunal has dismissed the election petition instituted by the petitioner herein under Section 20 read with Section 22 of the Act of 1961 and declined to the election of respondent herein/Vice-President Office of Nagar Panchayat, Bodri District Bilaspur as null & void.
Appellant would assail her conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (‘the IPC’ in short) and sentence of life imprisonment for committing murder of her husband namely; Rohit Kumar (since deceased), a rickshaw puller, in the intervening night of 25/26.06.2003.
The petitioner having preferred writ petition in the name of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat without supported with the resolution of the Gram Panchayat was not authorised to maintain the writ petition.
The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that Ext.P6 communication has been issued to the petitioner under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (for brevity the LLP Act), which according to the petitioner, they are not obliged to comply with.
In view of the observation made in the preceding paragraph (22), the Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Department of Petroleum, Government of India for information and appropriate needful action against the erring officials of IOCL, the respondent herein.
In the light of various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, we hope that wisdom would prevail on the lawyers, so far as the present call to abstain from work is taken by the respondents. It is needless to say that everyone including the community of lawyers have to abide by the directions of the Apex Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution.
