Search results for ‘pali

Dhammapada – Pali

तिपिटक (मूल) – Thre Baskets [Chambers] I. The Pairs ( 1-20) II. Heedfulness (21-32) III. The Mind (33-43) IV. Flowers (44-59) V. The Fool (60-75) VI. The Wise Man (76-89) VII. The […]

Buddhist canonical text in Pali

तिपिटक (मूल) विनयपिटक पाराजिकपाळि वेरञ्जकण्डं १. पाराजिककण्डं २. सङ्घादिसेसकण्डं ३. अनियतकण्डं ४. निस्सग्गियकण्डं पाचित्तियपाळि ५. पाचित्तियकण्डं ६. पाटिदेसनीयकण्डं ७. सेखियकण्डं ८. अधिकरणसमथा १. पाराजिककण्डं (भिक्खुनीविभङ्गो) २. सङ्घादिसेसकण्डं (भिक्खुनीविभङ्गो) ३. निस्सग्गियकण्डं (भिक्खुनीविभङ्गो) ४. […]

Simplified Procedure of Mutation [in West bengal]

Application for mutation shall be received in the office of the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer by one or two officials who will be entrusted to do the job by the Block Land & Land Reforms Officer depending upon the flow of such applications in that office from time to time. No such application shall be received unless the same is submitted in the proforma as prescribed below which may be either typed or handwritten with requisite application fee and process fee along with the following documents

DAL CHAND AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Cancellation of Bail — Petitioners before this Court for the purpose of getting bail that deceased for whose murder they have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment was still alive. The misrepresentation made by the petitioners is highly reprehensible — The bail granted to the petitioners is cancelled.

Supreme Court held ‘The Reservation Act 2018’ is a valid exercise of the enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution.

B.K. Pavitra and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. – May 10, 2019 – The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution.

The embargo in Order II Rule 2 will arise only if the claim, which is omitted or relinquished and the reliefs which are omitted and not claimed, arise from one cause of action but If there is more than one cause of action the rule shall not apply

Pramod Kumar & ANR. Vs. Zalak Singh & Ors. – MAY 10, 2019 – The principle underlying Order II Rule 2 is that no man can be vexed twice over the same cause of action. All claims and reliefs, which arise from a cause of action, must be comprehended in one single suit. Order II Rule 2 provides for the principle of repose. If this be the underlying object of Order II Rule 2, the fact that at the time when the first suit was filed even though the second alienation could be challenged and it stemmed from one single cause of action and not two different causes of action, the mere fact that a different period of limitation is provided, cannot stand in the way of the bar under Order II Rule 2.

SMT. UJJAM BAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

A mere misconstruction of a provision of law does not render the decision of a quasi-judicial tribunal void (as being beyond its jurisdiction). It is a good and valid decision in law until and unless it is corrected in the appropriate manner. So long as that decision stands, despite its being erroneous, it must be regarding as one authorised by law and where, under such a decision a person is held liable to pay a tax that person cannot treat the decision as a nullity and contend that what is demanded of him is something which is not authorised by law. The position would be the same even though upon a proper construction, the law under which the decision was given did not authorise such a levy.

Seema Sarkar Vs. Executive Officer and Ors.

May 01, 2019 – The Member of Parliament cannot be treated at par with an elected member of the Panchayat Samity for the purpose of removal of Pramukh and Uppramukh. In the relevant Rules and Regulations in relation to a motion of no confidence wherever the word ‘member’ is used, it would only mean elected members and not nominated members even though such nominated member may have a right to vote in other proceedings [SC]

Publishing scurrilous and defamatory articles in newspaper is not the job of a journalist [BHC]

SHRI DNYANDEVRAO TATYRAV WAGHMODE Vs. ALLABAKSHA GULAB NADAF AND OTHERS – The role of the journalist is far more noble. The media is called the fourth estate. But this type of misuse of the fourth estate is really deplorable. Once upon a time, journalists like Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak used this media for awakening the conscience of the people during the British Raj and for social, political and other worthy causes. Right to information is a fundamental right of the people, but this type of yellow journalism has to be condemned and those who resort to this type of cheap publicity and those who use their newspaper for blowing their own trumpet or for condemning and defaming others should be condemned themselves by the people. Using temperate, restrained and sophisticated language, which is at the same time effective and reaches and touches the soul of those who read it, is the key of success in the field of journalism. There are very few, who are endowed with these qualities. Newspapers like ‘Janhit’ and ‘Agman’ may be small newspapers. They are being circulated in a small town. They should aim at providing necessary and correct information and news-items to the people, to make them literate and more informative, so that they become aware as to what is going on around them.