O R D E R Clause Samples

O R D E R. Based on the foregoing, and the parties having agreed that the above-named child shall be informally adjusted in this matter, without formal adjudication and disposition, the Court hereby ORDERS:

O R D E R. The Government of India hereby decides that the following shall be added as Clauses 1.7, 5.2, 6.5 and 6.6 to the “ Schedule to the License Agreement” for DTH Services

O R D E R. We have perused the Settlement Agreement dated 12th March, 2024 signed by the petitioner, first respondent and the second respondent as well as by the advocate for the respondents. The petitioner and the second respondent are wife and husband respectively. A perusal of the Settlement Agreement shows that the petitioner- wife and the second respondent-husband have agreed to start staying together as wife and husband within a period of one month from 12th March, 2024. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the second respondent state, on instructions, that the parties have started cohabiting together in terms of sub-clause (vii) of clause 1 of the Settlement Agreement. The learned Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Date: 2024.05.13 18:26:16 IST Reason:

O R D E R. During the pendency of the present transfer petition, the parties entered into a settlement agreement dated 19.12.

O R D E R. During the pendency of the present transfer petition, parties have entered into a settlement agreement dated 17.12.2024 before the Supreme Court Mediation Centre.1 Parties are present in Court and accept their signatures on the settlement agreement and the terms and conditions of the settlement. The settlement agreement has also been signed by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Mediator nominated by the SCMC. The settlement agreement is taken on record and will form part of this order. A demand draft for ₹35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty five lakhs only) has been handed over by the respondent, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇, to the petitioner, ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, towards settlement of all her claims, past, present and future, pertaining to maintenance, streedhan, etc. The said demand draft has been accepted by her in terms of the settlement agreement. Signature Not Verified ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Digitaully snignded bey r Article 142 of the Constitution of India and hereby quash Date: 2025.01.20 16:42:42 IST Reason: 1 For short, “SCMC”. Criminal Case No. 940/2023, titled “State v. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ & Ors.”, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, (Mahila Court)-1 East, Karkardooma Courts Complex, Delhi; and Untrace/Cancellation Report (UCR) No. 3021/2024, titled “State v. Unknown”, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Taluka Court, Bilaspur, District Yamunanagar, Haryana. ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ PETITIONER(S) ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R. This 9th day of July 2018, after careful consideration of the parties’ briefs, oral argument, and the record on appeal, it appears that the judgment of the Court of Chancery should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated in its October 12, 2017 Memorandum Opinion.1

O R D E R. On May 5, 2003, Jessamine-South Elkhorn Water District (“District”) filed for Commission approval a new or amended WATER USER AGREEMENT (“Agreement”). The Agreement was between the District and the customer and its execution by the landlord/owner and tenant/lessee was necessary as a condition of service. The Agreement stated, “if the CUSTOMER is a Renter, then the Owner of the leased property shall be required to sign this contract before water service is begun and the OWNER shall be bound by all the provisions of the agreement including all charges for service.” The Agreement provides for the signature of the owner, including address and telephone number. The District is unilaterally imposing as a condition for service that the landlord/owner is jointly and severally responsible with tenant/lessee for payment of all charges. This issue is referred to herein as “landlord/tenant liability.” The landlord/tenant liability issue was addressed by the Commission in its decision and Order in ▇▇▇▇▇▇ County Water District No. 1, Case No. 9383 (Ky. PSC,

O R D E R. On April 14, 2004, ProNet Communications, Inc. (“ProNet”) and Kentucky ALLTEL, Inc. submitted to the Commission a resale agreement. The agreement was negotiated pursuant to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“1996 Act”), 47 U.S.C. Sections 251 and 252. Section 252(e) of the 1996 Act requires the parties to an agreement adopted by negotiation to submit the agreement for approval to the Commission. ProNet asked that the agreement be approved by Order rather than by operation of law.

O R D E R. Liquor License No. LC0038537 )