Simranjeet Law Associates The 2-Minute Rule For Advocates In Chandigarh High Court

It had one consistent and coherent purpose, i. 26) The inclusive part of the definition, which is enacted only for the benefit of female in relation to the landlord, adds one more category of person best lawyer in Chandigarh addition to those specified in clauses (i) to (iii), namely, any female having a legal right of residence in that building. Any observation made about this writing can have no apt application for the determination of the present case.

Both the High Court and the trial court found that defendants Nos. On the above findings, the High Court passed a prelimi- nary decree directing that separate allotments of the properties should be made to the plaintiff and the defend- ants excepting Shibtahl Das. It is, therefore, not surprising at all that July 27,'1951, the "warrant of appearance" was returned by the respondent Arabinda Bose, the Assistant in the Suit Registry ]Department of the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court, with the endorsament that "the warrant must be filed by an attorney of this Court under High Court Rules and Orders, Original Side, and not by an Advocate Simranjeet".

One thing to benoticed is that Parliament can only empower any othercourt to exercise any of the powers exercisable under cl. The High Court reversed the decision of the trial court and held (1)that the parties were Sudras and not Dwijas, (2) that Budparkash died in a state of separation from his brother, Nandkishore, and (3) that no suit for declaration of title was necessary and the plaintiff's failure to pay sufficient court-fee should not stand in the way of suitable relief being granted to him.

A permissible settlement by a mortgagee in possession with a tenant in the course of prudent management and the springing up of rights in the tenant conferred or created by statute based on the nature of the land and possession for the requisite period is an exception to the general rule, but to fall within this exception the settlement of the tenant by the mortgagee must have been a bona fide one. , to excite labourers and to bring them into action.

It connotes the same rights and the same limitations which are prescribed in section 14 of the Act. (2) ; it cannot confer the guaranteed right mentioned in cl. A discretionary jurisdiction similar to that of the High Court can only be conferred on them. That is to say, the court or courts to which such powers are given would be in the same position as the High Court in respect of the enforcement of the fundamental rights. Section 4 (1) (a)of the Indian Press (Emergency Pow- ers) Act (XXIII of 1931) is not unconstitutional as the restrictions imposed on freedom of speech and expression by the said section are solely directed against the undermining of the security of the State or the overthrow of it and are within the ambit of Art.

The Board of the appellants in its 78th Meeting decided to impose penalty for non-execution of the balance contract work by the respondents and including the financial loss incurred by the appellants due to allocation of that work to third party at higher rate. My answer to this query in the present case is that the document read at first sight is not intelligible unless Simranjeet Singh Sidhu it is explained to that man of ordinary commonsense by a learned person and hence it can by itself create no impression of any kind on such a person.

The learned Chief Justice in the concluding part of the judgment very pertinently pointed out that a commonsense interpretation must be given to the document complained of, the question to be answered always being, what impression will the documents or words give to a man of ordinary commonsense. To put it shortly, no person will have a guaranteed right to move any such other court for the enforcement of fundamental rights. That rule does not in terms contemplate an advocate acting for a defendant.

19(2) of the Constitution. In terms of that decision, an approval order for recovery of penalty was issued by the appellants on 3rd November 2005 which reads thus: The first point that requires consideration is whether the plaintiffs can, on the facts admitted and found in this case, claim a declaration of their right to accompany the Yajmans or clients inside the Badrinath temple and assist them in having 'darshan' of the deities and in performing such ceremonies as individual worshipers may perform.

For the same reason given in the case of the High Court, an aggrieved party will also have a right to move those courts in the manner prescribed. Sections 9 (4) and 14 (3) of the Bar Councils Act expressly reserve to the Calcutta and the Bombay High Courts the power to make rules in this respect and under the rules framed by them an Advocate is not permitted to appear the Original Side unless he is instructed by an Attorney 35 The words "entitled to practise as of right" which occur in section 14 (1) mentioned above have also been used in other parts of the Bar Councils Act, to wit, in sections 4 (2), 5 (1) and 8 (1) of the Act; but the word "practise" in all these provisions does not mean pleading find acting in an unlimited sense.

(1) on any person to move that court. 1 and 2, Gurnarayan Das and 113 872 Jai Narayan Das were the legitimate sons of Nand kishore Das.