The Fact About NRI Legal Services That No One Is Suggesting

19 of the Bombay Boroughs Act, (Bombay Act XVIII of 1925) had been amended by the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act, 1954 (Bombay Act LIV of 1954) and was Advocates (learn more here) retrospective in its operation, it had the effect of curing any illegality or irregularity-in the election with reference to the provisions of S. As pointed out in the above extract, even in United States the doctrine is currently of doubtful legitimacy. Advocates - that site, The appellant is only a facilitator and a medium between the affiliates and customers and is providing these services.

However, these goods are not provided by the appellant, but by the affiliates. 2 and 3 had been validly elected as President and, Vice-President respectively. No doubt, vouchers bear a particular value and for Advocates - that site - Advocates [that site] such value, goods are provided to the employees. , arbitrariness became a mantra. It is not for any Court to determine whether the information in the possession of the Custodian was adequate to justify the issue of a notice under S.

Appellant made no application to the Government for further particulars. The intrinsic and essential character of the entire transaction is to provide services by the appellant and this is achieved through the means of said vouchers. Thus, insofar as the appellant is concerned, it has made the arrangements with the affiliates for supply of goods against those vouchers. This arrangement is made to help the customers by simply facilitating the provision for making available food items, etc.

the intention of the parties must be taken to have been that the purchaser was to be liable to pay the amount of 9 pies per square yard per annum then levied as assessment and no more". 1276 of 1977, he had challenged the order of detention as well as the notice under SAFEMA Act and the same has been disposed of by the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 9-8- 1994. It is these affiliates who are getting the money for those goods and not the appellant, who only gets service charges for the services rendered, both to the customers as well as the affiliates.

Appellant was detained under s. The basic mistake which has been committed by the High Court is to proceed on the basis that after printing of the paper vouchers, these are sold by the appellant to its customers. when we have regard to the nature of the transaction, viz. If the face value of the said vouchers is rps ? Goods belong to the affiliates which are sold by them to the customers' employees on the basis of vouchers given by the customers to its employees. Secondly, that the present Special Civil Application is barred by the principles of res judicata, inasmuch as that in his earlier petition being Special Civil Application No.

This court long back in A. 19 of the Act and therefore respondents Nos. To undertake such an examination would amount to virtually importing the doctrine of substantive due process employed by the American Supreme Court at an earlier point of time while examining the constitutionality of Indian legislation. , that Government was selling the property out-and-out as any private proprietor-when we look to the whole of the language used .

From the above extract it is clear that courts in this country do not undertake the task of declaring a piece of legislation unconstitutional on the ground that the legislation is arbitrary since such an exercise implies a value judgment and courts do not examine the wisdom of legislative choices unless the legislation is otherwise violative of some specific provision of the Constitution. As pointed out by Frankfurter, J. Held, that it was for the Custodian to form his opinion on such material as was before him and on such information which he possessed.

Likewise, when these vouchers are given by the customers to its employees and the employees present the same to various affiliates with whom the appellant had made the arrangements and those affiliates supply the goods against those vouchers, while reimbursing the cost of these vouchers to the said affiliates, the appellant again takes service charges from these affiliates, which is again a sum of ? Krishna , AIR 1957 SC 297 declared that the doctrine of due process has no application under the Indian Constitution[41].

of a particular amount, represented by vouchers, to the employees of these customers. 50, by giving these vouchers to its customers, the appellant only takes specified service charges from its customers, which is normally ? A diagramatic representation of the business model of the appellant, already depicted above, would make it manifest that the vouchers are not the commodity which are sold. 3(1)(a)(i) of the Preventive Detention Act, Act IV of 1950 on the grounds that with the financial help given by the Portuguese authorities he was carrying on espionage on their behalf with the help of underground workers and that he was also collecting intelligence about the security arrangements on the border area and was making such intelligence available to the Portuguese authorities.