What Does Lawyer In Chandigarh Mean
Proceeding on the basis that there is such a principle of estoppel by judgment, he contends that the test laid down in the decisions referred to above is whether the judgment in the previous case could have been passed without the determination of the question which was put in issue in the subsequent case, where the plea of estoppel by the previous judgment is raised. It is not for us to re-assess the evidence in special leave. This was not a question to be gone into by the High Court.
It could not be due to wrong recording of meter or short circuit etc. Thus as per clause 16. nOn July 4, 1951, the appellant instituted the suit for divorce under s. The High Court was required to consider the reliability of the MDI meter and frequent violation of contract demand and the tariff notification dated Advocates (company website) 21. as MDI meter records excess capacity drawn over a continuous period of 30 minutes duration during a month. 3(1)(d) of the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947, on the ground that the respondent had been in desertion ever since May 24, 1947, without reasonable cause and without his consent and against his will for a period of over four years.
The question was whether the respondent had been in desertion, entitling the appellant to have a decree for divorce The respondent's case that it was the appellant who by his treatment of her after his return from England had made her life unbearable and compelled her to leave her marital home against her wishes, 'was not proved but there was evidence that after the solicitor's notice dated July 15, 1947, was received by the respondent, attempts were made by her father and his relations to bring about reconciliation between the parties but they failed owing to the attitude of the appellant.
All we can say is Advocates (view site…) that there are circumstances from which courts of fact could deduce that an unlawful object developed with more than five to share it once the marpit bad started; and as two courts of fact are satisfied that it did, there is no reason for us to interfere. There is material on record indicating that the connected load has been exceeded as reflected in the meter reading. Persons who had come there quite lawfully, in the first instance, thinking there were thieves could well have developed an intention to beat up the "thieves" instead of helping to apprehend them or defend their properties; and if five or more shared the object and joined in the beating, then the object of each would become the common object.
This Court has also indicated that lock rotor test is normally held to determine the capacity of the meter and not the total connected load or the total load demanded and availed of during the course of actual consumption of energy. Similarly the High Court has proceeded on irrelevant consideration while it has observed that entrepreneur has stepped up production, which will result in economic development, generation of employment and income and higher consumption is better for the State of Bihar.
1993 issued under the Electricity Supply Act, 1949 in our opinion the Electricity Board was well within its rights to realize the amount as per tariff notification. Merely in an inspection in January, 1999 if the connected load was found to be of 495 HP when for six months in a subsequent period of April, 1999 to March, 2000 maximum demand has increased beyond the contracted load of 500 KVA and it is not disputed that it was more than 110% of the contract load.
However MDI meter readings for earlier periods too indicated demand exceeding 500 KVA and in the month of November 1999, the meter was found to be in order and maximum demand exceeded contract demand. This leads us to a consideration of the facts, which are material to this question. The plea taken that there was defect in the meter and they were changed in January, 2000 and again in March, 2000 has no legs to stand. Once maximum load drawn had exceeded the contracted load, in the fact of the case, it can safely be held that there is violation of the permissible connected load.
The correctness of these principles laid down in these decisions is not disputed by Mr. The MDI meters method is well recognized and Advocates (view site…) widely accepted one. 39) In view of foregoing discussion, we can not concur with the finding of the High Court and while reversing the finding hold that the eviction petition can not be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of Tmt. But a common object is different from a common intention in that it does not require prior concert and 299 a common meeting of minds before the attack, and an unlawful object can develop after the people get there.
5 of the notification dated 21. This Court has in Bhilai Rerollers (supra) held that the reading of the MDI meter could provide a sound basis and yardstick to pay maximum demand charges and for adjudging the issue as to whether the consumer at any given point of time of the agreement has availed and drawn excess electricity. We find that the High Court has Advocates (view site…) erred in holding in the facts of the case that there can be no correlation with the maximum demand and the connected load.
