Editing Not Known Facts About Lawyer In Chandigarh

Mysore Iron 23 174 and Steel Works(1) and K. 2013, this Court has directed the respondent-authority to hold an inquiry and identify the person(s) responsible for  Advocates, [http://lawyerchandigarh.com/how-nri-gets-anticipatory-bail/ lowest price], issuing orders/certificates like regularization, delivery of possession etc. 504 and by letter dated 15. Possession was actually delivered to the appellant on 07. In the context of the liberty of the subject we must adopt a construction which would have the effect of preventing such' an undesirable result.<br><br>2008 regularized  Advocates, [http://lexlords.in/right-to-manage/ lowest price], the allotment of the plot and handed over the possession thereof to the appellant. What dissuades us from doing so is the fact that consequent upon the order passed by the District Consumer Forum and while the matter was still pending before the State Commission in appeal, the Estate Officer of the respondent-Authority had by letter dated  Advocates [[http://lexscient.com browse around this site]] 15th April, 2008 regularised the allotment of the plot and offered the possession thereof to the petitioner. If the permission was accorded the workman would not be paid during the period of suspension but if the permission was refused he would have to be paid for the whole period of suspension.<br><br>According to BOC, the conditions of the technical bid were not fulfilled by Sciemed and, therefore, there was no reason to invite it for opening the price bid. 12 of the Standing Orders was a punitive measure and the appellant was not justified in imposing that punishment on them without the permission of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. In the ordinary course, we would have, in the light of the affidavit filed by the respondent-Authority, disposed of the matter with a suitable direction regarding payment of the extension of fee by the petitioner.<br><br>It was contended that such suspension involved loss of pay by the respondents and being of an indefinite duration inflicted such harassment on them that it could not be deemed to be anything except a punishment. Porbunderwalla v Commissioner of Income-tax (2) that an appeal which is filed beyond the period of limitation is, in the eye of law, no appeal, unless and until there is a condonation of delay, and that, in consequence, an order passed thereon cannot be held to be passed in appeal so as to fall within section 31 is right.<br><br>The 1973 CrPC specifically provides for further investigation after forwarding of report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 CrPC and forwarding of further report  Advocates ([http://lexlords.in/right-of-first-refusal/ lowest price]) or reports to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(8) CrPC. It has been rightly held by the Labour Appellate Tribunal that suspension without pay pending enquiry as also pending permission of the Tribunal under the relevant section could not 934 be considered a punishment as such suspension without payment would only be an interim measure and would last till the application for permission to punish the workman was made and the Tribunal bad passed orders thereupon.<br><br>But the question still remains whether the view taken in Commissioner of Income-tax v. It was, however, urged on behalf of the respondents that the suspension for an indefinite period beyond the period of four days provided in cl. It follows that if the gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs " the first and the second " is in truth and substance the same, registering the second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report under Section 173 CrPC will be irregular and the court cannot take cognizance of the same.<br><br>(1) whether it should make, the requisite declaration or not, for otherwise such persons will be seriously prejudiced. 2013 which reads as under:- We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. We do not accept this contention. We may usefully refer to the relevant part of the order dated 01. The first FIR deals with offences punishable under Sections 3,4,5,6 and 7 of the Act, whereas, the second FIR deals with the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC which are alleged to have committed during the course of investigation of the case in the first FIR.<br><br>(emphasis supplied) However, this principle of law is not applicable to the fact situation in the instant case as the substance of the allegations in the said two FIRs is different. Taking note of these facts, by order dated 01. A representation was made in this regard by BOC to the RIMS but that was not considered and, therefore, BOC filed W. Suppose the Government does not make a declaration with regard to persons falling within that class within that time but subsequently decides that it would not be against the public interest to communicate to them the grounds, then the absence of such a declaration under the proviso will brings about the unfortunate result that those persons will be deprived of their valuable right of having the grounds communicated to them 'as soon as may be' and to have the earliest opportunity afforded to them of making a representation.<br><br>As noticed above that even while the matter was pending before the State Commission in appeal, the Estate Officer of the respondent- authority in pursuance of the order passed by the District Forum in Execution Petition No.