Editing About NRI Legal Services

There a Darpatnidar deposited under section 13(4) of the Bengal Patni Taluqa Regulation (VIII of 1819) the arrears of revenue  Advocates ([http://lexlords.in/nri-property-documentation-lawyers/ the full details]) to avoid a putni sale and entered into possession of the putni as he was entitled to do under the above section. It was also held that the notice given by the Darpatnidar to the Patnidar could also be construed as an assignment in writing, The result of the authorities appears to me to be that if by reason of any provision of law, statutory or otherwise, interest in property passes from one person to another there is a transfer of the property by operation of law.<br><br>] Date : 16/12/2015 These petitions were called on for pronouncement of Orders today. The statements of some of the prosecution witnesses furnish indication of more than one fire-arm having been used at the incident. The learned senior counsel contends that the judgment does not even notice Section 5 of the Temple Act, 1955. LOKUR, HON'BLE KURIAN JOSEPH AND  Advocates ([https://lexlords.com/rights-of-women-in-property/ click here now]) HON'BLE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ. Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s) WITH W.<br><br>The judgment held that it cannot be said that  Advocates ([http://acquitlaw.com/arrest/ the full details]) the estate of Lord Jagannath could not be vested in the State government by a notification issued subsequently. CHELAMESWAR, HON'BLE MADAN B.  Advocates ([http://lawyerchandigarh.com/quashing-of-fir-by-non-resident-indians-nri/ the full details]) The learned senior counsel contends that a decision given in ignorance of a statute or a rule having the force of a statue can be held to be per incuriam, as was held by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Muncipal Corporation of Delhi v.<br><br>The judgment was passed only on considering the provisions of the OEA Act, 1951. Ram Manohar is also one of the accused who was put up for trial. Before an attempt is made to construe the words contained in s. Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers a general power on a criminal court to take cognizance of offences, but the exercise of such power in certain cases is prohibited by the provisions of ss. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd.<br><br>209/2015 [HEARD BY: HON'BLE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR,HON'BLE J. The learned senior counsel submits that the endowments vested in the managing committee and hence it ceased to be an intermediary interest and became the absolute vested property of Lord Jagannath. 195 to 199 of the Code unless the conditions mentioned therein are complied with. There is no reason that I can see why transfers by operation of law should be regarded as confined to the three cases referred to by the Privy Council in Abedoonissa's case.<br><br> The learned senior counsel further places reliance on another decision of this Court in the case of State of U. 6 of the Act some reference may be made to the power vested in a court to take cognizance of an offence. It appears to us, therefore, that there is no foundation, as a fact, for the argument that the learned Judge should have made a reference to the High Court under section 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or that, in any case, he should have placed on record his reasons for agreeing with the verdict of the jury notwithstanding his own personal opinion to the contrary.<br><br> He then filed a suit and obtained a decree for arrears of rent due to the Patnidar from another Darpatnidar. Thus, the provisions of the OEA Act, 1951 even by way of insertion of Section 3A and the issue of a subsequent notification cannot divest the absolute ownership of the endowments of the Temple. It was held that in view of the provisions of section 13(4) the Patnidar on getting back possession of the putni became the transferee of the decree by operation of law.<br><br> If, therefore, I were able to construe the document of the 7th February 1949 to be a transfer or an agreement to transfer the decree to be passed in future then I would have had no difficulty in holding that by operation of equity the beneficial interest in the decree (1) A. It could thus, only divest the intermediaries of its rights in land by vesting it in the State but cannot affect the statutory vesting of all endowments in the managing committee under Section 5 of the Temple Act, 1955.<br><br> The last case to which reference need be made is that of Maya Debi v. The question was whether the Patnidar, after he got back the possession of the putni, could be regarded as the assignee of the decree which had been obtained by the Varpatnidar against another Darpatnidar. Raval, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Temple Committee, on the other hand, contends that the decision of this Court in the case of Lord Jagannath referred to supra is per incuriam as it was passed in ignorance of the Temple Act, 1955.<br><br> Subsequently he relinquished possession in favour of the Patnidar by giving a notice to the Patnidar. ,[7] wherein the principle of per incuriam was discussed as under: The learned senior counsel contends that the OEA Act, 1951 is an Act which was principally enacted for the purpose of abolishing all rights in land of intermediaries between the Raiyats and the state by whatever name known and for the vesting of the same in the state.