A Simple Key For NRI Legal Services Unveiled

That 343 would have been a good ground of attack, if the Court of Wards was in the position of a guardian of the properties of the minor, but, as already stated, that is not Advocates (hop over to this web-site) its true character. There was therefore no occasion for the appellant, to assail the order of his detention, based on pleas and contentions, as would have been available to the appellant, under Section 8 of the COFEPOSA Act, and the other grounds expressed above. 2 lakhs payable by the 1st respondent herein.

The said order, as the facts would uncurtain, came into existence on the basis of proposal of the Sponsoring Authority (Directorate of Enforcement) and the Empowered Officer of the Central Government (the Detaining Authority). The initial allocation of the respondents to different Corps was based on parameters prescribed for that purpose depending inter alia upon the number of actual vacancies in Arms, Arms Support or Services, operational commitments and requirements arising from new raisings.

Despite the threat, the daughter disclosed the incident to her parents. In case, the witness is in possession of any material or documents, the same shall be taken over by the officer concerned in his personal custody. 2013 under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act. When the family stood reconciled to the situation, something extremely untoward happened. Merit of the candidates, the need for an equal distribution of vacancies applying what is described as ˜Black Method and the individual choice expressed by the cadets were also some of the major factors that were taken into consideration while making allocations.

The Respondents were commissioned into various Corps/streams of the Indian Army after they successfully Advocates - navigate to this website, passed out from the Indian Military Academy/Officers Training Academy. It was submitted, that Section 12A is invoked merely by a declaration, whereas, the substantive order of detention is passed under Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act. The amounts, if any, paid by the appellant pursuant to the interim orders of this Court shall be adjusted towards the payments due to the 1st respondent for future procurement of power by the appellant in such manner as the appellant deems fit and proper.

The interim orders granted earlier stand dissolved. By the said communication in compliance with Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act, the detenu was informed of his right to make a representation against his detention to the Detaining Authority. We believe that debate in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment revolved around more than one substantial question of law justifying the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. There, his contention was that the Court of Wards had acted with gross negligence in agreeing to a term so manifestly disadvantageous to the estate.

1977, the original position stood revived, inasmuch as, the order of detention would thereafter be an order under Section 3 of COFEPOSA Act without a Section 12A declaration super-added, and as such, was assailable in terms of the grounds available to a detenu under Section 8, and the other grounds referred to above. 2013 and lodged in the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram. 1976 when the order of detention under Section 3 was passed, till the order of detention was revoked on the lifting of the emergency on 21.

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that an order of detention was issued on 08. It should be observed that the stand which the respondent Advocates (hop over to this web-site) took with reference to the cess clause in the courts below was different from that taken in this Court. The grounds of detention were communicated to the detenu vide communication dated 08. Be it stated, pursuant to the order of detention, the detenu was detained on 25.

III) The officer deputed to have the statement recorded shall also ensure, that there is no other person besides the concerned witness, in the room, in which the testimony of PW5 is to be recorded. The minor daughter of the appellant who was raped by the accused persons was threatened with dire consequences in case she disclosed the incident. The incident, as alleged, occurred on 06. We do not find any substance in the submission.

Keeping in view the future of the girl and the social repercussions, they chose to suffer in silence rather than set the criminal law in motion. In other words, the argument was not that the Court of Wards failed to apply its mind to the cess clause but that it failed to realise the full implications thereof, and that the minor had consequently suffered. It was contended, that as soon as the emergency was lifted on 21.

It was the vehement contention of the learned counsel, that the order of detention under section 3 read with section 12A of the COFEPOSA Act, subsisted from 11. As we have held that the Court of Wards did apply its mind to the question and formed its own judgment on it, its decision is not open to question, and the attack on the deed dated 26-3-1915 must in consequence Advocates (hop over to this web-site) fail. It was the assertion of the learned counsel, in the present case, that the order under section 3 of the COFEPOSA Act, could not be assailed by the appellant as he was released on the same day, i.

It is a statutory body with powers granted to it by section 18, and its action thereunder cannot be attacked on the ground that it bad erred or was mistaken in its conclusion. The appeal is allowed with costs quantified at Rs.