Difference between revisions of "The Definitive Guide To Lawyer In Chandigarh"

From DIGIMAT Digital Learning Platform - Knowledge Base
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "The respondent filed a petition under Art. 4 of 1925- 26 under the very sale deed dated 30-1-1920, which forms the root of the appellants' title. Keeping in view the terms and...")
 
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
The respondent filed a petition under Art. 4 of 1925- 26 under the very sale deed dated 30-1-1920, which forms the root of the appellants' title. Keeping in view the terms and language and the legislative history of the section 66(1) we are unable to enlarge the terms of the section by mere construction so as to include within its operation goods which are in transit and are being transported across the jurisdictional limits of the Municipality.<br><br>In view of the above,the criticism of Mr. The High Court accepted these contentions and quashed the proceedings taken under the 1948 Act: In 1951 the respondents evicted certain tenants. Emperor(2), Lord Simonds observed: 2011, the order of ad-interim injunction was maintained but the trial court was directed to decide the application for injunction on its own merits within Advocates ([http://lawyerchandigarh.com/who-can-seek-maintenance-under-section-125-of-the-crpc/ additional info]) a period of one month.<br><br>It was finally contended that the purchase by Devamma in execution of the decree in 0. It should be noted, however, that in  Advocates ([http://nrilegalservices.me/what-to-know-before-signing-a-rent-agreement/ that site]) this Calcutta case the decree was obtained and the transfer was made on the same day and it was held that though there was no assignment of the decree in so many words the property with all arrears of rent having been assigned to the mortgagee simultaneously with the passing of the decree the  Advocates - [http://nrilegalservices.me/duties-of-a-civil-lawyer-in-property-disputes-of-nri/ additional info] - assignment  Advocates ([http://acquitlaw.com/anticipatory-bail/ additional info]) passed the decree also.<br><br>While commending thus the conduct of the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government, we cannot help observing that the step (1) [ [1862] EngR 201; 1862] 3 F. Umrigar for the appellants that the judgment under appeal proceeds on a ground which was, not merely, not in the contemplation of the authorities When they passed the orders in question, but was not even raised in the pleadings in Court, is not without substance.<br><br>The tenants applied to the Revenue Officer under the 1948 Act for being restored to possession on the allegations that the respondent was their landlord and that he had unlawfully evicted them. Vatllabdas Wallji (supra). Nanjunda Rao and his successors under the sale deed dated 30-1-1920 continued to subsist, notwithstanding the court auction sale on 2-8-1928. 363 Of the Constitution barred the Court from dealing with any dispute arising out of the Agreement, and (3) that the 1948 Act did not apply to him as he was not a landlord.<br><br>148 of the Railway Establishment Code. 15 of the Wages Act, or the provisions of the Limitation Act. The obvious answer to this contention is that the properties which were sold on 2-8-1928 did not vest in the Official Receiver on the making of the order of adjudication on 19-2- 1926. In this view, it must be held that the provisions of the impugned Act are unconstitutional, in that they take away the property of the appellant in violation of either Art. " It should be added that while the appellants stated in their petitions that action had been taken against them under the Security Rules, and that those rules were ultra vires, the respondents did not plead that 1059 action was taken under R.<br><br> They only contended that the Security Rules were valid. Con/T/2 I /MP/82 dated 6-7-1950 and am of the opinion that you are engaged and associated with others in subversive activities in such mariner as to raise doubts about your reliability and am satisfied that your retention in public service is prejudicial to national security. The Nagar Panchayat in its turn approached the High Court with a writ petition in which by order dated 9.<br><br> 31 (2) of the Constitution. Promotha Nath Ganguli(1) follows the decision of the Bombay High Court in Purmananddas Jivandas v. On the question whether sanction was necessary under section 197(1) it was held by the Privy Council that there was no difference in scope between that section and section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and approving the statement of the law by Varadachariar, J. 100 of 1919-20 was void and conferred no title on her, because the Official Receiver in whom the estate of Keshavananda, the mortgagor, had vested on his adjudication as insolvent on 19-2-1926 had not been made a party to those proceedings, and that, in conse- quence, the title of Dr.<br><br> That sale was no doubt pendente lite, but the effect of section 52 is not to wipe it out altogether but to subordinate it to the rights based. The Revenue Officer allowed the applications and directed restoration of possession. , as they had been transferred by the mortgagor, long prior to the presentation of Insolvency Case No. The respondent was the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Khandapara which merged in the State of Orissa on August 1, 1949. The case of Ananda Mohon Roy v.<br><br> We are therefore of opinion that even if the matter is governed by s. "I have considered your representation to me in reply to this office letter No. Article 3 of the Agreement of Merger guaranteed that "the Raja shall be entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all his private properties". 56 of the Contract Act, the employer is no more discharged than by the operation of the bar of limitation under s. [1862] EngR 201; 176 E. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court for quashing the orders of the Revenue Officer contending, (1) that the application of the provisions of the 1948 Act to his private properties violated the guarantee given under the Agreement, (2) that Art.<br><br>The Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950 extended the Orissa Tenant's Protection Act, 1948 to the merged areas. I have decided with the prior approval of the President that your services should be terminated under Rule 3 of the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949.
+
It is further pleaded that Ayyappan Chettiar executed Will dated 13. The duties and functions of the Council as catalogued in Section 49 of the Act in addition to the municipal governance of a municipal area with its limits also make it incumbent for it to undertake and to make reasonable provisions, amongst others for removing obstructions and projections in public streets or places and in spaces, not being private property, which are open to the enjoyment of the public, whether such spaces are vested in the Council or in Government.<br><br>Succinctly stated, facts of this case are that the appellant/plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. Sastri, being the competent Authority Under Section-5 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (13 of 1976), have, on the basis of relevant information and relevant material available to me, reason to believe that the properties described in the schedule enclosed hereto which are held by you or on your behalf, are illegally acquired properties within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section-3 of the said Act.<br><br>(f) Being aggrieved, the appellant herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 1) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. Section 8 recognizes it to be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, possessing the power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to enter into contracts and may by the said name sue, or be sued through its Chief Officer.<br><br>Alleging that the defendant has no right over the disputed property, relief of permanent injunction against him is sought in the suit. 1999 to the extent of acquittal of Dharamveer and Paramveer. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The conviction by the High Court was based not only on the statements made by Maha Singh (deceased) but also on the un-shattered testimony of the eye- witness Dariya Singh (PW-1) and the statement of the independent witness Rajinder Singh (PW-11).<br><br>1990 in favour of the plaintiff, and after death of his father in 1997, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the property. Plaintiffs father Ayyappan Chettiar purchased the property from Gurusamy Naicker, and constructed his house. It is in these circumstances that the appellant has now, inter alia, contended that the order passed by the High Court is without appointing any guardian on her behalf and contrary to the provisions of Order XXXII Rules 3, 10 and 11 of the CPC.<br><br>1963 Gopalsamy Pillai transferred the property by executing a sale deed in favour of one Lakshmiammal. The Council is one of the municipal authorities as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act 1965 charged with the responsibility of carrying out the provisions there of for each municipal area. Kanwar Singh-the complainant  Advocates ([http://acquitlaw.com/bail/ look at this]) also filed Criminal  Advocates ([http://lawyerchandigarh.com/procedure-to-file-a-complaint-in-rape-case/ no title]) Revision No. The plea that the Council is not the owner of the land thus is of no relevance or significance.<br><br>488- DB of 1999 before the High Court. 92 of 2003 before District Munsif, Virudhunagar, for permanent  Advocates; [http://nrilegalservices.me/about/ no title], injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in suit. Plaintiff Andisamy Chettiar and defendant Subburaj Chettiar are sons of Ayyappan Chettiar. The Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers, inter alia, lays down that the stock-broker shall maintain high standards of integrity, promptitude and  Advocates ([http://lawyerchandigarh.com/special-requirements-where-maintenance-is-claimed-by-wife/ no title]) fairness in the conduct of all investment business and  Advocates ([http://slachd.com/what-documents-are-required-in-a-divorce-case/ no title]) shall act with due skill, care and diligence in the conduct of all investment business.<br><br>2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2000 before the High Court for setting aside the judgment and order dated 22/27. Insofar as the merits of the appeal are concerned, the High Court took the view that on the facts before it, details of which will be noticed in due course, there was a joint family in existence in which the second wife Rama Vidyarthi had played a predominant role and that the suit property was purchased out of the joint family funds namely the insurance money and the advance received from the Pratap Press Trust, Kanpur.<br><br>Lakshmiammal further transferred the property to Gurusamy Naicker through deed dated 26. The code also enumerates different shades of the duties of a stock-broker towards the investor, details of which are not being extracted herein except to say that all such duties pertain to the high standards of integrity that the stock-broker is required to maintain in the conduct of his business. It is pleaded in the plaint that originally the property in dispute was owned by one Gopalsamy Pillai.<br><br>488-DB of 1999 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Latest revision as of 05:52, 29 October 2018

It is further pleaded that Ayyappan Chettiar executed Will dated 13. The duties and functions of the Council as catalogued in Section 49 of the Act in addition to the municipal governance of a municipal area with its limits also make it incumbent for it to undertake and to make reasonable provisions, amongst others for removing obstructions and projections in public streets or places and in spaces, not being private property, which are open to the enjoyment of the public, whether such spaces are vested in the Council or in Government.

Succinctly stated, facts of this case are that the appellant/plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. Sastri, being the competent Authority Under Section-5 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (13 of 1976), have, on the basis of relevant information and relevant material available to me, reason to believe that the properties described in the schedule enclosed hereto which are held by you or on your behalf, are illegally acquired properties within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section-3 of the said Act.

(f) Being aggrieved, the appellant herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 1) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. Section 8 recognizes it to be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, possessing the power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to enter into contracts and may by the said name sue, or be sued through its Chief Officer.

Alleging that the defendant has no right over the disputed property, relief of permanent injunction against him is sought in the suit. 1999 to the extent of acquittal of Dharamveer and Paramveer. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The conviction by the High Court was based not only on the statements made by Maha Singh (deceased) but also on the un-shattered testimony of the eye- witness Dariya Singh (PW-1) and the statement of the independent witness Rajinder Singh (PW-11).

1990 in favour of the plaintiff, and after death of his father in 1997, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the property. Plaintiffs father Ayyappan Chettiar purchased the property from Gurusamy Naicker, and constructed his house. It is in these circumstances that the appellant has now, inter alia, contended that the order passed by the High Court is without appointing any guardian on her behalf and contrary to the provisions of Order XXXII Rules 3, 10 and 11 of the CPC.

1963 Gopalsamy Pillai transferred the property by executing a sale deed in favour of one Lakshmiammal. The Council is one of the municipal authorities as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act 1965 charged with the responsibility of carrying out the provisions there of for each municipal area. Kanwar Singh-the complainant Advocates (look at this) also filed Criminal Advocates (no title) Revision No. The plea that the Council is not the owner of the land thus is of no relevance or significance.

488- DB of 1999 before the High Court. 92 of 2003 before District Munsif, Virudhunagar, for permanent Advocates; no title, injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in suit. Plaintiff Andisamy Chettiar and defendant Subburaj Chettiar are sons of Ayyappan Chettiar. The Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers, inter alia, lays down that the stock-broker shall maintain high standards of integrity, promptitude and Advocates (no title) fairness in the conduct of all investment business and Advocates (no title) shall act with due skill, care and diligence in the conduct of all investment business.

2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2000 before the High Court for setting aside the judgment and order dated 22/27. Insofar as the merits of the appeal are concerned, the High Court took the view that on the facts before it, details of which will be noticed in due course, there was a joint family in existence in which the second wife Rama Vidyarthi had played a predominant role and that the suit property was purchased out of the joint family funds namely the insurance money and the advance received from the Pratap Press Trust, Kanpur.

Lakshmiammal further transferred the property to Gurusamy Naicker through deed dated 26. The code also enumerates different shades of the duties of a stock-broker towards the investor, details of which are not being extracted herein except to say that all such duties pertain to the high standards of integrity that the stock-broker is required to maintain in the conduct of his business. It is pleaded in the plaint that originally the property in dispute was owned by one Gopalsamy Pillai.

488-DB of 1999 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Retrieved from "http://kb.digimat.in/index.php?title=The_Definitive_Guide_To_Lawyer_In_Chandigarh&oldid=187290"