Difference between revisions of "A Simple Key For Lawyer In Chandigarh Unveiled"

From DIGIMAT Digital Learning Platform - Knowledge Base
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "1992, the OEA Collector and Tahsildar, Puri observed that the suit lands in Advocates http://simranlaw.uk view it now question have been recorded in the name of Shri Jaga...")
 
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
1992, the OEA Collector and Tahsildar, Puri observed that the suit lands in  Advocates [[http://simranlaw.uk view it now]] question have been recorded in the name of Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Srikhetra, and accordingly settled the suit lands in favour of the  Advocates ([http://nrilegalservices.me/duties-of-a-civil-lawyer-in-property-disputes-of-nri/ see post]) Temple. in the passage from one of his judgments Advocates ([http://nrilegalservices.me/about/know-us/ view it now]) quoted above, that section 5(7-A) is ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution and so is section 64(5)(b) in so Advocates ([http://nrilegalservices.me/services/property-search/ view it now]) far as it makes an order under section 5(7-A) as it now exists, inviolate.<br><br>" I would hold for these reasons, and in particular for the reason given by Fazl Ali J. 2009 set aside the order of the Tahsildar dated 30. He, however, made some slight changes in the incremental scales and the maximum limits of the grades. Before him, the Company contended that as the members of the Union were employees in an Engineering concern, the scale of pay applicable to' them was that laid down in the award of the Engineering Tribunal, and that as the scale actually in force was more favourable to them than that scale, there was no ground for revision.<br><br> 1992 on the ground that the lands in question have been accorded the status of ˜amrutamanohi and that they were recorded as Trust Estate as defined under Section 2(oo) of the OEA Act, 1951 and that lands had wrongly been settled in favour of the Temple. Another important fact which is on record is that while recording the dying declaration, Naib Tehsildar deposed that the deceased was illiterate and the dying declaration was read over and explained to her.<br><br> The scheme as settled in his award with reference to the categories involved in this appeal was as follows The Company having declined to accept it, there arose an industrial dispute, and by a notification dated 18- 1-1950, the Government of West Bengal referred the same for adjudication to one Shri Palit, District Judge. The Union, on the other hand, contended that not having been a party to the proceedings before the Engineering Tribunal, it was not bound by the award therein, and that as its members were clerical staff and not workers, the scales fixed in the award of the Mercantile Tribunal were more appropriate to them.<br><br> However, it is not explained as to what steps were taken to investigate the said evidence in the case. The State Government of Orissa subsequently issued a notification dated 18. 1992 and held as under: 2421 of 2000, challenging the order of the Tahsildar dated 30. The rule has been applied as between different provisions of the same statute in numerous cases some of which only need be mentioned: De Winton v. But it is a treasure which can only be kept at the cost of ceaseless and watchful guarding.<br><br> But the scale fixed in the award of the Mercantile Tribunal was decidedly more favourable to the employees than either the scale recommended by the Bengal Chamber of Commerce and adopted by the Company on 1-10-1946 or that fixed in the award of the Engineering Tribunal, and it -is therefore not surprising that it should have inspired the Union to present a demand 786 for wages and dearness allowance on the scales provided therein. Crease, United States v. 1989 and extended the time for filing claims under Section 8-A of the OEA Act, within which the Temple filed Claim Case No.<br><br> 70-4-134 The Union was party No. In a democracy functioning under the Rule of Law it is not enough to do justice or to do the right thing; justice must be seen to be done and a satisfaction and sense of security engendered in the minds of the people at large in place of a vague uneasiness that Star Chambers are arising in this land. The result was that this award was no more binding on the parties than the one passed by the Engineering Tribunal.<br><br> By his award dated 12-6-1950 shri Palit held that the nature of the work and the qualifications of the clerical staff were not the same in all business establishments, that the clerks in mercantile concerns were better qualified and had to do more onerous work than the members of the Union, that the latter could not be put in the same position as the former, and that the scale of pay fixed in the scheme of the Bengal Chamber of Commerce which was adopted by the Company was fair and required no revision.<br><br> 68 of 1990 for recording the lands in question in favour of Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri, Marfat Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee. What is stridhana Stridhana means property of every description belonging to a Hindu female, other than property in which she has, by law or under the terms of an instrument, only a limited estate. 192 in those proceedings, but for technical reasons, the Tribunal declined to adjudicate on their disputes.<br><br> The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 07. We have received a rich heritage from a very variegated past. These two facts are self-contradictory and severely detrimental to the prosecution case which ought to have been explained by the prosecution. In the year 2000, the respondent-Math filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Original Jurisdiction Case No. There is no room for complacency, for in the absence of constant vigilance we run the risk of losing it.
+
In order to secure its proprietary rights in the said trademark, respondent No. The Court of the Additional Judge is therefore constituted a distinct class of Court, and it is to be observed that the Act speaks of the Court of the Additional Judge and not of the Additional District Judge as is the case with certain other Acts in other parts of India. Held therefore that the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that there were no sufficient reasons for excusing the delay and rejecting the appeals as time- barred would be orders passed under s.<br><br>54A of Advocates ([http://muktsarpoliceonline.com see this page] Advocates ([http://lexlords.in/subletting/ read this article]) ) the Improvement Act. 4 is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the United States of  Advocates ([http://nricellpunjab.com read this article]) America. He contended that it was a peculiar relationship which could not be defined in exact legal phraseology, Advocates ([https://lexlords.com/nri-legal-services-in-india/ read this article]) but all the same, that the Trust was the owner of the market, especially in view of the fact that, as admitted by the defendants counsel at the trial, the Trust had repaid the entire amount of five lakhs odd advanced by Government for the construction of the market.<br><br>The learned counsel for 13 the appellant conceded that relationship could not be described in terms of ordinary legal import, that is to say, in, terms of mortgagor and mortgagee, or lessor and lessee, or licensor and licensee. The election petition was enquired into by the Election Tribunal 181 consisting, of three persons, one of them being the Chairman. It  Advocates ([https://lexlords.com/suspension-of-sentence/ read this article]) is an ultimate subsidiary of Pernord Ricard S. On those facts what is the legal position of the Trust vis-a-vis the Government in respect of the ownership of the property ?<br><br>It has also applied for registration of the trademark ˜BLENDERS PRIDE under two applications in class 33 which are pending registration. It is important, therefore, to determine the true nature of the initial relationship between the Government and the Trust. It claims that it has coined and adopted the trademark ˜BLENDERS PRIDE through its licensee M/s Seagram Company Limited in the year 1973. The other candidates got smaller number of votes which it is not necessary to set out here.<br><br>Buta Singh aforsaid, whose nomination paper had been rejected by the Returning Officer, did not take any further steps, But Dalip Singh, the first respondent, filed an election petition with the Election Commission, respondent 19. A number of issues were joined between the parties. It is therefore necessary to examine closely the provisions of that section which is in these terms:- " (1) The Government may, upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the Government and the Trust, place at the disposal of the Trust any properties, or any funds or dues, of the Government and thereupon the Trust shall hold or realise such properties, funds and dues in accordance with such terms.<br><br> According to respondent No. The appellants moved this Court and obtained special leave to appeal from the majority judgment declaring the election to be void as a whole. The third member of the Tribunal, while agreeing with the majority in their judgment on the other issues, disagreed with them on the most material issue in the case, namely, issue 4, and held that the first respondent had failed to prove, that the wrong rejection of the nomination paper of the 18th respondent had materially affected the result of the election.<br><br> On those findings they declared the election void as a whole and set aside the election of the appellants. It is clear upon the terms of the agreement shortly set out above that the market was constructed by the Trust on Government land with Government funds advanced by way of loan at interest. This result, it was further contended, follows from the terms of s. 4 had applied for and was granted registration of the said trademark in more than 50 countries and has been selling ˜BLENDERS PRIDE whisky in India through its licensee Seagram India Private Limited since 1995.<br><br> The Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the respondent also strongly relied upon the terms of that section for his contention that the relationship between the Trust and the Government was that of agent and principal. The Chairman and another member of the Tribunal decided the material issues 1 and 4 in favour of the first respondent to the effect that the 18th respondent had been duly proposed and seconded, that the Returning Officer had wrongly rejected his nomination paper and that as a result of that rejection the result of the election as a whole had been materially affected.<br><br> 4, on account of extensive sales and marketing worldwide, the trademark ˜BLENDERS PRIDE has come to acquire a tremendous reputation in various countries including India. , which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing a variety of alcoholic beverages worldwide. 31 and would be open to appeal, and it would make no difference in the position whether the orders of dismissal were made before or after the appeals were admitted. This language is also to be compared with articles 214 and 216 of the Constitution which constitute and define the constitution of the High Courts in India.

Latest revision as of 16:52, 27 October 2018

In order to secure its proprietary rights in the said trademark, respondent No. The Court of the Additional Judge is therefore constituted a distinct class of Court, and it is to be observed that the Act speaks of the Court of the Additional Judge and not of the Additional District Judge as is the case with certain other Acts in other parts of India. Held therefore that the orders of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that there were no sufficient reasons for excusing the delay and rejecting the appeals as time- barred would be orders passed under s.

54A of Advocates (see this page Advocates (read this article) ) the Improvement Act. 4 is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the United States of Advocates (read this article) America. He contended that it was a peculiar relationship which could not be defined in exact legal phraseology, Advocates (read this article) but all the same, that the Trust was the owner of the market, especially in view of the fact that, as admitted by the defendants counsel at the trial, the Trust had repaid the entire amount of five lakhs odd advanced by Government for the construction of the market.

The learned counsel for 13 the appellant conceded that relationship could not be described in terms of ordinary legal import, that is to say, in, terms of mortgagor and mortgagee, or lessor and lessee, or licensor and licensee. The election petition was enquired into by the Election Tribunal 181 consisting, of three persons, one of them being the Chairman. It Advocates (read this article) is an ultimate subsidiary of Pernord Ricard S. On those facts what is the legal position of the Trust vis-a-vis the Government in respect of the ownership of the property ?

It has also applied for registration of the trademark ˜BLENDERS PRIDE under two applications in class 33 which are pending registration. It is important, therefore, to determine the true nature of the initial relationship between the Government and the Trust. It claims that it has coined and adopted the trademark ˜BLENDERS PRIDE through its licensee M/s Seagram Company Limited in the year 1973. The other candidates got smaller number of votes which it is not necessary to set out here.

Buta Singh aforsaid, whose nomination paper had been rejected by the Returning Officer, did not take any further steps, But Dalip Singh, the first respondent, filed an election petition with the Election Commission, respondent 19. A number of issues were joined between the parties. It is therefore necessary to examine closely the provisions of that section which is in these terms:- " (1) The Government may, upon such terms as may be agreed upon between the Government and the Trust, place at the disposal of the Trust any properties, or any funds or dues, of the Government and thereupon the Trust shall hold or realise such properties, funds and dues in accordance with such terms.

According to respondent No. The appellants moved this Court and obtained special leave to appeal from the majority judgment declaring the election to be void as a whole. The third member of the Tribunal, while agreeing with the majority in their judgment on the other issues, disagreed with them on the most material issue in the case, namely, issue 4, and held that the first respondent had failed to prove, that the wrong rejection of the nomination paper of the 18th respondent had materially affected the result of the election.

On those findings they declared the election void as a whole and set aside the election of the appellants. It is clear upon the terms of the agreement shortly set out above that the market was constructed by the Trust on Government land with Government funds advanced by way of loan at interest. This result, it was further contended, follows from the terms of s. 4 had applied for and was granted registration of the said trademark in more than 50 countries and has been selling ˜BLENDERS PRIDE whisky in India through its licensee Seagram India Private Limited since 1995.

The Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the respondent also strongly relied upon the terms of that section for his contention that the relationship between the Trust and the Government was that of agent and principal. The Chairman and another member of the Tribunal decided the material issues 1 and 4 in favour of the first respondent to the effect that the 18th respondent had been duly proposed and seconded, that the Returning Officer had wrongly rejected his nomination paper and that as a result of that rejection the result of the election as a whole had been materially affected.

4, on account of extensive sales and marketing worldwide, the trademark ˜BLENDERS PRIDE has come to acquire a tremendous reputation in various countries including India. , which is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing a variety of alcoholic beverages worldwide. 31 and would be open to appeal, and it would make no difference in the position whether the orders of dismissal were made before or after the appeals were admitted. This language is also to be compared with articles 214 and 216 of the Constitution which constitute and define the constitution of the High Courts in India.

Retrieved from "http://kb.digimat.in/index.php?title=A_Simple_Key_For_Lawyer_In_Chandigarh_Unveiled&oldid=186568"