The 5-Second Trick For Lawyer In Chandigarh

The Patwari's report earlier referred to cannot be construed as such a claim. That is not the case here. 1, in Civil Appeal No. As we have already stated, the special custom under which alone Harnam Kaur could have become an heir of Ram Ditta has not been proved. The learned judge held that the appellant was not bound to set aside the prior compromise decree between his father and the respondent and that the plaint was governed by Art. Unless a State Government has authority to act in anticipation of orders from the Centre, it might be too late to act at all.

The Master felt that the issue raised by the Registry was Advocates (visit their website) of some importance and so, in his turn, he referred the dispute to the Judge sitting on the Original Side under s. Clause (2) validated all awards whether made before or after the commencement of the Ordinance even if the period specified within which they were to be submitted or any enlargement thereof had already expired in so far as they could not be questioned merely on that ground alone and this would cover even a proceeding pending in any Court or Tribunal at the commencement of the Ordinance against an award, 982 Mr.

On the case as made and the evidence before us, it must be held that Harnam Kaur could never have been the heir of Ram Ditta. Accordingly the court fee paid by the appellant in respect of his claim for partition was held to be in order. 959 In order that the authority of this case may apply to the case in hand, it has to be proved that Harnam Kaur entered into possession of lands claiming a widow's estate therein as an heir of Ram Ditta. The right to satisfy itself that the drastic method of preventive detention is necessary to enable suitable arrangements for expulsion to be made is therefore expressly conferred on the State Government and as a Advocates - click here to read - State Government cannot expel, the conferral of the right can only mean that the State Government is given the power to decide and to satisfy itself whether expulsion is desirable or neces- 1294 Advocates, visit their website, sary, and if it thinks it is, then to detain until proper arrangements for the expulsion are made, one of them, and an essential one, being reference to the Central Government for final orders.

This reference was decided by the Chamber Judge Krishnaswamy Naidu J. Parthasarathy Bhattacharya who has been referred to in the above para 12 of the report as an undisputed scholar on the subject was cited to show that apart from the followers of the 4 (four) traditions, so far as Vaishnava temples are concerned . It is evident that the authorities must be vested with wide discretion in the present field where international complications might easily follow in a given case. Lajwanti's Case therefore was concerned with a female who was admittedly an heir.

It cannot therefore be said in this case that Harnam Kaur was in possession claim- ing Advocates (visit their website) a widow's estate in the lands, as the customary heir of her father-in-law. (f) acquire control of any company or securities more than the percentage of equity share capital of a company whose securities are listed or proposed to be listed on a recognized stock exchange in contravention of the regulations made under this Act. That being so, it was impossible for her to have acquired by adverse possession title to property as his heir or to make such observation of the Judicial Committee in sham Koer v.

65, Mouza Ajni, Nagpur by a registered deed from Vithoba Fakira Teli. It was only the Patwari's opinion of the situation. It was possible for these widows to bold property as heirs of their husband and make them good to his estate. In a case of extradition, he does not leave a free man. Chatterjee, appearing for respondent No. We find no evidence to prove that such was her claim. none others, however high placed in society as Pontiffs or Acharyas, or even other Brahmins could touch the idols, do Pooja or enter the Garba Girha.

But in that event, the formalities of the Extradition Act must be complied with. The Preventive Detention Act expressly confers the right to detain '-with a view to making, arrangements" for the expulsion upon both the State and the Central Government and the "satisfaction" required by section 3(1)(b) can be of either Government. 15 of 1955, contended that the Labour Appellate Tribunal took the correct view that cl. Furthermore, in Lajwanti's Case the widows who were found to have acquired title by adverse possession were undoubtedly the heirs of their husband and would have succeeded to his properties if a posthumous son whose existence was assumed by the Judicial Committee, had not been born to him.

Again, we do not agree. Exclusion solely on the basis of caste was not an issue in Seshammal(supra) so as to understand the decision in Adithayan (supra) to be, in any way, a departure from what has been held in Seshammal (supra). 1944, she executed a Release Deed in favour of her husband Narayanrao Gawande whereby he became the absolute owner of the said land. He remains under arrest throughout and is merely handed over by one set of police to the next.