Difference between revisions of "Everything About Lawyer In Chandigarh"

From DIGIMAT Digital Learning Platform - Knowledge Base
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "" But does this doctrine enable a person who was not previously in possession of the suit properties, to claim that the Receiver must be deemed to have taken possession advers...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
" But does this doctrine enable a person who was not previously in possession of the suit properties, to claim that the Receiver must be deemed to have taken possession adversely to the true owner, on his behalf, merely because he ultimately succeeds in getting a decree for possession against the defendant therein who was previously in possession without title. , there should have been an employment by the candidate of a person in connection with,an election, and such employment should have been for payment.<br><br> The appellant is said to have asked Bisheshwar to give up doing pairavis in the then pending case on behalf of the accused therein. " He has  Advocates [[http://lawyerchandigarh.com/anticipatory-bail/ websites]] not given a finding as to whether the non- participation of the profits by the plaintiff and the second defendant was  Advocates ([http://lexlords.in/rights-of-light/ websites]) in the nature of exclusion to their knowledge. By the date of this incident that case had been committed to the sessions but the sessions trial had not started. On June 28, 1952, the Regional Conciliation Officer, Allahabad, gave his award in the matter of the industrial dispute between the appellant and its work-, men with regard to the alleged wrongful laying off of the workmen from January 17, 1952, to March 18, 1952, 19 146 referred to above.<br><br>the party of the present prosecution witnesses) were prosecuted. 3, were sitting in front of the house of Ram Saran on the evening of the 4th January, 1953, the present appellant and the other accused are said to have turned up before them,' lathies in hand. (1)For Rule 118 to apply, two conditions must be satisfied, viz. 2 and 3 are said to have dragged him inside the house and chained the door from inside, run up the roof and raised an alarm, whereupon a number of persons of the other party are said to have come running up.<br><br>According to the prosecution case, the occasion for the incident, which concerns us, was that some of the present accused wanted to persuade or prevent a member of the opposite-party by name, Bisheshwar-P. Bisheshwar having declined to do so, the appellant is said to have pulled out a pistol from his inner pocket and fired at him, as a result of which he fell down on the ground. A 'Receiver is an Advocates ([http://nrilegalservices.me/about/know-us/ more info]) officer of the Court and is not a particular agent of any party to the suit, notwithstanding that in law his possession is ultimately, treated as possession of the successful party on the termination of the suit.<br><br>Thirdly it was urged that the election of the President being invalid, the meeting held that very day under the presidency of the President thus elected was also invalid and the election of the Vice-President consequently was illegal. The workmen, it is stated, accepted the notice and took their pay for one month (from July 16 to August 15, 1952) without any protest. On July 16, 1952, none of the workmen reported for duty in accordance with the terms of the agreement referred to above, and on that date the appellant gave a notice to its workmen to the effect that the appellant found it difficult to run the factory and had decided to close it down; the workmen were informed that their services would not be required and would be terminated upon the expiry of thirty days from July 16, 1952.<br><br>There is no requirement of law that a dying declaration must necessarily be made to a magistrate and when such statement is recorded by a magistrate there is no specified statutory form for such recording. 2 in this case- from doing what is called pairavi on behalf of the accused in that case. To treat such Receiver as plaintiff's agent for the purpose of initiating adverse possession by the plaintiff would be to impute wrong-doing to the Court and its officers.<br><br>Secondly it was urged that the meeting of the 3rd August being thus invalid. The doctrine of  Advocates ([http://slachd.com/territorial-jurisdiction-in-a-divorce-case/ websites]) Receiver's possession being that of the successful party cannot, in our opinion, be pushed to the extent of enabling a person who was initially out of possession to claim the tacking on of Receiver's possession to his subsequent adverse possession. It was 1274 further argued that the election of the  Advocates [[http://acquitlaw.com/how-to-get-bail/ websites]] President and the Vice-President being in violation of section 19 of the Act was invalid on that ground also; and finally, that the amendment of section 19 by the amending Act LIV of 1954 after leave to appeal had been granted by this court could not affect the present proceedings which were then pending even though the amending Act purported to make it retrospective.<br><br>By his award the Regional Conciliation Officer gave full wages to the workmen for the period in question. 24 of 1928 on the file of the Sub Court of Anantapur, and that he never had any actual joint enjoyment of suit properties with the late D. , the business transacted at that meeting, namely, the election of the President was equally invalid. " The Receiver being the officer of the Court from which he derives his appointment, his possession is exclusively the possession of the Court, the property being regarded as in the custody of the law, in gremio legis, for the benefit of whoever may be ultimately determined to be entitled thereto.<br><br> Hanimi Reddy or the first defendant. (Pairavi is said to be the active assistance in relation to Court proceedings which a friend or agent renders to a litigant). Against the award of the Regional Conciliation Officer dated June 28, 1952, the appellant filed an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal on July 25, 1952. 2, and two others Bhurey Lal, P.
+
(Para 20) The Bench also observed:- Now if all affected employees hit by the reduction of the age of superannuation formed a class and no sooner than the age of superannuation was reduced, it was realized that injustice had been done and it was decided that steps should be taken to undo what had been done, there was no reason to pick out a class of persons who deserved the same treatment and exclude from the benefits of the beneficent treatment by classifying them as a separate group merely because of the delay in taking the remedial action already decided upon.<br><br>The same is accordingly hereby set aside. Coming to the Indian Council of Legal Aid while others were denied such benefit. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Nakara Case concluded that the impugned Act insofar as it denied the benefit to some of the employees who retired in the interregnum between two dates mentioned above was unsustainable and held as follows:- The principle of Nakara clearly applies.<br><br>The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J. On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Although it might not be possible in many cases to compute the span of time thus indicated by hours, days or months, what was  Advocates ([http://acquitlaw.com/suspension-of-sentense/ speaking of]) possible and the Court had to do in the facts and circumstances of each particular case, was to find whether the act was or was not done within the time which was reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite.<br><br>This Court placing reliance on D. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied, that the charge under Section 366A was also not sustainable against the appellant. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. to illicit intercourse Advocates ([http://slachd.com/practice-areas/family-law/ speaking of]) with another person. Performance of such public duty by a person who is holding an office which requires or authorize him to perform such duty is the sine qua non of the definition of the public servant contained in Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act.<br><br>Discharge of duties in which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest has been brought within the ambit of the expression ˜public duty. We do not doubt that the Judges friend and Advocates; [http://nrilegalservices.me/services/succession-certificate/ talking to], counselor, the common man, if asked, will unhesitatingly respond that it would be plainly unfair to make any such classification. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18-3-1999.<br><br>The division of Government employees into two classes, those who had already attained the age of 55 on February 28, 1983 and those who attained the age of 55 between February 28, 1983 and August 23, 1984 on the one hand, and the rest on the other and denying the benefit of the higher age of superannuation to the former class is Advocates ([http://lawyerchandigarh.com/divorce-lawyers-in-chandigarh/ speaking of]) as arbitrary as the division of Government employees entitled to pension in the past and in the future into two classes, that is, those that had retired prior to a specified date and those that retired or would retire after the specified date and confining the benefits of the new pension rules to the latter class only.<br><br>366A Procuration of minor girl Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. A perusal of the aforesaid section reveals, that the inducing of the minor to constitute an offence under Section 366A, should have been with reference to an intent to force or seduce her .<br><br>The expressions ˜office and ˜public duty appearing in the relevant part of the PC Act would therefore require a close understanding. Prabhakar Rao and others who were denied the benefit challenged the legislation. -This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Madhya Bharat High Court dated July 9, 1955, rejecting an application filed by the appellant under Art. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of the view, that the impugned order passed by the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code is also liable to the set aside.<br><br>The commonsense response that may be expected from the common man, untrammeled by legal lore and learning, should always help the Judge in deciding questions of fairness, arbitrariness etc. The definition of public duty in Section 2(b) of the PC Act, indeed, is wide. Viewed from whatever angle, to our minds, the action of the Government and the provisions of the legislation were plainly arbitrary and discriminatory.<br><br>In fact, there is no mention of any other person in the sequence of allegations levelled against the appellant.

Revision as of 20:46, 25 October 2018

(Para 20) The Bench also observed:- Now if all affected employees hit by the reduction of the age of superannuation formed a class and no sooner than the age of superannuation was reduced, it was realized that injustice had been done and it was decided that steps should be taken to undo what had been done, there was no reason to pick out a class of persons who deserved the same treatment and exclude from the benefits of the beneficent treatment by classifying them as a separate group merely because of the delay in taking the remedial action already decided upon.

The same is accordingly hereby set aside. Coming to the Indian Council of Legal Aid while others were denied such benefit. The State Government in this appeal could not establish any of those situations and hence the High Court is right in holding that the respondent is entitled to get the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Nakara Case concluded that the impugned Act insofar as it denied the benefit to some of the employees who retired in the interregnum between two dates mentioned above was unsustainable and held as follows:- The principle of Nakara clearly applies.

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by IMAM J. On failure to establish any of those situations, the landowner or holder can claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Repeal Act. Although it might not be possible in many cases to compute the span of time thus indicated by hours, days or months, what was Advocates (speaking of) possible and the Court had to do in the facts and circumstances of each particular case, was to find whether the act was or was not done within the time which was reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite.

This Court placing reliance on D. In the above view of the matter, we are satisfied, that the charge under Section 366A was also not sustainable against the appellant. The State has to establish that there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land or surrender and delivery of peaceful possession under sub-section (5) of Section 10 or forceful dispossession under sub-section (6) of Section 10. to illicit intercourse Advocates (speaking of) with another person. Performance of such public duty by a person who is holding an office which requires or authorize him to perform such duty is the sine qua non of the definition of the public servant contained in Section 2(c)(viii) of the PC Act.

Discharge of duties in which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest has been brought within the ambit of the expression ˜public duty. We do not doubt that the Judges friend and Advocates; talking to, counselor, the common man, if asked, will unhesitatingly respond that it would be plainly unfair to make any such classification. The mere vesting of the land under sub-section (3) of Section 10 would not confer any right on the State Government to have de facto possession of the vacant land unless there has been a voluntary surrender of vacant land before 18-3-1999.

The division of Government employees into two classes, those who had already attained the age of 55 on February 28, 1983 and those who attained the age of 55 between February 28, 1983 and August 23, 1984 on the one hand, and the rest on the other and denying the benefit of the higher age of superannuation to the former class is Advocates (speaking of) as arbitrary as the division of Government employees entitled to pension in the past and in the future into two classes, that is, those that had retired prior to a specified date and those that retired or would retire after the specified date and confining the benefits of the new pension rules to the latter class only.

366A Procuration of minor girl Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. A perusal of the aforesaid section reveals, that the inducing of the minor to constitute an offence under Section 366A, should have been with reference to an intent to force or seduce her .

The expressions ˜office and ˜public duty appearing in the relevant part of the PC Act would therefore require a close understanding. Prabhakar Rao and others who were denied the benefit challenged the legislation. -This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the Madhya Bharat High Court dated July 9, 1955, rejecting an application filed by the appellant under Art. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of the view, that the impugned order passed by the High Court convicting the appellant under Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code is also liable to the set aside.

The commonsense response that may be expected from the common man, untrammeled by legal lore and learning, should always help the Judge in deciding questions of fairness, arbitrariness etc. The definition of public duty in Section 2(b) of the PC Act, indeed, is wide. Viewed from whatever angle, to our minds, the action of the Government and the provisions of the legislation were plainly arbitrary and discriminatory.

In fact, there is no mention of any other person in the sequence of allegations levelled against the appellant.