Difference between revisions of "Not Known Facts About Lawyer In Chandigarh"

From DIGIMAT Digital Learning Platform - Knowledge Base
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "Mysore Iron 23 174 and Steel Works(1) and K. 2013, this Court has directed the respondent-authority to hold an inquiry and identify the person(s) responsible for Advocates, [...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Mysore Iron 23 174 and Steel Works(1) and K. 2013, this Court has directed the respondent-authority to hold an inquiry and identify the person(s) responsible for Advocates, [http://lawyerchandigarh.com/how-nri-gets-anticipatory-bail/ lowest price], issuing orders/certificates like regularization, delivery of possession etc. 504 and by letter dated 15. Possession was actually delivered to the appellant on 07. In the context of the liberty of the subject we must adopt a construction which would have the effect of preventing such' an undesirable result.<br><br>2008 regularized  Advocates, [http://lexlords.in/right-to-manage/ lowest price], the allotment of the plot and handed over the possession thereof to the appellant. What dissuades us from doing so is the fact that consequent upon the order passed by the District Consumer Forum and while the matter was still pending before the State Commission in appeal, the Estate Officer of the respondent-Authority had by letter dated Advocates [[http://lexscient.com browse around this site]] 15th April, 2008 regularised the allotment of the plot and offered the possession thereof to the petitioner. If the permission was accorded the workman would not be paid during the period of suspension but if the permission was refused he would have to be paid for the whole period of suspension.<br><br>According to BOC, the conditions of the technical bid were not fulfilled by Sciemed and, therefore, there was no reason to invite it for opening the price bid. 12 of the Standing Orders was a punitive measure and the appellant was not justified in imposing that punishment on them without the permission of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. In the ordinary course, we would have, in the light of the affidavit filed by the respondent-Authority, disposed of the matter with a suitable direction regarding payment of the extension of fee by the petitioner.<br><br>It was contended that such suspension involved loss of pay by the respondents and being of an indefinite duration inflicted such harassment on them that it could not be deemed to be anything except a punishment. Porbunderwalla v Commissioner of Income-tax (2) that an appeal which is filed beyond the period of limitation is, in the eye of law, no appeal, unless and until there is a condonation of delay, and that, in consequence, an order passed thereon cannot be held to be passed in appeal so as to fall within section 31 is right.<br><br>The 1973 CrPC specifically provides for further investigation after forwarding of report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 CrPC and forwarding of further report  Advocates ([http://lexlords.in/right-of-first-refusal/ lowest price]) or reports to the Magistrate concerned under Section 173(8) CrPC. It has been rightly held by the Labour Appellate Tribunal that suspension without pay pending enquiry as also pending permission of the Tribunal under the relevant section could not 934 be considered a punishment as such suspension without payment would only be an interim measure and would last till the application for permission to punish the workman was made and the Tribunal bad passed orders thereupon.<br><br>But the question still remains whether the view taken in Commissioner of Income-tax v. It was, however, urged on behalf of the respondents that the suspension for an indefinite period beyond the period of four days provided in cl. It follows that if the gravamen of the charges in the two FIRs " the first and the second " is in truth and substance the same, registering the second FIR and making fresh investigation and forwarding report under Section 173 CrPC will be irregular and the court cannot take cognizance of the same.<br><br>(1) whether it should make, the requisite declaration or not, for otherwise such persons will be seriously prejudiced. 2013 which reads as under:- We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. We do not accept this contention. We may usefully refer to the relevant part of the order dated 01. The first FIR deals with offences punishable under Sections 3,4,5,6 and 7 of the Act, whereas, the second FIR deals with the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC which are alleged to have committed during the course of investigation of the case in the first FIR.<br><br>(emphasis supplied) However, this principle of law is not applicable to the fact situation in the instant case as the substance of the allegations in the said two FIRs is different. Taking note of these facts, by order dated 01. A representation was made in this regard by BOC to the RIMS but that was not considered and, therefore, BOC filed W. Suppose the Government does not make a declaration with regard to persons falling within that class within that time but subsequently decides that it would not be against the public interest to communicate to them the grounds, then the absence of such a declaration under the proviso will brings about the unfortunate result that those persons will be deprived of their valuable right of having the grounds communicated to them 'as soon as may be' and to have the earliest opportunity afforded to them of making a representation.<br><br>As noticed above that even while the matter was pending before the State Commission in appeal, the Estate Officer of the respondent- authority in pursuance of the order passed by the District Forum in Execution Petition No.
+
All its significant provisions have been noted in detail in Mardia Chemicals in which vires of Advocates [[https://lexlords.com/rent-disputes/ extra resources]] this Act was examined and upheld. (See Radhamoni Debi v. Debendra Lal Khan [ (1933) LR 61 IA 78, 82] ). For that proposition it is sufficient to refer to what was said by Lord Halsbury, L. This Court in Vidya Devi v. The interest of the workmen in respect of dues payable to them as per Section 529 and 529A of the Companies Act has been protected by permitting, wherever necessary, association of the Official Liquidator with the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the RDB Act.<br><br>Prem Prakash[7] held that: This does not necessarily mean that there must be an express demand by one and denial by the other. On appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the, 26th September 1955 of the Allahabad High Advocates [[https://lexlords.com/articles/ extra resources]] Court (Lucknow Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. In our considered judgment, the same view is required to be taken in context of SARFAESI Act also, for the additional reason that Section 13 requires notice to the borrower at various stages which in the case of a company under winding up being a borrower would mean requirement of notice to the Official Liquidator.<br><br>Inter-alia, one of the main objects of this Act is to clothe the banks and financial institutions in India with power to take possession of securities and sell them. Ouster of the non-possessing co-heir by the co-heir in possession who claims his possession to be adverse, should be made out. It was not by that section intended to vest in the urban authority what I may call the full rights in fee over the street, as if that street was owned by an ordinary owner in fee having the fullest rights both as to the soil  Advocates ([http://acquitlaw.com/cognizance-of-offenses/ look at this now]) below and as to the air above.<br><br>It is a  Advocates ([http://slachd.com/can-i-get-an-annulment-even-if-he-divorces-his-previous-wife/ extra resources]) settled rule of law that as between co-heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled  Advocates ([http://insindia.co.in extra resources]) with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster. Now, the ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be nec vi nec clam nec precario. 443 and 444:- "Now, that section has received by this time an authoritative interpretation by a long series of cases.<br><br> In contrast, the SARFAESI Act was enacted in 2002 to regulate securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. When one co-heir is found to be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title. (See Secretary of State for India v. But it is well- settled that in order to establish adverse possession of one co-heir as against another it is not enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession and enjoyment of the profits of the properties.<br><br> Since significant amendments were introduced in Section 529 while inserting Section 529A through Amendment Act 35 of 1985, effective from 24. A reading of Sections 9 and 13 of the SARFAESI Act leaves no manner of doubt that for enforcement of its security interest, a secured creditor has been not only vested with powers to do so without the intervention of the court or tribunal but detailed procedure has also been prescribed to take care of various eventualities such as when the borrower company is under liquidation for which proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 13 contains clear mandate keeping in view the provisions of Section 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956.<br><br> Appuhamy [(1912) AC 230)]. It is settled that the section in question was only intended to vest in the urban authority so much of the actual soil of the street as might be necessary for the control, protection, and maintenance of the street as a highway for public use. , has made the following observations at pp. For sale of immovable secured assets, as per Rule 8, the authorized officer can take possession by delivering a Possession Notice to the borrower and by affixing Possession Notice on the outer door or at some conspicuous place of the property.<br><br> The possession of one co-heir is considered, in law, as possession of all the co-heirs. 1985 and with the aid of a non obstante clause in sub-section (1) of Section 529A workmens dues were given preference over other dues and made to stand pari passu with dues of the secured creditors, in case of apparent conflict, this Court through various judgments has upheld the proceedings under the RDB Act as it happens to be a later Act with overriding effect over other laws.<br><br> Collector of Khulna [ (1900) LR 27 IA 136, 140] ). The co-heir in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co-heir not in possession merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co-heir's title. The possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor. The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for brevity, ˜the Rules) framed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act also require notice upon the borrower or his agent at different stages.<br><br> 195 of 1955 and Capital Sentence No. 149 of the Public Health Act, 1875, (supra) Romer, L. 17 of 1955 arising out of the judgment and order dated the 11th April 1955 of the Court of the Sessions Judge at Bahraich in Criminal S.

Latest revision as of 05:54, 29 October 2018

All its significant provisions have been noted in detail in Mardia Chemicals in which vires of Advocates [extra resources] this Act was examined and upheld. (See Radhamoni Debi v. Debendra Lal Khan [ (1933) LR 61 IA 78, 82] ). For that proposition it is sufficient to refer to what was said by Lord Halsbury, L. This Court in Vidya Devi v. The interest of the workmen in respect of dues payable to them as per Section 529 and 529A of the Companies Act has been protected by permitting, wherever necessary, association of the Official Liquidator with the proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the RDB Act.

Prem Prakash[7] held that: This does not necessarily mean that there must be an express demand by one and denial by the other. On appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the, 26th September 1955 of the Allahabad High Advocates [extra resources] Court (Lucknow Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. In our considered judgment, the same view is required to be taken in context of SARFAESI Act also, for the additional reason that Section 13 requires notice to the borrower at various stages which in the case of a company under winding up being a borrower would mean requirement of notice to the Official Liquidator.

Inter-alia, one of the main objects of this Act is to clothe the banks and financial institutions in India with power to take possession of securities and sell them. Ouster of the non-possessing co-heir by the co-heir in possession who claims his possession to be adverse, should be made out. It was not by that section intended to vest in the urban authority what I may call the full rights in fee over the street, as if that street was owned by an ordinary owner in fee having the fullest rights both as to the soil Advocates (look at this now) below and as to the air above.

It is a Advocates (extra resources) settled rule of law that as between co-heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled Advocates (extra resources) with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster. Now, the ordinary classical requirement of adverse possession is that it should be nec vi nec clam nec precario. 443 and 444:- "Now, that section has received by this time an authoritative interpretation by a long series of cases.

In contrast, the SARFAESI Act was enacted in 2002 to regulate securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. When one co-heir is found to be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title. (See Secretary of State for India v. But it is well- settled that in order to establish adverse possession of one co-heir as against another it is not enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession and enjoyment of the profits of the properties.

Since significant amendments were introduced in Section 529 while inserting Section 529A through Amendment Act 35 of 1985, effective from 24. A reading of Sections 9 and 13 of the SARFAESI Act leaves no manner of doubt that for enforcement of its security interest, a secured creditor has been not only vested with powers to do so without the intervention of the court or tribunal but detailed procedure has also been prescribed to take care of various eventualities such as when the borrower company is under liquidation for which proviso to sub-section (9) of Section 13 contains clear mandate keeping in view the provisions of Section 529 and 529A of the Companies Act, 1956.

Appuhamy [(1912) AC 230)]. It is settled that the section in question was only intended to vest in the urban authority so much of the actual soil of the street as might be necessary for the control, protection, and maintenance of the street as a highway for public use. , has made the following observations at pp. For sale of immovable secured assets, as per Rule 8, the authorized officer can take possession by delivering a Possession Notice to the borrower and by affixing Possession Notice on the outer door or at some conspicuous place of the property.

The possession of one co-heir is considered, in law, as possession of all the co-heirs. 1985 and with the aid of a non obstante clause in sub-section (1) of Section 529A workmens dues were given preference over other dues and made to stand pari passu with dues of the secured creditors, in case of apparent conflict, this Court through various judgments has upheld the proceedings under the RDB Act as it happens to be a later Act with overriding effect over other laws.

Collector of Khulna [ (1900) LR 27 IA 136, 140] ). The co-heir in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other co-heir not in possession merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co-heir's title. The possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor. The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for brevity, ˜the Rules) framed under the provisions of SARFAESI Act also require notice upon the borrower or his agent at different stages.

195 of 1955 and Capital Sentence No. 149 of the Public Health Act, 1875, (supra) Romer, L. 17 of 1955 arising out of the judgment and order dated the 11th April 1955 of the Court of the Sessions Judge at Bahraich in Criminal S.