Detailed Notes On Lawyer In Chandigarh

8(1) will operate in the case of every detenue to whichever of the four categories he may belong. (1) to certain class of detenues only. Advocates (look at here now) As soon as an order of detention is made under s. The proviso enables the Government to prevent the application of sub-s. 8(1) placed under the obligation to communicate the grounds of the detention 'as soon as may be. It was reiterated in Babubhai (supra) that in exceptional circumstances, the court in order to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, may direct investigation de novo, if it is satisfied that non-interference would Advocates (look at here now) ultimately result in failure of justice.

State Advocates (look at here now) of Kerala[2], relevant paras of which read thus: The recourse available with the investigating agency in the said situation is to conduct further investigation normally with the leave of the court as provided under sub-Section (8) to Section 173 of Cr. In its counter affidavit/reply the respondents have specifically stated that they are taking active steps to implement the order(s) and direction(s) issued by this Court.

The first information report is a report which gives first information with regard to any offence. It follows that the detenues who do not fall within that clause must have the grounds communicated to them and there is no power given to the Government to exclude the operation of sub-s. JAC Saldanha and others [1979] INSC 234; (1980) 1 SCC 554, that on a cognizance of the offence being taken by the court, the police function of investigation comes to an end subject to the provision contained in Section 173(8) of the Code and that the adjudicatory function of the judiciary commences, thus delineating the well demarcated functions of crime detection and adjudication, this Court did recognize a residuary jurisdiction to give directions to the investigating agency, if satisfied that the requirements of law were not being complied with and that the investigation was not being conducted properly or with due haste and promptitude.

50 of 1951 arising out of the Order dated the 19th day of June 1951 of the said Court exercising Original Jurisdiction in Misc. The reliance is placed on the decision of this court rendered in T. That not only fair trial but fair investigation is also a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 firstly the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law and secondly, the entire emphasis has to be to bring out the truth Advocates (you could try here) of the case before the court of competent jurisdiction.

We have carefully perused the counter affidavit/ reply filed by the respondent(s). One of such conditions was that suit will remain non-transferable for a period of ten years. While recalling its observation in State of Bihar and another vs. 3 of the said Agreement thus attracting the operation of the 1948 Act to his private lands it remains to consider whether the respondent was a landlord and the appellants were his tenants within the meaning of the terms as defined in that Act.

It appears that on account of delay in installation of the Main Liquid Oxygen Tank and the 3 Phase electrical connection, the commissioning of the complete system of Liquid Medical Oxygen Gas together with other gases. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No, 147 of 1953, 1355 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 24th day of August 1951 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Appeal No.

(emphasis supplied by this Court) It is well settled principle of law that there can be no second FIR in the event of any further information being received by the investigating agency in respect of offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to one or more offences for which chargesheet has already been filed by the investigating agency. If, then, the provisions of the 1950 Act could be validly applied to the merged State of Khandapara in spite of art.

Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v. There cannot be second FIR in respect of the same offence/event because whenever any further information is received by the investigating agency, it is always in furtherance of the first FIR. ' If no declaration is made under the proviso, s. Twigge (1) was a case of goods shipped from a foreign port under a through bill of lading to Liverpool, landed in London and sent from there to Liverpool in another ship and it was held that such goods were imported into Liverpool ports beyond the seas and not from London.

The transit began at Singapore and ended at Liverpool and was not broken by the transhipment in London. In such an eventuality endorsement of the investigation to an independent agency to make a fresh probe may be well merited. It is interesting to note that the High Court has noticed the Advocates (look at here now) fact mentioned in para 24 of trial court judgment that during the pendency of the lis DDA allotted the plot in question in favour of the deceased father of the defendant (original plaintiff) by executing a lease deed putting a condition that the plot in question will remain non-transferable for a period of ten years.

3(1)(a), the authority making the order is by s. Para 24 of the trial court judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- It is stated on oath by Umed Singh (DW1) that the DDA allotted plot in dispute to his deceased father on certain terms and conditions, which were embodied in the lease deed.