Detailed Notes On Advocate In Chandigarh

Later, by order dated 28. In December 1953 an order of detention was passed against him under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, and he was detained in the Thana District prison. The second respondent is the State of Bombay. (1) The Sarpanch shall, for the trial of every case, form a bench of five Panches from the panel (the panel referred to: in section 43 above noticed). Thereafter, the petitioner along with others was charged with possession of liquor.

It is worthwhile to record that this Court by order dated 1. Indeed, it was applied in the two earlier English cases as between mortgagor and mortgagee and in Performing Right Society v. On the night of the 9th October 1954 the petitioner was arrested along with his companions a little after midnight by members of the police force designated "Ghost Squad", which was a special wing of the Crime Branch of the C. When on a true construction of the deed it actually operates to transfer a decree then in existence, no equitable principle need be invoked, for in that case the transfer is by the deed itself and as such is by an assignment in writing.

Roy and (ii) That the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused person is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. He keeps bullock carts for carrying on his business of transport and cows for selling milk. He moved the High Court of Bombay under article 226 of the Constitution against the said order of detention. The argument is that by reason of the aforesaid difference in language, the Legislature clearly intended that the opinion of no, other officer can be substituted for the, 89 700 opinion of the Advocates [investigate this site] named authority, viz.

2010, it extended the interim protection earlier granted. 's case (supra) I do not see why the equitable principle may be relied on only in the case of a transfer by trustees to cestui que trust. Baldeo Prasad[1960] INSC 163; , (1961) 1 SCR 970; (ii) Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia , (1969) 2 SCC 166; and (iii) A. As regards the second proposition which appears to be founded on Advocates (a total noob) the observations of Mukherji, J.

19 crores in terms of the order of the High Court dated 5. -This petition under article 32 of the Constitution challenges the vires of certain provisions of the Bombay Police Act, XXII of 1951, which hereinafter will be referred to as "The Act" with particular reference to section 57 under which the externment order dated the 8th November 1954 was passed against the petitioner by the first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch (1), C. Though an appeal was preferred against this verdict, it was eventually withdrawn, whereafter C.

, in Mathurapore Zamindary Co. That order was set aside by the Government in December 1950, on appeal by the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the Prohibition Police of the City instituted twelve prohibition cases against him which all ended either in his discharge or acquittal. , the Income-tax Officer, with regard to the fulfilment of the second condition ; therefore, once the Income-tax Officer accepts the method of accounting Advocates (a total noob) as proper, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to go behind that opinion.

- He was released from detention before the said petition was actually heard by the High Court. An "externment order" was passed against him in August 1950. Subsequent thereto, by order dated 18. Noticeably, Section 73 accords an overriding effect of the provisions of the Highway Act over the provisions of any other law made by the State Legislature insofar as such law is inconsistent with the provisions thereof Advocates (a total noob) or the rules made thereunder. The petitioner, who claims to be a citizen of India, was born in Bombay and had been, before the order of externment in question, residing in one of the quarters of the City of Bombay.

, on the allegation made by the police that they were seen running away on the sight of a police van and that they were chased and arrested and were found in possession of knives and other weapons. It is difficult to appreciate the implication of the first proposition. 2011, the order of status-quo was allowed to continue subject to the clarification as above. The case went 509 on for about two years when he was ultimately discharged by the Presidency Magistrate on the 24th February 1955 as the prosecution witnesses were not present on the date fixed for hearing of the case.

whereas the second condition involves a determination by a named authority. If, however, the learned Judges meant to say that if on a true construction of the deed it did not cover the decree then the equitable principle would not come into play at all and in that case the principle of transfer by operation of law could not be invoked, no exception need then be taken. 3154 of 2011 had been instituted before this Court. It is only when the deed does not effectively transfer the decree because, for instance, the decree is not then in existence, but constitutes only an agreement to transfer the decree after it is passed that the invocation of the equitable principle becomes necessary and it is in those circumstances that equity fastens and operates upon the decree when it is passed and effects a transfer of it.

2010 however, this Court responding to the submissions made on behalf of the Shirdi Municipal Council to the effect that it was not a party to the compromise decree and that the interim order was acting as an impediment for its initiatives to widen the road and to remove the encroachments in accordance with law, clarified that the order of status quo had been granted vis-à-vis the Sansthan and the State Government and that if the Municipal Council decided to take any action in accordance with law for the purpose of widening of road or removal of encroachments, the same (interim order) would not come in the way of such action being taken in accordance with law.

2010 directed maintenance of status-quo. 2010, the Sansthan as well as the State Government were required to explore the possibility of identifying a suitable alternative plot even away from the existing plot, for the purpose of construction of shops for the appellants without prejudice Advocates (a total noob) to their contentions. provided that at least one of the Panches in the bench 1449 shall be a person who is able to record evidence and proceedings. In October 1954 the petitioner was served with a notice under section 57 read with section 59 of the Act.

It is convenient at this stage to set out the said notice in extenso, which is Exhibit A to the petition filed in this Court:- "Notice under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Notwithstanding setting aside the impugned order, Clauses (2) and (3) of operative part of the impugned order shall remain in force for a period of six weeks from today so as to enable the plaintiff to obtain appropriate adinterim, interim order from Civil Court.

While noticing that meanwhile, the Sansthan had deposited a sum of Rs. Continuation of the ad-interim order shall not be treated as expression of merits of the case either way.