Everything About Lawyer In Chandigarh

" 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.

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 [websites] not given a finding as to whether the non- participation of the profits by the plaintiff and the second defendant was Advocates (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.

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.

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 (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.

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.

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.

Secondly it was urged that the meeting of the 3rd August being thus invalid. The doctrine of Advocates (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 [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.

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.

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.