5 Essential Elements For Lawyer In Chandigarh

The Bill inter alia provides for (a) modification and amplification of certain definitions of new type of vehicles ; Therefore, the proposed legislation has been prepared in the light of the above background. It is the essence of a classification that upon the class are cast duties and burdens different from those resting upon the general public. It cannot be said that such Advocates (her latest blog) a decision was unfair, mala Advocates (her latest blog) fide or based on irrelevant considerations. We grant leave in SLP(C) No.

The High Court veered away from the main issue and went on to elaborate on the law of arbitration and the mode of setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, which in our view, was not warranted. In view of the inclusion of Section 34 IPC in the array of offences, for which the respondents-accused had been charged by the trial court, as well as the facts and the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution, in our estimate, the order of remand was not called for and the appeals should Advocates; sneak a peek at this web-site., have been decided on merits, on the basis of the charges already framed and the Advocates (her latest blog) materials on record.

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) consolidated and rationalised various laws regulating road transport. Obviously encouraged by this success, the State of Kerala in 2011 introduced further amendments to Rule 13(3) whereby only hotels with Advocates [her latest blog] Four Star and above classifications were eligible for fresh FL-3 licenses. Matter has not even reached the Competent Authority and no final decision was taken to accept the bid of respondent No. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident.

We are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid views. On the other hand, after going through the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Megnostar we are persuaded to approve its views because of various reasons some of which we shall enumerate and explain hereinafter. To further buttress his final submission on the role of the Railways, the learned Counsel for the Appellant also cited P. (11) Classification necessarily implies the making of a distinction or discrimination between persons classified and those who are not members of that class.

Hence, the grievance of the HSIIDC that Pegasus should not have been permitted to stay outside the winding up proceeding is found meritless. Without considering the oral and documentary evidence, the High Court erred in interfering with the factual findings recorded by the trial court and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. The Appellate Court may not interfere with the finding of the trial court unless the finding recorded by the trial court is erroneous or the trial court ignored the evidence on record.

Much before that, when the BEC was informed that there were only two valid bids before it when it made its recommendation on September 08, 2010 and as per the Financial Rules there must be three or more bids to ensure that bidding process becomes competitive, the BEC realised its mistake and recalled its recommendation dated September 08, 2010. The High Court reversed the decree passed by the trial court without discussing oral and documentary evidence and several grounds raised before the trial court.

The Act came into force with effect from 1st July, 1989 replacing the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Indeed, the very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality. This, coupled with the fact that the authority has right to accept or reject any bid and even to annul the whole bidding process, the High Court was not justified in interfering with such a decision of the BEC.

Fact remains that there is no approval by either of them. The scooterist was possessing a driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving a totally different class of vehicle, which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act. Consequently its appeal has to be dismissed. The deduction of the High Court that the omission to frame charge under Section 397 IPC has resulted in miscarriage of justice is unconvincing in the facts of this case. Union of India[1983] INSC 167; , (1983) 4 SCC 598, the relevant paragraph has been provided below: The judgment discusses the Indian Railways Act, 1890 in which, Sections 27 and 28 correspond to Section 70 and 71 of the present Act.

7074 of 2010 preferred by HSIIDC but only to dismiss this case as we have found the grievance of Pegasus to be justified; it was entitled not only to stay outside the winding up proceeding in view of provisions of SARFAESI Act which is a special and later Act but was also entitled to exercise its rights without any fetters that were erroneously placed upon it by the company Judge and were approved also by the Division Bench. That meanwhile more than a decade has passed since the date of the incident, cannot also be readily over- looked.

Amendment Act 54 of 1994 - Statement of Objects and Reasons.