LexLords NRI Legal Services UK By NRI Legal Services LexLords

NRI legal services, https://lexlords.com/divorce/. He stated, that he became encouraged and lost his fear, when he heard the voices of the co-villagers, whereupon, he himself (Mohan Lal " PW-15) and Milkha Singh came out of the flour mill. He stated, that he was standing near Om Prakash, when Om Prakash was shot. The suggestion, that the persons gathered at the place of occurrence had lathis on their hands, and that, they had inflicted injuries on accused-appellant " Brij Lal and the co-accused " Kashi Ram with lathis, was also denied.

While in the flour mill of Milkha Singh, Mohan Lal " PW-15 confirmed, that he could hear the sound of people coming to the house of Mohan Ram " PW-1. He stated, that he became scared, and therefore, ran away from the house. He also asserted, that the accused- appellant " Brij Lal, asked Mohan Ram " PW-1, to send forward Mohan Lal " PW-15 (i. Every civil or commercial dispute, either contractual or non-contractual, which can be decided by a court, is in principle capable of being adjudicated and resolved by arbitration unless the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunals is excluded either expressly or by necessary implication.

He testified, that Milkha Singh closed the doors, after he had entered his mill, when he informed Milkha Singh, that the accused had come to kill him. He stated, that when accused-appellant " Brij Lal and the co-accused " Kashi Ram were speaking to Mohan Ram " PW-1, they were visible to him from within the house. And that, Sultan, Munni Devi and Sheria Ram were standing about 5 feet away from their side. He deposed, that it was not possible for anyone to catch the accused- appellant " Brij Lal and the co-accused " Kashi Ram, because all were empty handed.

[See Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Possession of an agent, it is said, cannot judicially be the possession of the principal, if the agent is to act not according to the commands or dictates of the principal, but under the direction of an exterior authority. In his cross-examination, Mohan Lal " PW-15 deposed that, while the accused-appellant " Brij Lal and the co-accused " Kashi Ram were standing in front of the house of Sultan Bhat, the deceased and the injured were standing at a distance of about 20-25 feet, from the house of Sultan Bhat.

, himself), because they needed to kill him. 19(1)(f)and (5) of the Constitution, the impugned section of the West Bengal Act VII of 1950 is intra vires because the restrictions are reasonable within the meaning of art. Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 5th January, 1953, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Lucknow (Kidwai and Bhargava JJ. Consequently, where the cause/dispute is inarbitrable, the court where a suit is pending, will refuse to refer the parties to arbitration, under Section 8 of the Act, even if the parties might have agreed upon arbitration as the forum for settlement of such disputes.

Mohan Lal - NRI Legal Services PW-15 reiterated, that none of the villagers was armed with any weapon. He also confirmed hearing the shouts of Mohan Ram " PW- He deposed, that he had run away by jumping into the house of Badri Ram, and therefrom, went to the flour mill of Milkha Singh. 4 of 1952 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated the 19th January 1952, of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Sitapur, in Sessions Case No. 19(5) of the Constitution; --(i) On the assumption that the question raised in this case is one that arisesunder art.

He also clarified, that the accused-appellant " Brij Lal and the co-accused " Kashi Ram, had been exhorting Mohan Ram " PW-1, to call him (Mohan Lal " PW-15) outside the house. Adjudication of certain categories of proceedings are reserved by the legislature exclusively for public fora as a matter of public policy. On coming out, he had seen the accused-appellant " Brij Lal and the co-accused " Kashi Ram standing in front of the house of Sultan Bhat at a distance of about 30-40-45 Ft, from the flour mill.

The suggestion, that the villagers were chasing the accused and the co-accused, was denied. He deposed, that he had run away, because the accused-appellant " Brij Lal was saying, that they were going to kill him. He stated, that Om Prakash, Munni Devi and others had only come to the place of occurrence, to save him. 193 shares held by them. Certain other categories of cases, though not expressly reserved for adjudication by public fora (courts and tribunals), NRI Legal Services may by necessary implication stand excluded from the purview of private fora.

He affirmed, that the accused-appellant " Brij Lal had no quarrel/enmity with the deceased Om Prakash and Munni Devi. 24 of 1952 and Capital Sentence Register No. The distance between the accused-appellant " Brij Lal and the villagers was about 17 to 18 feet, whereas, the distance between the co-accused " Kashi Ram and Munni Devi was about 8 to 10 feet. During his cross-examination Mohan Lal " PW-15 deposed, that the crowd comprised of 20 to 25 men, 10 to 15 women and some children, when the firing had taken place.

He deposed, that the first shot was fired by the accused-appellant " Brij Lal, and the next shot was fired by the co-accused " Kashi Ram. In response to his denial, Mohan Lal " PW-15 stated, that the accused-appellant " Brij Lal shouted, that the accused would kill each one of those who were helping Mohan Lal " PW-15. These persons may hold the shares as trustees and may even be accountable to their beneficiaries and may be brought to book for exercising their votes in breach of trust, nevertheless, as between them as shareholders and the company, they are the shareholders, and as such, have "a controlling interest" in the company.

) in Criminal Appeal Register No. He confirmed, that he was not hurt by any pellet.