LexLords NRI Legal Services Harrow By NRI Legal Services LexLords

NRI legal services, http://nrizone.in; Acceptance of their offer after the withdrawal would be of no consequence. A written statement was indeed filed on behalf of the minor sons, defendants 3 and 4, who were represented by a pleader guardian and there this point was specifically raised. In the present case it has been found as a fact by the trial judge-and this finding has not been reversed in appeal -that the executing court intended to sell and did sell a four annas share in the joint property which included the undivided interest NRI Legal Services of the sons of defendant No.

This appeal has been preferred under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (the Act) against the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2010 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (the Tribunal) in Appeal No. However, the withdrawal after October 28, 2006 when Scheme was closed would be of no consequence. 140 to 143 of 1953 and two appeals before us from the order of the High Court refusing the application of the employers under article 226 of Constitu- tion, C.

Further, it will be noticed that the High Court here did not content itself with merely quashing the proceedings, it went further and directed the Regional Transport Authority, Tanjore, "to grant to the petitioner permits in respect of the five buses in respect of which a joint application was made originally by the petitioner and Balasubramania Pillai and that in case the above buses have been condemned, the petitioner shall be at liberty to provide substitutes within such time as may be prescribed by the authorities.

2, the major son of defendant No. It, however, granted the employers a certificate of leave to appeal to this court. He could also raise it by way of defence when the auction purchaser seeks to have his rights defined and demarcated in a partition suit. Likewise, those who submitted their options in the second phase could withdraw the same before October 28, 2006. 86 of 2009 whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission) which was in favour of the appellant.

Section 302 CrPC which is pertinent for the present case reads as follows:- Permission to conduct prosecution-(1)Any Magistrate inquiring into or trying a case may permit the prosecution to be conducted by any person other than police officer below the rank of Inspector; but no person, other than the Advocate-General or Government Advocate or a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, shall be entitled to do so without such permission: A chart was submitted before us giving the status of the applications that were submitted by various employees/respondents in these appeals.

186 be taken as a type, the creditor has an option in such cases. However, those employees who withdrew their offers after August 01, 2005 could not do so and, therefore, the Corporation was within its right to accept their offers. They failed to show, therefore, that the debt was one which they were not obliged to pay under the rule of Hindu law. In the case before us, the sons, who were made defendants to the partition suit, had that opportunity given to them.

The Labour Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 19th December, 1952, dismissed all the 'appeals and subsequently the High Court of Mysore by its order dated 25th March, 1953, also dismissed the writ applications. This chart indicates that some of the employees belonging to the first group had withdrawn their offer before August 01, 2005. The appeal was filed only by their (1) 13 I. Yet another move in the game was this Veerappa Pillai filed a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Kumbako- nam, on 3rd October, 1944, for recovery of possession of the original five buses from Messrs.

But it appears from the records that they did not invite the court to frame any issue on the point, nor did they lead any evidence upon it. The employers filed applications for special leave to appeal against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal passed in the appeals before it, and this court granted special leave to appeal by an order dated 23rd April, 1953. The result is that we have four appeals now before us against the order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, C.

, on the strength of his purchase from Balasubramania Pillai. It may be further noted that although the trial court's decision was against the sons, they did not choose to challenge the decree by way of an appeal. Unfor- tunately, however, they did not choose to avail themselves of this opportunity. " Such a direction was clearly in excess of its powers and jurisdic- tion. They had right to do so. He NRI Legal Services can, if he likes, proceed against the father's interest alone but he can, if he so chooses, put up to sale the sons' interest also and it is a question of fact, to be determined with reference to the circumstances of each individual case whether the smaller or the larger interest was actually sold in execution.

He could raise the point either by way of objection in the execution proceeding itself or he could himself file a suit for a declaration that the debt was not binding on him. According to the view taken by the Privy Council in Nanomi Babuasin's case(1), all that the son can claim in such cases is that not being made party to the sale or execution proceeding, he ought not to be barred from trying the nature of the debt or his liability to pay the same in any suit or proceeding started by him or to which he might be made a party.

1, did not file any written statement or contest the suit at all. Likewise, those employees belonging to the second category who had withdrawn their offers before October 28, 2006 were entitled to withdraw their offers as those were not accepted by that date. The defendant has now come up to this court on the strength of a certificate granted by the High Court; and though formally it is an appeal against the final decree made by the High Court on 14th of July, 1947, in substance it challenges the propriety of the order of remand NRI Legal Services passed on 24th January, 1938, by which the High Court reversed the decree of dismissal made by the District Judge and remanded the case, being of opinion that the properties in dispute did appertain to a public trust of a religious and charita- ble character.