LexLords NRI Legal Services Reviews By NRI Legal Services LexLords

NRI legal services - https://lexlords.com/consumer-courts-protect-nri-builders-developers/. Similarly, the contention on the basis of the judgments in Tofan Singh, Raju Premji and Noor Aga (supra) also cannot be accepted. ) in Civil Revision Cases Nos. Some had preferred to file suits and Civil Appeals which were dismissed. In Tofan Singh (supra), the question whether the investigating officer investigating the matter under the Act is a police officer and whether the statement recorded by the investigating officer under Section 67 of the Act can be treated as a confessional statement has been referred to the larger Bench.

, Chakravarthi, Das, Banerjee and S. It is therefore necessary to know with certainty exactly when these consequences start to take effect. The prosecution version is based not only on the statement under Section 67 but also on the evidence of recovery of the contraband immediately after sale and the circumstances showing that the contraband was sold by the appellant to the co-accused, without any authorization. Their Regular Second Appeal No.

The facts of the case and the argument of Counsel appear fully in the judgment. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant. 969 of 1909 and the award dated the 12th October, 1920, and the dealings made by the heirs of jogendra and/or Rajendra relating to the said premises or any of them purporting to affect its rights in the said premises were invalid and inoperative in law and not binding on it, for an account of the dealings with the said premises, for a scheme of management of the debutter properties and for its worship, for discovery, receiver, injunction and costs.

Contribution) or agree for adjustment, to obtain pensionary benefits. that this part of section 5(1) is valid. 41- A and 40/2-A Grey Street, were its absolute properties and for possession thereof, for a declaration that the consent decree dated the 24th November, 1910, in Suit No. This appeal by special leave assails the judgment and order dated 24. The appellants contend that such mistakes are possible. 9,000 crores, which were allocated to the State of Uttar Pradesh for the period 2005-2006 by the Ministry of Health According to the said NRI Legal Services investigation, NRHM funds to the tune of Rs.

Whether the statement is voluntary and free from encumbrance has to be judged from the facts and circumstances of each case. The Central Bureau of Investigation (the CBI) conducted investigation in what is known as National Rural Health Mission Scam (NHRM Scam). The investigating agency registered an FIR and eventually laid the charge-sheet before the Court and thereafter the case was registered as C.

2002 whereby Writ Petition bearing CWP No. 2006 passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing LPA No. On the 19th July, 1948, the family idol of Dwarka Nath, Sree Sree Iswar Sridhar Jew, by its next friend Debabrata Ghosh, the son of Nagendra, filed the suit, out of which the present appeal arises, against the appellants as, also against Susilabala and the two sons of Jogendra by her, amongst others, for a declaration that the premises Nos.

Nobody can deny that such mistakes are possible; Thus in this sheet there are two mistakes in mentioning the number of the month and one mistake in mentioning the number of the year. 132 (1) of the Constitution from the judgment and order dated 28th August, 1951, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Harries C. if the State gov- ernment classifies offences arbitrarily and not on any reasonable basis having a relation to the object of the Act, its action will be either an abuse of its power if it is purposeful or in excess of its powers even if it is done in good faith and in either case the resulting discrimination will encounter the challenge of the Constitution and the Court will strike down, not the law which is good, but the abuse or misuse or the unconstitutional administration of the law creating or resulting in unconstitutional discrimi- nation.

11908 of 1992 preferred by some of the respondents was allowed. For that reason rules have been drawn up to determine the manner in which and the time from when the decision is to take effect and crystal 332 lise into an act which is thereafter final so far as the NRI legal services (you can try here) court delivering the judgment is concerned. The learned Magistrate exercising the power under Section 156(3) CrPC, directed the police to investigate into the allegations.

700 of 2002 preferred by the appellants and affirming the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 11. 430 of 1995 was tagged with the above writ petition and was allowed by the same common judgment enabling all the 21 respondents to refund a part of CPF (Govt. It is not necessary to go into this aspect in the present case as there is adequate evidence to prove the sale of the contraband by the appellant for which co-accused has been convicted and sentenced.

The facts which are requisite to be stated for the purpose of adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 193, 196, 200, 465, 467 and 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC). There can be no doubt that the Court has to satisfy itself that the statement under Section 67 was made voluntarily and at a time when the person making such statement had not been made an accused.