The Definitive Guide To Lawyer In Chandigarh

The respondent filed a petition under Art. 4 of 1925- 26 under the very sale deed dated 30-1-1920, which forms the root of the appellants' title. Keeping in view the terms and language and the legislative history of the section 66(1) we are unable to enlarge the terms of the section by mere construction so as to include within its operation goods which are in transit and are being transported across the jurisdictional limits of the Municipality.

In view of the above,the criticism of Mr. The High Court accepted these contentions and quashed the proceedings taken under the 1948 Act: In 1951 the respondents evicted certain tenants. Emperor(2), Lord Simonds observed: 2011, the order of ad-interim injunction was maintained but the trial court was directed to decide the application for injunction on its own merits within Advocates (additional info) a period of one month.

It was finally contended that the purchase by Devamma in execution of the decree in 0. It should be noted, however, that in Advocates (that site) this Calcutta case the decree was obtained and the transfer was made on the same day and it was held that though there was no assignment of the decree in so many words the property with all arrears of rent having been assigned to the mortgagee simultaneously with the passing of the decree the Advocates - additional info - assignment Advocates (additional info) passed the decree also.

While commending thus the conduct of the Transport Minister and the Chief Minister of the Punjab Government, we cannot help observing that the step (1) [ [1862] EngR 201; 1862] 3 F. Umrigar for the appellants that the judgment under appeal proceeds on a ground which was, not merely, not in the contemplation of the authorities When they passed the orders in question, but was not even raised in the pleadings in Court, is not without substance.

The tenants applied to the Revenue Officer under the 1948 Act for being restored to possession on the allegations that the respondent was their landlord and that he had unlawfully evicted them. Vatllabdas Wallji (supra). Nanjunda Rao and his successors under the sale deed dated 30-1-1920 continued to subsist, notwithstanding the court auction sale on 2-8-1928. 363 Of the Constitution barred the Court from dealing with any dispute arising out of the Agreement, and (3) that the 1948 Act did not apply to him as he was not a landlord.

148 of the Railway Establishment Code. 15 of the Wages Act, or the provisions of the Limitation Act. The obvious answer to this contention is that the properties which were sold on 2-8-1928 did not vest in the Official Receiver on the making of the order of adjudication on 19-2- 1926. In this view, it must be held that the provisions of the impugned Act are unconstitutional, in that they take away the property of the appellant in violation of either Art. " It should be added that while the appellants stated in their petitions that action had been taken against them under the Security Rules, and that those rules were ultra vires, the respondents did not plead that 1059 action was taken under R.

They only contended that the Security Rules were valid. Con/T/2 I /MP/82 dated 6-7-1950 and am of the opinion that you are engaged and associated with others in subversive activities in such mariner as to raise doubts about your reliability and am satisfied that your retention in public service is prejudicial to national security. The Nagar Panchayat in its turn approached the High Court with a writ petition in which by order dated 9.

31 (2) of the Constitution. Promotha Nath Ganguli(1) follows the decision of the Bombay High Court in Purmananddas Jivandas v. On the question whether sanction was necessary under section 197(1) it was held by the Privy Council that there was no difference in scope between that section and section 270 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and approving the statement of the law by Varadachariar, J. 100 of 1919-20 was void and conferred no title on her, because the Official Receiver in whom the estate of Keshavananda, the mortgagor, had vested on his adjudication as insolvent on 19-2-1926 had not been made a party to those proceedings, and that, in conse- quence, the title of Dr.

That sale was no doubt pendente lite, but the effect of section 52 is not to wipe it out altogether but to subordinate it to the rights based. The Revenue Officer allowed the applications and directed restoration of possession. , as they had been transferred by the mortgagor, long prior to the presentation of Insolvency Case No. The respondent was the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Khandapara which merged in the State of Orissa on August 1, 1949. The case of Ananda Mohon Roy v.

We are therefore of opinion that even if the matter is governed by s. "I have considered your representation to me in reply to this office letter No. Article 3 of the Agreement of Merger guaranteed that "the Raja shall be entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all his private properties". 56 of the Contract Act, the employer is no more discharged than by the operation of the bar of limitation under s. [1862] EngR 201; 176 E. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court for quashing the orders of the Revenue Officer contending, (1) that the application of the provisions of the 1948 Act to his private properties violated the guarantee given under the Agreement, (2) that Art.

The Orissa Merged States' (Laws) Act, 1950 extended the Orissa Tenant's Protection Act, 1948 to the merged areas. I have decided with the prior approval of the President that your services should be terminated under Rule 3 of the Railway Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1949.