The Basic Principles Of NRI Legal Services

While so, the High Court was not right in placing reliance upon clause 11 of the contract to reverse the findings of fact recorded by the trial court. Respondent filed writ petition before the Delhi High Court on 17. Assailing the impugned judgment, the appellant-Union of India has preferred this appeal. It is to be pointed out that the respondent has not raised the plea relying upon clause 11 of the contract. The High Court took note of clause 11 of the contract dated 12.

2005 claiming that it should be issued a request for proposal as well, as it was registered for some other products namely torpedo batteries. 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the offences under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code can be relied upon as obviating the likelihood of prejudice has to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. The grounds of detention as communicated to the petitioner on the 31st May, 1956, by the District Magistrate, Jammu, are as -follows: The petitioner was first placed under detention by virtue of an order passed by Advocates (recommended you read) the District Magistrate, Jammu, under subsection (2) of section 3 of the Act on the 1st May, 1956, and that order was confirmed and continued on the 5th September, 1956, under sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act by the Government after taking the opinion of the Advisory Board.

2005 dismissed the writ petition observing that if the extant policy envisages selection or shortlisting of a party for purposes of raising a development indent for an alternative indigenous source of equipment, this stage must be successfully crossed before venturing further into the issuance of request for proposal and thereafter issuance of a PAC. Aggrieved by dismissal of the writ petition, the respondent filed LPA No. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHADAS J.

Moreover, having regard to the fact that the work was to be completed within a specified time-frame, the parties cannot be expected to go for a second round of negotiation and reframe the terms and conditions of the work. Whether or not in such a situation the questioning of the accused during the course of his examination under s. Further, by perusal of Ex. While saying so, the High Court brushed aside the admission by DW-1 that extra work was done by the appellant and the High Court was not right in ignoring the same to hold that the admission of DW-1 cannot have the effect on the contractual obligation of the parties.

1991, a letter addressed by the appellant to the respondent informing the respondent about the extra work which needs to be done and the Advocates (in the know) fact that PW-4 was engaged by the respondent to prepare the new design for the work, it is evident that the respondent was aware of the fact of the change in the nature of work and that there is alteration in the work done by the appellant. High Court set aside the findings recorded by the trial Advocates (in the know) court holding that the parties are governed by the terms of the written contract and any variation with the terms of the agreement was required to be done strictly adhering to clause 11 of the contract.

-This is an application under article 32 of the Constitution for the issue Advocates (in the know) of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus against the State of, Jammu and Kashmir by the petitioner who was under detention by virtue of an order dated the 5th September, 1956, issued by the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir under sub-section (2) of sec- tion 3 taken with sub-section (1) of section 12 of Jammu and Kashmir Preventive Detention Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

The learned Single Judge vide order dated 05. Be it noted that the submarine batteries claimed to have been developed by the respondent were neither developed under the aegis of the DGQA nor the Government paid for development of the prototype cells. 302 and 307 of the Code and sentences of death and transportation for life cannot be maintained unless the Court is satisfied, on the facts of the case, that the accused has not been prejudiced in his trial.

When the evidence and material clearly depict the change of nature of work involved and when the extra work to be done was also admitted by DW-1, parties cannot be expected to go for a revised agreement/contract. The two orders of detention, one of the District Magistrate dated the 1st May, 1956, and the other of the Government dated the 5th September, 1956, recited that the petitioner is directed to be detained because it was, necessary to make such an order "with a view to preventing him 950 from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community".

The learned Single Judge further held that procurement method was a policy matter and the policy did not suffer from any illegality and in any event, the policy has not been challenged by the respondent in the writ petition. 2005 and the High Court issued directions to the Ministry of Defence to procure even the critical spare parts like submarine batteries only after issuing advertisement and calling for open tender.

1992 which states that the contractor is not authorized to do any extra work or make any alteration without the previous consent in writing of the respondent. 2448/2005 which was allowed vide the impugned judgment dated 27.