Top Advocate In Chandigarh Secrets

1974, whereas in the instant case, it is the validity of the order dated 30. The above legal principles laid down by this Court have been reiterated in the case of Syed Mohd. Most respectfully, we opine that the decision of this Court in the case of Lord Jagannath referred to supra, wherein this Court upheld the validity of the Advocates - why not try this out - notification dated 18. Further, it Advocates - have a peek at these guys - is well settled law that a question of law can be raised at any time during the proceedings.

This led the Orissa High Advocates (have a peek at these guys) Court to pass Advocates, have a peek at these guys, an order on 4th November, 2008 requiring the petitioner therein to make a representation to the Government of India which in turn was required to pass an order on the representation. Naresh Kumar Badrikumar Jagad[11], it was held as under:- 19. For the sake of brevity the provision (Regulation 12) is not being quoted. 1992 that is being examined, along with the question whether land once vested for a particular purpose, namely, as property of Lord Jagannath can be divested by operation of another legislation.

We agree with the contention advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Temple Committee. While the doctrine of stare decisis is crucial to maintain judicial discipline, what cannot be lost sight of the fact is that decisions which are rendered in ignorance of existing statutes and law laid down by this Court cannot bind subsequent Benches of this Court. Salie Labbai (2) that the subject-matter of the suit also must be identical; (3) that the matter must be finally decided between the parties; and (4) that the suit must be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction.

a distance to be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence to rule out any possibility of wrongful conviction of the accused and resultant mis-carriage of justice. The appellants have further submitted that the renewals of the licenses by the Zonal Railways upto 2013 was only meant to operate as a temporary arrangement till the bidding and allocation process was finally completed. In terms of this judgment, suspicion, howsoever grave cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution case to succeed has to be in the category of must be and not may be.

15939 of 2008 to prohibit the printing, publication and distribution of the objectionable book. The petitioner did make a representation and the Government of India passed an order in December, 2008 directing the State Government of Delhi and the Union Government in Pondicherry to ensure that there should be no publication of the objectionable book without obtaining a no objection from the Government of India. Since the subject matter of the two cases is not identical, the bar of res judicata does not operate on the proceedings in the instant case.

Regulation 12 of the FUTP Regulation also contemplates suspension or cancellation of registration of intermediaries. (l)-(q) * * * (r) planting false or misleading news which may induce sale or purchase of securities. Development of the second source would require upto a maximum of three years, as the development process involves drawing up of detailed technical specifications and performance criteria based on which the firm has to prepare a detailed design for each and every component to meet the stringent military standards.

In the case of Moti Kureshi Jamat referred to supra, it was held as under: 1974 in so far as it pertains to the estate of Lord Jagannath is per-incuriam for non-consideration of the provisions of Sections 5 and 30 of the Temple Act, 1955 and the law laid down by this Court as regards between the two State enactments, which one will be the Special Act over other. In the case of National Textile Corporation Ltd. In the Lord Jagannath case referred to supra, this Court was concerned only with the validity of the vesting notification dated 18.

There is no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that a new plea cannot be taken in respect of any factual controversy whatsoever, however, a new ground raising a pure legal issue for which no inquiry/proof is required can be permitted to be raised by the court at any stage of the proceedings. 11 shows that to constitute a matter res judicata, the following conditions must be satisfied, namely - (i) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue in the former suit; (ii) The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim; (iii) The parties must have litigated under the same title in the former suit; (iv) The court which decided the former suit must be a court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised; and (v) The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the Court in the first suit.

The renewal of the licenses of the licensee under para 16 of the Policy would apply only to licensees allotted under the Catering Policy 2010.