The Single Best Strategy To Use For Lawyer In Chandigarh

Consistent with the above position is the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff i. 21/70/1976 seeking partition of the joint family properties. 37/1969 Rama Vidyarthi had passed away. The paragraph in the petition relevant to the Advocates (click this over here now) present question is 7(c), and that has been already set Advocates (click this over here now) out in extenso. It was argued by the Amicus Curiae that without proper data from the authorities concerned, it was not possible to take stock of the magnitude of the problem no matter challenges posed by rampant drug abuse had acquired alarming proportions affecting the youth, some of whom are driven to commission of crimes on account of deleterious effects of drug abuse.

123(8) of the Act Advocates (click this over here now) of procuring the assistance of Government- servants for furtherance of their election prospects. Section 86 which was elaborately considered by the High Court runs in these terms: Special leave was granted by this Court limited to the question whether the offence committed by the petitioner fell under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code or section 304 of the Indian Penal Code having regard to the provisions of section 86 of Advocates (you could try this out) the Indian Penal Code.

During the course of panchnama itself, it was stated by Shri Rajnibhai in presence Advocates, click this over here now, of panchas: It is only on the basis of intelligence report that assessee was evading central excise duty that the matter came to the notice of the Revenue which led to the exercise of issuing of notice. "It is surprising that questions of this sort have not arisen in this country when we consider that till a very late period and even now for some purposes a different succession prevails in the Province of York.

George would also support the stand as was submitted on behalf of the 5th respondent and contended that the claim of the 5th respondent can alone be considered in the light of the law that was prevailing prior to the amendment of Rule 7A(3) and 51A. Why then does the petition not state it in plain terms ? Officers in the panchnama observed that the two housing of cold-rolling mills fitted with debapti and gearbox were found installed and other parts were not found in the said rolling mills.

Thereafter Defendant called a meeting of a few financial sound members of the Exchange including the Plaintiff wherein various options to deal with the crisis were discussed out of which one option reposed by the deponent was to reverse the transactions of Himachal Futuristic Communication Ltd. of ganja were awaiting disposal in Bathinda Police stores alone. Sinha, no better in other States especially those situate along the international borders.

Till a very late period the inhabitants of York were restrained from disposing of their property by testament. It does not amount to an averment that, in fact, they so enlisted their support. The position was, according to Mr. The learned counsel for the State, Mr. The respondent has in other paragraphs relating to other charges clearly and categorically asserted what the appellants did and what their agents did. The said suit was again dismissed under the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 CPC for failure to pay the requisite court fee.

37/1969 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of two rooms of the suit property which, according to her, had been forcibly occupied by the present respondent- plaintiff. And why was a different phraseology adopted in para 7(c) 9 It is to be noted that apart from this allegation, the rest of the paragraph is taken up with details of the two meetings at Kakori, and it winds up with the following allegation: The difference between "could" and "did" is too elementary to be mistaken.

A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. In the present case, having regard to the circumstances stated above, the order of amendment would be open to grave criticism even if it had been made in an ordinary litigation, and in an election matter, it is indefensible.

It also appears that Rama Vidyarthi the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant had filed Suit No. It so happened that on the basis of intelligence, the Officers of Central Excise Department visited and searched the said factory premises on 25. The aforesaid suit was decreed in favour of the legal heirs of the plaintiff-Rama Vidyarthi namely, Srilekha and Madhulekha Vidyarthi on 4. 1999 in the presence of two independent panchas and Shri Rajnibhai Veljibhai Katharia, partner of assessee and seized certain records for which panchnama dated 25.

The custom is very analogous to the law of Scotland. As pointed out above, the assessee had not been paying any excise duty on the aforesaid process as according to it, this process did not amount to manufacture and no excise duty was paid. Leaving out the allegations relating to the meetings held at Kakori, what remain of it is only the allegation that " respondents I and 2 could in furtherance of their election enlist the support of Government servants.

And the question then would have been (1) [1801] EngR 161; [1801] 31 E. The other question raised in the appeals pertains to the extended period of limitation. It is argued for the respondent that the allegation in para 7(c) really -means that the appellants had, in fact, enlisted the support of Government servants, and that that amounts to a charge under s. The case set up by the assessee is that, in any case, there was no willful mis-declaration, mis-statement or suppression on the part of the assessee and, on the other hand, the facts gave rise to a bona fide belief that the process did not amount to manufacture and, therefore, show case notice dated 15.

2000 was beyond the normal period of limitation and, thus, time barred. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit i. " The word " could " can only mean that the respondents were in a position to enlist the support of Government servants. An appeal to the PEPSU High Court at Patiala proved unsuccessful. To decide that, we must examine whether what the respondent sought to raise by way of amendment was only particulars in respect of a charge laid in the petition, or whether it was a new charge.