Facts About Lawyer In Chandigarh Revealed

then it states that "all employees on the Works rolls of the Company on August 23, 1953, and who wish to report for duty, must resume work between 6 a. As already pointed out, the learned trial magistrate had come to the finding that there is no evidence that any amount out of this collection had been appropriated by the appellant to his own personal use. on Saturday, September 19, 1953. On that reckoning, it would follow that interest clock for differential duty will start ticking from the date differential duty is due, i.

The second notice dated September 17, 1953, places the matter beyond any doubt. Ultimately, he came to the following conclusion: On those considerations, his finding was that the accused may have been absolutely foolish and reckless and far too optimistic in expecting large sums of money by way of collections of entry fees, but that he had not been guilty of any fraudulent or dishonest conduct. " The expressions used in the second- notice clearly show that the intention was not reemployment of discharged workmen, but resumption of work by employees who desired to resume work and whose employment had been stopped on account of the 86 676 look-out.

The third notice dated September 23, 1953, which extended the date of joining to October 2, 1953, again said that " a large number of workers might have been prevented from resuming their work for reasons beyond their control " and gave that as the reason for extending the date. , the date of agreement of escalated prices and not before. It starts by saying that the "management have reasons to believe that many workers are desirous of resuming work" etc.

Accordingly, the determination of the period which can come within the term soon before her death is to be determined by the courts, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Though the language used is soon before her death, no definite period has been enacted and the expression soon before her death has not been defined in both the enactments. Thus, instead of making any gain for himself, the accused had incurred a total loss of about a lac and a half of rupees, and still he had to meet other prize winners' demands, including those of the three prosecution witnesses aforesaid.

Whatever amount he had been collecting, he had been applying to running his business. In the cases price revision, the quantum of duty would be on the escalated price but the time for payment of differential duty is when the parties agree for the escalation in prices. There being no duty to make appropriation in a particular way, the appellant could not be held guilty of having misappropriated the ninety six thousand odd rupees which was the total net collection in competition No.

To attract the provisions of Section 304-B, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with the demand for dowry. If the three notices referred to above are read together against the background of events which bad Advocates (you could try this out) happened prior to August 23, 1953, the only reasonable construction is the one adopted by the Tribunals, viz.

In this context, the notice when it said that the services of all other workers shall be deemed to. be discharged with effect from the date of the lock-out really meant that the Company refused to employ the respondent workmen during the period when the place of employment was closed. With regard to the said claim, we shall advert to the same while considering the evidence led in by the prosecution. In other words, the court found that in order to meet the heavy demands of the prize winners in respect of the previous competitions, the accused had spent not only the amounts collected by him but also about one and t half lacs of rupees of his own capital.

on Friday, September 18 1953, and 10 p. , that the employees whose employment had been refused during the lockout were permitted to resume work without any conditions if they reported for duty by a particular date, and on fulfilment of a condition if they reported for duty after that date. The expression soon before her death used in Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity test.

In brief, the change effected by the new rule was that whereas previously exemption from capitation fee was granted in favour of Advocates (watch this video) all Madhya Bharat students whatever that might mean, under the revised rule it was limited to bona fide residents of Madhya Bharat. However, the said expression would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the cruelty or harassment concerned and the death in question.

In fact, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is Advocates; you could try this out, no proximity for the alleged demand of dowry and harassment. This concept gets clarified with the latest amendment in 2015 to Section 11A with regard to the 'relevant date' for payment of interest. Advocates, you could try this out, One has also to keep in mind the difference between 'what should be the quantum of duty to be paid' and 'when such duty is payable'.