The Definitive Guide To Lawyer In Chandigarh

It is further pleaded that Ayyappan Chettiar executed Will dated 13. The duties and functions of the Council as catalogued in Section 49 of the Act in addition to the municipal governance of a municipal area with its limits also make it incumbent for it to undertake and to make reasonable provisions, amongst others for removing obstructions and projections in public streets or places and in spaces, not being private property, which are open to the enjoyment of the public, whether such spaces are vested in the Council or in Government.

Succinctly stated, facts of this case are that the appellant/plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. Sastri, being the competent Authority Under Section-5 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 (13 of 1976), have, on the basis of relevant information and relevant material available to me, reason to believe that the properties described in the schedule enclosed hereto which are held by you or on your behalf, are illegally acquired properties within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section-3 of the said Act.

(f) Being aggrieved, the appellant herein filed Criminal Appeal No. 1) This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of the findings. Section 8 recognizes it to be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal, possessing the power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to enter into contracts and may by the said name sue, or be sued through its Chief Officer.

Alleging that the defendant has no right over the disputed property, relief of permanent injunction against him is sought in the suit. 1999 to the extent of acquittal of Dharamveer and Paramveer. Sitting as a court of first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties before recording its findings. The conviction by the High Court was based not only on the statements made by Maha Singh (deceased) but also on the un-shattered testimony of the eye- witness Dariya Singh (PW-1) and the statement of the independent witness Rajinder Singh (PW-11).

1990 in favour of the plaintiff, and after death of his father in 1997, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the property. Plaintiffs father Ayyappan Chettiar purchased the property from Gurusamy Naicker, and constructed his house. It is in these circumstances that the appellant has now, inter alia, contended that the order passed by the High Court is without appointing any guardian on her behalf and contrary to the provisions of Order XXXII Rules 3, 10 and 11 of the CPC.

1963 Gopalsamy Pillai transferred the property by executing a sale deed in favour of one Lakshmiammal. The Council is one of the municipal authorities as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act 1965 charged with the responsibility of carrying out the provisions there of for each municipal area. Kanwar Singh-the complainant Advocates (look at this) also filed Criminal Advocates (no title) Revision No. The plea that the Council is not the owner of the land thus is of no relevance or significance.

488- DB of 1999 before the High Court. 92 of 2003 before District Munsif, Virudhunagar, for permanent Advocates; no title, injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in suit. Plaintiff Andisamy Chettiar and defendant Subburaj Chettiar are sons of Ayyappan Chettiar. The Code of Conduct for Stock Brokers, inter alia, lays down that the stock-broker shall maintain high standards of integrity, promptitude and Advocates (no title) fairness in the conduct of all investment business and Advocates (no title) shall act with due skill, care and diligence in the conduct of all investment business.

2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 208 of 2000 before the High Court for setting aside the judgment and order dated 22/27. Insofar as the merits of the appeal are concerned, the High Court took the view that on the facts before it, details of which will be noticed in due course, there was a joint family in existence in which the second wife Rama Vidyarthi had played a predominant role and that the suit property was purchased out of the joint family funds namely the insurance money and the advance received from the Pratap Press Trust, Kanpur.

Lakshmiammal further transferred the property to Gurusamy Naicker through deed dated 26. The code also enumerates different shades of the duties of a stock-broker towards the investor, details of which are not being extracted herein except to say that all such duties pertain to the high standards of integrity that the stock-broker is required to maintain in the conduct of his business. It is pleaded in the plaint that originally the property in dispute was owned by one Gopalsamy Pillai.

488-DB of 1999 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal.