The contentions, though somewhat plausible at first sight, seem to us to be wholly without substance. Lawyer Chandigarh There is no doubt that this is a case to which the Prevention 969 of Corruption Act, 1947 would apply and that by virtue of section 6(c) thereof the prosecution requires the Lawyers Chandigarh sanction of the authority “competent to remove the appellant from his office. Chatterjee lays stress on the fact that it was a matter of imperative necessity for both the plaintiffs to get back the estate of their father from the hands of the receiver as the debts contracted by the receiver were mounting Up day after day.
It may be, that it was not possible to know the actual state 476 of affairs with regard to the’ receiver’s accounts and consequently it might well have been thought prudent to borrow money to ward off what was considered to be a danger to the estate. 20,950 annas odd on or before the 1st February next. This might furnish some excuse or explanation for Mohini’s borrowing money on the 28th January, 191 1, but that could not make the act of Rashmoni in executing the security bond, seven months after that event, an act of prudent management on her part dictated either by legal necessity or considerations of benefit to the estate of her deceased son’ In the first place it is to be noted-that the total amount borrowed by Mohini was Rs The execution of the security bond therefore was an act beneficial to the estate of Haripada.
nThe only serious argument that has been advanced and which requires a little closer examination is that there was no valid sanction for the prosecution. n475 On the first point both the Courts below have held concurrently, that there was absolutely no legal necessity which justified the execution of the security bond by Rashmoni in favour of Suhasini. It is said that this was not a mere moral obligation but a legal liability on the part of the lady, as Mohini could have claimed contribution from her to the extent that Haripada’s estate was benefited by the deposit.
As was found, on investigation of accounts, under orders of the High Court later on, nothing at all was due to the receiver by the estate of Haripada or Mohini. It is true that because of the unfortunate death of Haripada only a few days before, Rashmoni could not join in executing the mortgage but she, as heir of Haripada, was really answerable for half of the money that was required to be deposited Lawyers in Chandigarh Court. In order to comply with this order Mohini had no other alternative but to borrow- money on the mortgage of his properties and this he had to do before the 1st February, 1911.
The Act prohibited the importation of certain goods which were specifically mentioned and then gave power to the Governor- General in Council to include, by (1)  HCA 30; 8 C. The question raised in that case related to the validity of certain provisions of the Customs Act of 1901. The trial Judge found that there was no urgent necessity to borrow money for releasing the estate and Lawyers in Chandigarh fact it was Mohini who acted in hot haste to execute the mortgage, his only object being to get the properties in his own hands.
848 It follows, therefore, contrary to the contentions of the State, that these two Notifications of 1947 quite effectively superseded the 1945 Order so far as it purported to regulate or control the price, production, distribution and movement of or trade and commerce in edible oils and oilseeds and pulses other than gram. ” It is urged that this requirement was not satisfied on the facts of this case. It is pointed out that on the 28th January, 1911, the Court had made a peremptory order to the effect that the properties could be released only if the plaintiffs deposited Rs.
On the other hand, both the brothers were entitled to get a fairly large sum of money from the receiver. This appears also to be the position under rule 1705(c) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume 1 (1951 Edition) which is as follows It has been pointed out that the appellant is a civil servant of the, Indian Union and that by virtue of article 311 (1) of the Constitution he cannot be removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.
Whatever is done must be done either under the Rules or under a notification 312 which would receive like publicity and have like force, and of which the people at large would have like notice nBut that apart, this would, in our opinion, run counter to the policy of the Legislature which is that matters of such consequence to the State revenue cannot be dealt with arbitrarily and in the secrecy of an office.
In the first place the money borrowed by Mohini or deposited by him in Court did not and could not benefit Haripada’s estate at all. ” (1) Where a bank or a financial institution has to recover any debt from any person, it may make an application to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of making the application, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises: Application to the Tribunal.