, on the other hand, held that both Act No. 1300 of Advocate Chandigarh 1997 filed by them against the respondent Company in the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore. XXXVI of 1947, in which case the trial by the Resident First Class Magistrate would be without jurisdiction ; or whether it is punishable under section 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, as amended by Act No. In order to appreciate and deal with the point so raised it will be Lawyer in Chandigarh necessary to take note of the changed conditions that bad been brought about in the 524 matter of the judicial administration in the State by the recent political changes culminating in the adoption of the new Constitution of India.
LII of 1950 related to the same subject-matter, and that as Act No. XXXVI of 1947, and that under article 254(2), the former prevailed ; and the revision petition was accordingly dismissed. The essence of the rules, as seen earlier, is that a member of the armed forces is presumed to be in sound physical and mental condition at the time of his entry into service if there is no note or record to the contrary made at the time of Advocates in Chandigarh such entry.
Section 1 1, omitting the explanations which are not material for our present purpose, and section 12 Advocate in Chandigarh of that Regulation provided as follows From Rule 14(b) of the Entitlement Rules it is further clear that if the medical opinion were to hold that the disease suffered by the member of the armed forces could not have been detected prior to acceptance for service, the Medical Board must state the reasons for saying so. Prior to and during service (a) A member is presumed to have been in sound physical and mental condition upon entering service except as to physical disabilities noted or recorded at the time of entrance.
But if an act has purported to be done in execution of duty, it may be done so, only ostensibly and not really, and if done dishonestly may still be a dereliction of duty. It will be recalled that the present review application was made on the 22nd August, 1946, and a notice to show cause was issued on the 4th December, 1947. The legal position as stated in Dharamvir Singhs case (supra) is, in our opinion, in tune with the Pension Regulations, the Entitlement Rules and the Guidelines issued to the Medical Officers.
The High Court Bench have taken the view that the Section is clearly meant to apply to an act by a public servant which could be done in good faith, but which possibly might also be done in bad faith. LII of 1950 was a Central legislation of a later date, it prevailed over the Bombay Act No. More importantly, in the event of his subsequent discharge from service on medical ground, any deterioration in his health is presumed to be due to military service.
This necessarily implies that no sooner a member of the force is discharged on medical ground his entitlement to claim disability pension will arise unless of course the employer is in a position to rebut the presumption that the disability which he suffered was neither attributable to 15 nor aggravated by military service. The preliminary question as to the maintainability of the review application was decided on the 29th June, 1949.
As observed by this Court in Savitri Devi (supra), in spite of the finding that invocation of urgency clause was uncalled for, the relief of setting aside the acquisition was not granted having regard to the development that had already undertaken on substantial part of the land The Section cannot be meant to apply to cases where there could be no doubt that the act alleged must be in bad faith.
XXXVI of 1947 and Act No. Against this judgment, the present appeal has been preferred on a certificate under article 132 (1), and the point for determination is whether contravention of section 5(1) of the Bombay Food Grains (Regulation of Movement and Sale) Order, 1949, is punishable under section 2 of the Bombay Act No. They were, therefore, “‘disqualified and unfit to be the trustees of or to hold any other position in, or enjoy any benefit from, the Jacobite Syrian Church” (para 26 of the plaint) The plaintiff s contended that the defendants had committed acts of heresy and became ipso facto alien to the Malankara Jacobite Syrian Church.
During all this period Regulation IV of 1099 was in force in the State of Travancore. XXXVI of 1947, which accordingly remained unaffected by them. , who agreed with Chainani J, that there was repugnancy between section 7 of Act No. LII of 1950 did not trench on the field covered by the Bombay Act No. 801 The revision petition was heard by a Bench consisting of Bavdekar and Chainani JJ. This company application praying this Court to grant leave to the applicant Bank to proceed and prosecute further O.
LII of 1950, Advocate in Chandigarh which case, the trial and conviction of the appellant by that Magistrate would be perfectly legal. LII of 1950 and section 2 of the Bombay Act No. nIt will be convenient at this stage to discuss and deal with a preliminary point raised by the learned Attorney–General appearing for the plaintiffs respondents. was of the opinion that the amendments to the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act including the re-enactment of section 7 in Act No.
On this difference of opinion, the matter came up under section 429, Criminal Procedure Code, for hearing before Chagla C. nIn 1938, a suit was filed in the District Court of Kottayam by the first and second respondents against the first and second appellants.