SimranLaw Examine This Report on Chandigarh Advocate

Please log in or register to like posts.
News

advocates chandigarhof the Calcutta High Court dated the 5th of June, 1952, rejecting the appellants application for quashing of certain criminal proceedings started against them and pending before a special court constituted under a notification of the Government of West Bengal issued under West Bengal Act XII of 1952. The High Court has come to the conclusion that there is breach of mandatory provisions of Section 42(1) and Section 42(2) and further Section 43 which was relied by the Special Judge for holding that there was no necessity to comply Section 42 is not applicable.

Thomas, we are of the opinion that all the rules of natural justice were fully observed during the enquiry in this case, and the petitioner had the fullest opportunity to put in his defence both before the Enquiry Commissioner and against the action proposed to be taken against him. Section I of the Act runs as under 1006 (1) This Act may be called the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. On the above prayer of the State Bank of Mysore, the Recovery Officer issued a proclamation of sale in Form-13, by following the procedure prescribed under the RDB Act.

The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated August 23, 2012 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Lawyer in Criminal Writ Petition No. We thus proceed to first examine the question as to whether there is breach of provisions of Section 42(1) and Section 42(2). He put in a belated review but such a review is not provided for under the rules and in our opinion, it was not necessary to consult the Public Service Commission at that stage.

This case was not decided by a Full Bench under section 25 of the Act and, therefore no review is maintainable under section 26 It is pointed out that a review may be admitted under section 26 of the United State of Travancore and Cochin High Court Act, 1125, only Lawyer in Chandigarh cases decided under section 25 of the Act. 2003 acquitting the accused from the charges under Section 8/15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’) after setting aside the judgment and conviction order of Special Judge, (NDPS Cases), Hanumangarh, Rajasthan dated 31.

To appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants it would be necessary to narrate a few antecedent facts. 2011 passed by the Government of Gujarat declining to grant the benefit of premature release to the first respondent herein is illegal and further directed the State Government to reconsider his case and take a fresh decision in the light of the discussions made Lawyers in Chandigarh the impugned order and further to release him on parole for a period of three months on furnishing personal bond/security bond for a sum of Rs.

It is useful to refer to the findings of the High Court in the above context, which is quoted below: The first part is that there is difference between the secret information recorded in Exh. The Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (Orissa Act 23 of 1950) was passed by the local Legislature and received the assent of the Governor on the 7th November, 1950, and was published Advocate in Chandigarh the official gazette on the 11th November, 1950. The breach of Section 42 has been found in two parts. Lawyers Chandigarh 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent.

It was by reason of his own default that he failed to avail himself of the second opportunity. After having examined all the arguments of Mr. The auction of the properties of Deve Sugars Ltd. 1620 of 2011 whereby the High Court entertaining the Writ Petition had opined that the order dated 26. Official Liquidator[4], and drew the Courts attention to the following: (emphasis supplied) (iii) In chronological order, learned counsel next relied upon the judgment in Rajasthan State Financial Corporation v.

The two appellants along with four other persons, one of whom as died since then, were placed on trial before the First Special Tribunal, Calcutta, which was one of the Tribunals constituted under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance XXIX of 1943 passed by the Governor- General of India under section 72 of the Government of India Act, 1935, on charges of bribery as also of conspiracy under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, read with section 420 of the Code which was later on replaced by section 409.

nThe contention of the learned Attorney-General is that in view of the changes referred to above which had the effect of setting up a common High Court for the United State of Travancore and Cochin with jurisdiction and power defined therein, the review application has become infructuous, for, even if it be allowed, there will be no authority which will have jurisdiction and power to pronounce an effective judgment after rehearing the appeal.

P-21 and the information sent to Circle Officer, Nohar by Exh. Such petitions are not within the contemplation of the Constitution. We are, therefore, unable to release any amounts in favour of the appellant Bank straight away. Ramakrishnan [1982] INSC 94; (1983) 1 SCC 228 there is an obligation resting on this Court to see that no secured or unsecured creditors including banks or financial institutions, are paid before the workmens dues are paid. 2000 by which judgment accused were sentenced to undergo 12 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.

, in the first instance, was fixed for 1.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *