Thus, legal service in Chandigarh in view top legal service in Chandigarh of the best Chandigarh lawyer conjoint reading of sections 12(2) and 18(2) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, it was not open to the LAO to refer the case to the civil court on the basis best advocate in Chandigarh of the time barred application. -In this sub-clause «packing» means the wrapper, container, bobbin, pirn, spool, reel best Chandigarh lawyer or warp beam or any other thing in which or on which the excisable goods are wrapped, contained or wound; 19 to a law which had the effect of prohibiting the exercise of a right to carry on trade to many citizens.
2 to 9 by the JCC were established. 2004 and on the basis of their consents allegedly given in the year 2001, the Deputy Collector (E/R)-Chembur wrongly treated them to have given consent to the slum rehabilitation scheme. The allotment has benefited only a specified class, namely, the legal services in Chandigarh awardees, sub-awardees or nominees and none else. In continuation of above the appellants have also averred that 17 residents were not present on 20.
It is also apparent that the Society had actively participated in the other pending cases with respect to determination of compensation in which award had been passed on 2. The decision by the Minister or the actions of the bureaucrats was limited to the above class which included the top Chandigarh lawyers respondents. The notice was issued for reasons best lawyers in Chandigarh known to the Special Officer. There is no iota of evidence placed on record that under the so-called policy, anyone from general public could equally apply for allotment of the plots or was eligible to apply for such allotment nor any [pic]such general policy was brought to our notice.
They are ultra vires the power. It is surprising how and for what reasons notice was issued after six years. 268 of 2010 before the High Court, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench on the basis of the findings recorded by the learned single Judge and held that the charges framed against the respondent Nos. and on that basis it has been submitted that appellants’ contention that there exists no Annexure II for the private plots is against their own pleadings and contrary to records.
In addition, he referred us to Rule 57F (3) and Rule 57F(3A) which, according to him, would show that whenever there is a value addition to an input, the said value addition would also be liable to duty. 4, it has held that there is culpability of the deceased Vijay Mehta and further, the JCC has held that the charges against respondent Nos. , delivering the judgment of the Court observed: In Saghir Ahamad’s Case (1) and in Chamarbaugwala’s Case(2) the question whether prohibition of the exercise of a right was within the meaning of restrictions on the exercise of a right used in cl.
Thus the reference sought on the strength of the notice under section 12(2) issued and received on 31. 6 was raised but the Court decided to express no final opinion in the matter and left the question open. We need not go into this aspect any further as we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances, the Society had a constructive notice of the award dated 30. 1982 as notice to it was wholly unnecessary in view of rejection of its objection on the ground that it was not having right, title or interest in the land.
It is said he did this to prevent her identity being discovered after her death and that this shows that he had 544 already poisoned her and knew that she was going to die. 2 to 9 to hold them responsible for the transactions from the year 2001 to 2006, except on charge No. Then we find the appellant describing Laxmibai in the Hospital by the name ‘Indumati Paunshe’. 2 to 9 in delegating their powers and functions to the deceased Vijay Mehta as per clauses 9 and 11(h) of the Trust Deed vide the Resolution of the Trust dated 30.
Further, no steps were taken for the cancellation of the Resolution by her as she did not even enter into the witness box before the JCC to justify her conduct that she is not a signatory to the Resolution wherein the deceased Vijay Mehta was appointed as the Managing Trustee by other Trustees who are respondent nos. 2001 stood established and proved against them but they cannot be held guilty for the same as the appellant herself was a signatory to the above Resolution.
Further, the High Court held that the appellant did not object to his functioning as a Managing Trustee at the time when all the powers were being delegated to him and found that the petition was not seriously contested before the learned single Judge and rejected the appeal of the appellant. The Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 1. However, as there was no evidence against respondent Nos. Thus it could not be said to be ˜person interested in view of the order dated 4.
2 to 9 in the present appeal. 2010 passed by the learned single Judge and found that the same is justified after considering that the appellant herself was a party to the above mentioned Resolution that has appointed the deceased Vijay Mehta as the Managing Trustee of the Trust. 2004 bears the signature of concerned Deputy Collector and discloses verified list of 124 persons containing all the required details including consent etc.
Thereafter, the appellant filed LPA No. 1988 would not provide limitation to the Society for seeking reference with respect to the four cases in which the award was passed on 30. Legitimacy was given to the void acts of Chottey Lal, the erstwhile owner as well as the LAO. 2010 declined to interfere with the order dated 2. In Cooverjee’s Case (3) the Court extended the provisions of Cl. Directions were given by the Minister and the bureaucrats acted to allot the land under the very void acts.
1 Contract Price shall be adjusted for increase or decrease in rates and prices of labour, materials, fuels and lubricants in accordance with the following principles and procedures and as per the formula given in the contract data: It was pointed out that the document Annexure P-6 dated 05. By referring to the prayers made in the writ petition, it was also shown that there was no prayer to set aside or quash Annexure II for the private plots.