, the non-observance of the principles of natural justice and the like. If the appeal is eventually dismissed the order of dismmissal by the Board will stand; if the appeal is allowed he will be entitled to continue in the employ and enjoy all the benefits and privileges of such employment, but lie would not have to starve during the period that the appeal was pending before the State Government. In any event, that power is given to the State Government for giving relief to the employee who has thus appealed, against the rigour of the order of dismissal passed by the Board against him.
Further, the High NRI Legal Services Court fails to give due importance in its judgment to Rules 13 and 21. What has been missed by the High Court is that the expression levied has to be understood as levied under Rule 13 and once this is so, it becomes clear that such levy cannot exceed a period of 6 months or a maximum period of 9 months, as the case may be. The High Court goes on to state that the construction suggested on behalf of the assessee would lead to a manifest absurdity as there would be no reason or justification to hold that the levy of anti-dumping duty must sustain a break during the period between the expiry of the provisional duty notification NRI Legal Services and the issuance of a notification imposing a final anti- dumping duty.
The operation of the general words, however, is not cut down by reason of the fact that there are sub-heads dealing with specific aspects. In fact, the High Court goes on to say that the expression imposed and collected NRI Legal Services in Rule 21, not being there in Rule 20(2)(a), cannot therefore be imported into the said sub-rule, so that levied cannot mean imposed and collected. This conclusion again cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that if Rule 20(2)(a) were to be construed n the fashion suggested by the High Court, it would be ultra vires Section 9A for the reasons already given by us.
The employee may have been dismissed by the 1155 Board, in which case on looking at the prima facie aspect of the matter the State Government may as well come to the conclusion that the operation of the order of dismissal may be stayed and he be suspended instead, thus entitling him to subsistence NRI Legal Services allowance during the pendency of the appeal. The State of Bombay (1) explained the meaning and scope of this article thus: 525 531- 649 After referring to the provisions of el.
(2) which lays down certain exceptions which are not material for our present purpose this Court has, in Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v. The principle that the superior courts may not in their discretion issue the prerogative writs unless the applicant has exhausted all his remedies under the special Act does not apply to a suit. We have already seen how Rule 21(1) envisages precisely the situation spoken of by the High Court, and yet states that, in the circumstances mentioned therein, despite dumping and material injury to the domestic industry, differential duty cannot be collected from the importer.
Nayudu(1) occur the following observations discuss pertinent to the present question : The argument is that ” sale ” in the Entry must be interpreted as including barter, as the policy of the NRI Legal Services law cannot be to prohibit transfers of liquor only when there is money consideration therefor. (1) [1951] INSC 25; [1951] S. The suit was contested mainly by the Board and its defence was to the effect that the order of dismissal was not vitiated on the grounds of illegality or irregularity and in any case the suit was barred by limitation.
In 405 Manikkasundara v. These basic points have been missed by the High Court in arriving at the aforesaid finding. 58(1) to prevent him from doing so and if without exercising this right of appeal which is given to him by the statute he filed a suit in the Civil Court to establish the ultra vires or the illegal character of such resolution it could not be urged that such a suit was premature, he not having exhausted the remedies given to him under the statute.
The provisions contained in s. Further, the object and purpose of Section 9A is to impose an anti-dumping duty in consonance with the WTO Agreement, which Section 9A gives full effect to. The High Court went on to hold that the object and purpose underlying Section 9A would be defeated, as for the interregnum period where both dumping and material injury to domestic industry are found, no anti-dumping duty can be issued. We have already held, in view of our construction of Rule 20(2)(a), that this need not be gone into.
He may choose to exercise this right of appeal or without adopting that procedure he may straightaway challenge the validity of the resolution on any of the grounds available to him in law, e. But this argument proceeds on a misapprehension of the principles on which the Entries are drafted. 58(1) which expressly or impliedly bars his right of suit.