Therefore for the same reasons, a writ of mandamus must be issued. We think that the Nadar Transport case (2) was misunderstood. It was there held that in an appeal under s. That does not lead to the conclusion that on proper grounds all reliefs necessary to make the appeal effective cannot be granted. 2001, passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the appellant-Company from his services and prayed pop over to this web-site set aside the same and reinstate him in the service to the said post with all the consequential benefits including back wages.
In support of the first submission it was argued that one of the objects in Memorandum of Association was the acquisition of immoveable property which the company may Read Homepage (news) think convenient for the purpose of its business and therefore the construction of a multistoreyed building would itself be an investment. nNothing was stated about the payment of duty. ‘ Ex facie it would appear that the Government acted on extraneous and irrelevant considerations and the reasons hereinbefore mentioned will mutatis mutandis apply m respect of present order of the Government under challenge.
This clause is as follows:” (e) To purchase, take on lease or in exchange or otherwise acquire any moveable or immoveable property. We also find nothing in the Nadar Transport case (2), to support the conclusion arrived look at this now (look at here now) in Dholpur Co-operative Transport etc. In the Nadar Transport case(2), on the contrary, it was observed that ” see. 64 (a) no grounds other than those taken before the lower authority could be canvassed. Malcolm does not agree with this view.
1968 is neither malafide nor unjustified. Now, as the Nizam was the ” giving way” vessel, there was the primary obligation upon her if necessary to stop the ship or to go astern, and on the evidence it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the order to go full speed astern, could have been given earlier either by the Captain himself or by Mason. , there was a reasonable probability of a collision which it was the duty of the defendant to avoid as best as he could, and according to Commander Kale, the only way he could have possibly avoided it was by steering his ship to port.
click here for more info – news, there was a reasonable probability of a collision which justified the Kalawati in changing her course to port in order to avoid that collision. It is clear that when such an action was not contemplated, which even otherwise could not be done while exercising the powers under Section 124 of the Act, in the final order there could not have been direction to pay the duty Commander Kale is emphatically of this; news, the opinion that at 6-48 p. 64 or by any of the rules made under the powers conferred by the Act “.
(a) and (f) are intended in our opinion to apply to different situations ” and that ” the power of the appellate authority is not restricted in any manner either by the provisions of s. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed against the respondent- workman by the appellant-Company, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court by filing application No. On this point both the assessors have expressed their opinion that as a matter of nautical skill 988 it would have been possible and indeed it should have ,been done, viz.
With the rest of the decision there we are not concerned and as to that we do not say anything. Act), questioning the correctness of the order of dismissal dated 30. , that the ship should have been ordered to go full speed astern earlier than 6-49 p. He takes the’ view that the Kalawati should have rather turned to starboard than to port, and his opinion is based on the consideration that the Kalawati should have assumed that at sometime or other the Nizam would turn starboard and taking that possibility into consideration she should have gone to the right side and not to the wrong side.
The appropriate Government being the Central Government in this case declined to make a reference as per its order dated December 9, 1983 in which it is stated that ‘the action of the management in imposing on the workmen penalty of removal from service on the basis of an enquiry and in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. (e) of the Memorandum of Association which relates to acquisition of moveable and immoveable property.
The appropriate Government does not consider it necessary to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. We have the plan before us and we have the evidence before us, but as this question of fact involves a question of nautical skill we have availed ourselves of the assistance of the assessors. 421 of 2001 under Section 31(3) read with Sections 61 and 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short the M.
if the Nizam was pursuing the same course that she was doing from 6-38 p. Malcolm, we are inclined to prefer the opinion given by Commander Kale as to what should have been done under the circumstances. However, in spite of the fact that Show Cause Notice was limited to confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty, the final order which was passed included the direction to pay the customs duty as well. Reference was made to cl.