lawyers in Supreme Court India http://supremecourtindia.in/supreme-court-justices-anne-burke/; leave and holidays’, came up for consideration. Special Deputy Collector, Madras(3), the Court held that the Land Acquisition (Madras Amendment) Act, 1961 providing for the acquisition of lands for housing scheme was not a law with reference: to any agrarian reform and was not protected by Art. No doubt the amendments, effected in 1956, are also adverted to when considering the scheme of the Standing Orders Act. Referring to the principle applied by the Court of Appeal, that damages should be such as to put the claimant as nearly in the position that he would have been in had the breach not occurred, Lord Hoffmann said, at p 211: They accepted the principle underlying Phillips J’s decision, but their reasoning was more elaborate and the way in which they applied it was different.
land acquired under the Act need not be an estate or part of an estate. And it is worth pointing out that, while, as already mentioned, Lord Hoffmann emphasised the importance of freedom of expression and the “special position of the media” in Campbell (No 2), para 19, he nonetheless refused to accept that even requiring MGN to reimburse the success fee and ATE premium payable by Miss Campbell offended freedom of expression. This contention was rejected, by this Court, and it was held that the substantive provisions, for the granting of leave and holidays, along with conditions in that respect, could be provided for, in the Standing Orders, under cl.
6 of 1955 is not a law firms in Supreme Court of India concerning agrarian reform and -is not protected by Art. (vii) The judge went wrong by breaking down the question into components instead of asking one unitary question, namely: would it be an unexpected event for Capesize vessels calling at Kashima to find it necessary to leave the berth due to danger from a long-wave swell at the very time when it was dangerous to transit the Fairway? It will be noted that this decision was also concerned, solely with the question of the jurisdiction of the Certifying Officer and the Appellate Authority, under the Standing Orders Act, in relation to the standing orders, which came up for consideration, before them.
lawyers in Supreme Court India the light of these decisions, we must bold that Act No. It has no relation to agrarian reform, land tenures or the elimination of intermediaries. The essential distinction which underlies the whole of his analysis is between the assessment of the loss caused by the breach of duty and the extent of the defendant’s duty to protect the claimant against it. In this decision also this Court did not -have occasion to [1946] 2 S. While such exceptional circumstances were found to exist in MGN v UK, it is worth noting that no complaint was ever made about the level of base costs in Campbell v MGN.
The House of Lords allowed the appeal. Article 31(1) of the 1951 Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) (Cmd 9171) and (1967) (Cmnd 3906) (“the Refugee Convention”) prohibits contracting states from imposing penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, provided that they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
It was further contended that the said clause only required the Standing Orders to provide for conditions, subject to which, leave and holidays could be granted, as well as the procedure, in respect thereof. or prevention of erosion- A piece of. The Act is a purely expropriatory measure. The contention, on behalf of the Management, appears to have been that the jurisdiction. We may (1) [1960] 3 S. Under section 25(1) of the Identity Cards Act 2006 (now substantially re-enacted by section 4 of the Identity Documents Act 2010), it was an offence punishable with up to ten years’ imprisonment for a person to be best lawyers in Supreme Court of India possession of an identity card relating to somebody else, with the intention of using it to establish his identity as that person’s identity.
The judge’s approach was to consider whether long waves and strong northerly winds from low pressure storms affecting navigation in the Kashima Fairway were respectively ‘attributes’ of the port. conferred on a Certifying Authority, under this clause, does not empower the said Authority to deal with the substantive question of the extent and quantum of leave and holidays. Having reached the conclusion that they were ‘attributes’, he wrongly assumed that it did not matter how rare their combination was.
In that decision, this Court had to consider, again, the effect of the Standing Orders Act, prior to its amendment, in 1956. advocates in Supreme Court of India short, it was contended that the quantum of leave and holidays, to be granted to workmen, was outside the purview of the Schedule to the Standing Orders Act and, as such, they could not be included by the Certifying Officer, or the Appellate Authority, in the Standing Orders. In particular, the scope of item 5, of the Schedule to the Standing Orders Act, to the effect ‘conditions of, procedure in applying for, and the authority which may grant.
The leading speech was delivered by Lord Hoffmann, with whom the rest of the Appellate Committee agreed. But it has long been recognised that those fleeing persecution may have to resort to deceptions such as possession and use of false papers in order to make good their escape: R v Asfaw (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees intervening) [2008] 1 AC 1061, para 9, per Lord Bingham. It provides for acquisition of lands both urban and agricultural for executing works in connection with flood control.