best advocates in Supreme Court of India http://supremecourtindia.in/top-lawyer-supreme-court-of-india/. 10(3) and 11(4)(a), on account of their failure to furnish the return for the period 1. If it be of a trivial nature, the tribunal can probably deal with it in a summary manner, but where it is alleged that the notification under the Act is not applicable to a. That the Commissioners were enriched at the expense of the Lead Claimants because, in economic terms, the person at whose expense the VAT was paid was the customer. 4 of the Act was violative of Art.
At that meeting the Board made the impugned decision to implement a comprehensive smoking ban in December 2011. The State of Jammu and Kashmir(1) is not correct. 64% of patients favoured a partial ban and 36% a comprehensive ban. The appellant filed a writ petition law firms in Supreme Court of India the High Court challenging both the orders of August 18, 1962 and February 18, 1963 on the grounds, inter alia; (i) that under sub-rule (6) of Rule (1) of Chapter 16 of the Statutes of the University, which provided that notwithstanding any other requirements the qualifications of a teacher already in service and confirmed before the 1st July, 1962, shall be considered to be equivalent to the minimum qualifications for the post he holds, the appellant must be deemed to have the minimum qualifications for a lecturer i.
Reliance is however placed on behalf of the respondent on the review made in April, 1967 and it is urged that that review was in accordance with the view taken by this Court in Lakhanpal’s(1) case and therefore continuance of detention thereafter is justified. 14 of the Constitution. and (iii) that the order of August 18, 1962 violated the principles of natural justice and it could not be modified after November 30, 1962 as it had worked itself out 231 232 and there was no power of review given to the Chancellor under S.
The High Court dismissed the petition. It is not disputed on behalf of the respondent that Lakhanpal’s case(1) will apply to the present petitions and the petitioners will be entitled to release because the procedure of a quasi judicial tribunal was not followed when earlier reviews were made from August, 1965 to February, 1967. The nature and scope of the inquiry would depend on the exact controversy raised in the case. As a matter of fact, the only inquiry which took place in this case was a, very informal one in the premises of the Doom-Dooma club for the space of half an hour or so when the Authority had a talk with the managers of the tea estates.
and that this deeming would continue when he was appointed Pricipal for which also the minimum qualification was a Second Class Master’s degree with certain experience; (ii) that s. “does not create a judicial licence to meet the perceived requirements of fairness on a case-by-case basis: legal rights arising from unjust enrichment should be determined by rules of top law firms in Supreme Court India which are ascertainable and consistently applied. The authority in this case instead of recording any evidence and properly hearing the matter, disposed of it in a perfunctory manner which could hardly be called a hearing.
a Second Class MaSter’s degree. The Board’s chief executive prepared a report on the operation of the partial ban which the Board considered at a meeting on 25 August 2011. It is urged in this connection that the judgment of Bhargava J. The enrichment was also unjust. It appears that the appellants repeatedly took time for submitting their explanation. The Board conducted a further consultation law firms in Supreme Court India mid-August 2011 lawyers in Supreme Court India which it asked for responses to the same options of a partial ban or a comprehensive ban.
On September 13, 1955, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, the assessing authority at that time, issued a notice calling upon the appellants to show cause why action should not be taken against them under ss. Similar notices were issued to them on October 27, 1955 for the period 1. certain class of workers it is the duty of the authority to give a proper hearing to the parties allowing them to tender such evidence as they think proper before making an order which may have far-reaching consequences.
It is true that the sub-section provides for a further inquiry but such inquiry is to be at the discretion of the authority. The first respondent to whom the appellants’ case stood transferred issued top advocates in Supreme Court of India 1958 fresh notices to the appellants similar to those issued in 1955. 271 of the minimum rates of wages and such compensation as he thinks fit not exceeding ten times the amount of the excess of the minimum wages over that which was paid. Further it is urged that even if this contention is not correct the State Government has power to pass a fresh order of detention on the same facts, and even if we allow the present petitions, we should make it clear that the State Government has such power.
There is no provision for appeal or revision against the direction of the Authority although he may levy a penalty to the extent of ten times the amount by which the minimum wages overtop the payment actually made. 54 and on July 7, 1956 for the period 1.