lawyers in Supreme Court India, http://supremecourtindia.in/breaking-news-supreme-court-unanimously-dismisses-warner-lamberts-painful-lyrica-appeal/. On May 24, 1878, Charandas sold the land and the Dharamshala to Dagadu Khushal purporting to transfer the property absolutely to the vendee. (1) of the Statutes of the University, the appellant must be deemed to have the minimum qualification for the post of the Principal and therefore the order of February 18, 1963 requiring him to appear at an examination to obtain a Second Class Master’s degree or lawyers in Supreme Court of India the alternative requiring that his services be terminated was bad. On August 27, 1883, Dagadu Khushal executed a deed in favour of the Municipality of Taloda, the relevant clause 655 of the deed (as translated in the judgment of the High Court) reads as follows- “Having released all my rights, interest and title in the Property mentioned best lawyers in Supreme Court of India the boundaries above, I am handing over today all that property in the possession of the Municipality for the purpose of sarvajanik kam (public purpose) as it has been utilised upto date for shelter of Atit, Abhyagat, Sadhu, Sant etc.
16 but was in itself a fundamental right granted to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. All insurance policies shall be in the joint names of the Owners and the Charterers as their interests may appear. 57(1) was in such cases competent and that it relied on the decision advocates in Supreme Court India Maharashtra Sugar Mills'(6) case without noticing that in that case reference was applied for while the application asking the (1) A. 16(4) of the Constitution; Art. Board of Revenue(8) the High Court distinguished the Maharashtra Sugar Mills'(6) case on the ground that the application for reference made under s.
Such marine, war and P and (c) there was discrimination between the employees belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes top advocates in Supreme Court India the Railway Service and similar employees best lawyers in Supreme Court of India the Central Secretariat Service on the ground that a competitive departmental examination for promotion to the grade of Section Officers was not held by the Railway Board for the years 1955-63 but such an examination was held for the Central Secretariat Service and 74 employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes secured the benefit of the provisions for reservation.
Board of Revenue(7) and Shanmugha v. 56(2) to the Collector had not been decided when the Authority was asked to state the case under section 57(1) and that therefore it was possible to say that the case was still pending. ” It was recited in the deed that in the property conveyed “there is a samadhi (grave) of Nagabawa”. It appears that thereafter the Municipality made certain constructions which were used for its offices and for shops. It was contended on his behalf, inter alia (i) that the impugned order violated the guarantee given to the backward classes under Art.
The petitioner was a class III employee of the Railway Board Secretariat Service and claimed promotion to the post of a Section Officer best law firms in Supreme Court of India Class II on the basis of the provision for reservations made in the Government’s Memorandum of January 4, 1957. The Municipality, pursuant to the deed, entered into the possession of the property. By a writ petition under Art. as to interest allowable on paid up capital for the year 959-60, the main dispute.